Reading the Bible

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tammy on November 21, 2015 at 9:26pm

Were these 2 manuscripts the same verses or were they different? For example: The first one is Isaiah, Ezra, Nehemiah. The older one they found is Genesis, Exodus & Leviticus. 

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 22, 2015 at 10:30am

LT, you said, "Thus, to really call them two sets is not really accurate, but an attempt on my part to simplify the point. What we do know is that at the time the KJV was translated there were "X" number available. After 1611 and the completion of the KJV translation more manuscripts have been discovered. Many of these discovered manuscripts are older than the ones used for the KJV and reveal the likely hood that some of the newer manuscripts had been altered by making subtle changes or even adding extra lines here and there."

You probably mean two categories instead of sets. But do you mean the "majority texts" versus the "minority texts"? There are more manuscripts found from an even earlier time than those in the minority texts category, right? I'm thinking you mean those. Also, aren't more modern KJVs using those older manuscripts now, too, as well as the ones that were used at first before 1611? I might be understanding it wrong.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on November 22, 2015 at 11:47am

Basically I am referring to that which was available for the 1611 version and then more manuscripts that were determined to be older manuscripts that we discovered after 1611. As mentioned in another comment my use of two sets was meant to simplify, not confuse, but it did not work :-)

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 22, 2015 at 9:07am

I believe what LT means by there being two sets of manuscripts is the one set that was used before 1611 and then an older set of manuscripts, found later on after 1611, that were/are used in more modern translations of the KJV and other versions. The translation of the KJV I have has a 1970 copyright by Thomas Nelson. It's said to be translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations diligently compared and revised. As he said, " So, basically my reference to two sets is to identify what was available before 1611 and differentiate that from what is available after 1611."

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on November 22, 2015 at 11:51am

Yes

Permalink Reply by Tammy on November 22, 2015 at 6:44pm

I was wanting to know if the older version that they've found more recently contain more books? Or is it the exact same books as the ones used in the 1611 version & just the wording is different?

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 23, 2015 at 3:49am

Was wondering myself and did a search. Here's some interesting stuff I found.

http://newlife.id.au/church-history/7-things-about-the-king-james-b...

Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament. Koine Greek had been a dead language for over a thousand years when the KJV was published for the first time in 1611. The translators of the KJV didn’t even know what Koine Greek was. Some people believed that the Greek language of the NT was a unique, Spirit-inspired dialect. It was not until the late 1800s and during the 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyri documents were discovered – many written in Koine, that we could begin to understand the language more fully. Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New Testament are scholars of Koine Greek.

As well as relying on previous English translations, the 1611 edition of the KJV relied on a critically edited Greek text that was “for the most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts (none earlier than the 12th century AD).” These late manuscripts include editions of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus[8], as well as Robert Estienne’s (a.k.a. ‘Stephanus’) edition (1550) and Theodore Beza’s edition (1598). Unfortunately, one of the manuscripts Estienne and Beza used for their Greek editions contained a few “corrections” that downplayed the importance of women in the church.

Permalink Reply by Tammy on November 19, 2015 at 7:28pm

I personally think it's quite the naive statement when people claim to read the KJV only because it's the true translation. 

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 18, 2015 at 5:51am

I know that the original manuscripts are infallible and inspired. Translations do have errors. I pray always for wisdom and discernment.

I was taught that the more precise translations are the New King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version, but I don't know if that's really true. I only own copies of the older NIV, KJV, and NKJV, but I use the ESV and several others that are available on the internet and on the YouVersion Bible App.

The Revised Standard Version is supposedly too flawed, too, to use for serious study because it's said of it that scholars who doubted the inspiration of the Bible put their own influence into the translation to give doubts. In it, one example is Isaiah 7:14 where the prophecy of the Messiah, instead of being born of a virgin is stated as being born of a young woman.

Permalink Reply by Tammy on November 18, 2015 at 5:58pm

Interesting about the RSV. Thanks for this info.

Permalink Reply by Amanda on November 19, 2015 at 7:21pm

In the NRSV virgin is in the footnotes https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7%3A14&vers...

Permalink Reply by Seek on November 18, 2015 at 8:07pm

I guess you could argue that Mary was a young woman. But a little subtle change here, one there. And there are so many versions now they can make more and more changes.

I always use KJV or NIV on YouVersion. I listen to KJV in the car. And I have an NKJV in the pew at church, my women's study Bible is NKJV and my completely marked up notes in the margin bright yellow highlighted Bible is NIV.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page