King James Vs NAB Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter peeteyg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
peeteyg,

Most King James Bibles, in the hands of Christians today, are not the original 1611 Version.

I think the KJVO proponents might be offended by the Introduction in the 1611 Version which begins: “To the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. . . .”

There is an interesting commentary on betterbibles.com regarding the King James Bible. These are some of the errors noted in the early editions:

1716 edition:
John 5.14 said, “sin on more” rather than “sin no more.”

1792 edition:
Luke 22.34 said Philip denied the Lord three times instead of*** Peter***.

**1795: **
Mark 7.27 said, “Let the children first be killed” rather than “Let the children first be filled.”

1807 Oxford edition:
Heb 9.14 said, “Purge your conscience from good works” rather than “Purge your conscience from dead works."

1653 edition:
1 Cor 6.9 said, “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

1631 edition:
(my personal favorite 😉 )
Rendered the 7th of 10 Commandment as “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
betterbibles.com/2005/08/24/kjv-editions-and-some-humorous-errors/

Also, the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books for nearly 300 years.

For those who claim the KJV is the only inerrant Bible, I would ask: How long does it take God to get an “inerrant” version right? I don’t recall Moses taking the Ten Commandments back up the mountain for corrections.

Anna
 
There are several interesting variants in the King James Bible.

One involves** 1 John 5, verse 7**:

King James Version
1 John 5:
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
1 John 5: 6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.** 7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one**. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

NAB
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came through water and blood, 2 Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
Another interesting variant in the King James Bible is the use of the word Lucifer:

The Latin word Lucifer seems to have been carried over from the Latin Vulgate to the KJV in Isaiah 14:12, and became a Protestant proof text for the fall of Satan. Though one can see Satan behind the actions of the king; Isaiah 14:12 seems to be speaking of a Babylonian king.

King James Version:
Isaiah 14:12: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The word Lucifer is found in the Latin Vulgate 3 times, and is used as a description of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19. The word luciferum appears 2 times in the Latin Vulgate.

Latin Vulgate:
**2 Peter 1:19 **(Latin Vulgate) “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) “quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes”

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) “et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”

Job 38:32 (Latin Vulgate) “numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis”

Psalms 109(110):3 (Latin Vulgate) “tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te”

The word Lucifer is found in the Douay-Rheims once in Isaiah 14:12.

Douay-Rheims:
Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

The word Lucifer is not found in the RSV or the NRSV.

Revised Standard Version
Isaiah 14:12 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

New Revised Standard Version
**Isaiah 14:**12 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

There was actually a bishop named Lucifer, known as Lucifer of Cagliari. He was born in the early part of the 4th century and died in 371 A.D. Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

The word lucifer is also used in Roman Rite liturgy’s Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle and refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Catholic Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

From the research I have done, it appears that the Latin word lucifer actually became associated with Satan outside the Bible in works like Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Milton’s Paradise Lost. Though, some ECF’s did adopt the association of lucifer with Satan.
 
Anna_Scott said:
There are several interesting variants in the King James Bible.

One involves** 1 John 5, verse 7**:

King James Version
1 John 5:
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
1 John 5: 6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.** 7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one**. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

NAB
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came through water and blood, 2 Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
Another interesting variant in the King James Bible is the use of the word Lucifer:

The Latin word Lucifer seems to have been carried over from the Latin Vulgate to the KJV in Isaiah 14:12, and became a Protestant proof text for the fall of Satan. Though one can see Satan behind the actions of the king; Isaiah 14:12 seems to be speaking of a Babylonian king.

King James Version:
Isaiah 14:12: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The word Lucifer is found in the Latin Vulgate 3 times, and is used as a description of Christ in 2 Peter 1:19. The word luciferum appears 2 times in the Latin Vulgate.

Latin Vulgate:
**2 Peter 1:19 **(Latin Vulgate) “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) “quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes”

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) “et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”

Job 38:32 (Latin Vulgate) “numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis”

Psalms 109(110):3 (Latin Vulgate) “tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te”

The word Lucifer is found in the Douay-Rheims once in Isaiah 14:12.

Douay-Rheims:
Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

The word Lucifer is not found in the RSV or the NRSV.

Revised Standard Version
Isaiah 14:12 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

New Revised Standard Version
**Isaiah 14:**12 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

There was actually a bishop named Lucifer, known as Lucifer of Cagliari. He was born in the early part of the 4th century and died in 371 A.D. Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

The word lucifer is also used in Roman Rite liturgy’s Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle and refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Catholic Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

From the research I have done, it appears that the Latin word lucifer actually became associated with Satan outside the Bible in works like Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Milton’s Paradise Lost. Though, some ECF’s did adopt the association of lucifer with Satan.
Click to expand...
interesting posts!
 
anna scott said:
peeteyg,

most king james bibles, in the hands of christians today, are not the original 1611 version.

I think the kjvo proponents might be offended by the introduction in the 1611 version which begins: “to the most high and mightie prince, james by the grace of god king of great britaine, france and ireland, defender of the faith, &c. . . .”

there is an interesting commentary on betterbibles.com regarding the king james bible. These are some of the errors noted in the early editions:

1716 edition:
john 5.14 said, “sin on more” rather than “sin no more.”

1792 edition:
luke 22.34 said philip denied the lord three times instead of*** peter***.

**1795: **
mark 7.27 said, “let the children first be killed” rather than “let the children first be filled.”

1807 oxford edition:
heb 9.14 said, “purge your conscience from good works” rather than “purge your conscience from dead works."

1653 edition:
1 cor 6.9 said, “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of god.”

1631 edition:
(my personal favorite 😉 )
rendered the 7th of 10 commandment as “thou shalt commit adultery.”
betterbibles.com/2005/08/24/kjv-editions-and-some-humorous-errors/

also, the king james bible contained the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books for nearly 300 years.

For those who claim the kjv is the only inerrant bible, i would ask: How long does it take god to get an “inerrant” version right? I don’t recall moses taking the ten commandments back up the mountain for corrections.

Anna
Click to expand...
thanks annascott.hopefully we agree that one thing is a “type-o” error versus a grammatical,translation error.
 
david_ruiz said:
For someone who is a bit green on the subject yet probably am a kjv is best person, why wouldn’t it be easier to make an english translation from the original greek , instead of from greek (original) to latin (vulgate) to english ? Did not Jerome like the hebrew better than the greek ot for same reason ? What could be better than to go to original language ?
Click to expand...
Well, the idea is that the KJV has been displaced by newer translations from the Greek. In a sense, the KJV was not done from the original Greek anyway, because there is really no such thing as the original Greek. We only have copies of copies of copies. The KJV was based upon a somewhat cobbled together incomplete Greek manuscript, and today we have better Greek manuscripts to translate from, which has been done.
 
david_ruiz said:
thanks annascott.hopefully we agree that one thing is a “type-o” error versus a grammatical,translation error.
Click to expand...
David,
There were also translation errors in the KJV.

We have earlier manuscripts today, which have improved the accuracy of our Bibles. There are more than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament writings; and there are more variants among those manuscripts than words in the New Testament. Most are obvious errors. Some contain variants because scribes copied notes scribbled in the text margins into the main body of text. Some variants seem very intentional and theologically driven.

The RSV and NRSV are much more accurate than the KJV. Keep in mind the KJV is an Anglican Bible–and even we, Anglicans, realize it has many flaws. Though, the language is truly beautiful.

Ironically many Protestants want nothing to do with Anglicanism; but cling to the King James Bible, which was commissioned and authorized by King James I, Monarch and Head of the Church of England. The KJV (by design) competed with the Protestant Geneva Bible.

Anna
 
mackbrislawn said:
Well, the idea is that the KJV has been displaced by newer translations from the Greek. In a sense, the KJV was not done from the original Greek anyway, because there is really no such thing as the original Greek. We only have copies of copies of copies. The KJV was based upon a somewhat cobbled together incomplete Greek manuscript, and today we have better Greek manuscripts to translate from, which has been done.
Click to expand...
So for 1000 years we had inferior manuscripts,something better than what the Vulgate was based on ?
 
david_ruiz said:
So for 1000 years we had inferior manuscripts,something better than what the Vulgate was based on ?
Click to expand...
Majority Text mss are from a later time, not earlier. They are from the middle ages. The Byzantine texts are earlier and were not used for the KJV. Also, the Vulgate was not a translation noted for literal accuracy, but for public reading, so it was translated into the Latin for liturgical use, not as an exactingly literal version. art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/06/are-there-errors-in-latin-vulgate.html

Another factor concerning accuracy is that the KJV translators did not translate words that meant the same thing similarly, therefore it is less representative of the meaning of the Koine Greek mss.

With thousands upon thousand of mss to compare today and with a better understanding of ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, and many other factors too numerous to go into here, many modern translations are more accurate. It is just a fact. Only people that are trusting in a specific translation to be the best, despite the many, many reasons cited in this thread, are blind to historical facts. KJV only people are emotionally invested in the KJV,. They are not being intellectually and doctrinally honest. The KJV did not have the advantages of 400 years more of archaeological finds that shed light on the meanings of things, the discovery of even earlier mss, are an increased understanding of the actual languages of the mss, etc
 
I challenge anyone that supports the KJV as being better than other translations to watch this video. The debaters are not Catholic, but the information against the superiority of the KJV is accurate… VERY accurate. If you can watch this entire video and still believe that the KJV is superior, then nothing will change your mind.

youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4
 
Justice_Mercy said:
I challenge anyone that supports the KJV as being better than other translations to watch this video. The debaters are not Catholic, but the information against the superiority of the KJV is accurate… VERY accurate. If you can watch this entire video and still believe that the KJV is superior, then nothing will change your mind.

youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4
Click to expand...
Ok OK .Thank-you ,perhaps I will. I must say however that at times things are presented as "factual’ or objective like it is a no brainer when in reality there is a battle going over the proper conveyance of truth . Indeed the Catholic church understood this with the TR of Erasmus-he subsequently was listed as a heretic and the TR was condemned by the Church . So from the protestant side , I would consider the KJV the crown in the english language and the TR (like theVulgate was to the CC),and was so for 300 years with great fruits. It is interesting as we splintered even more , and mainstream denominations liberalized, that the attacks began. I do not mind rebuttal of kjv as the “only” bible, but to say she is “inferior” to others is suspect to rebuttal also. I believe most differences are quite “subjective” to ones’ theology, not improper spelling or translation.
 
david_ruiz said:
Ok OK .Thank-you ,perhaps I will. I must say however that at times things are presented as "factual’ or objective like it is a no brainer when in reality there uis a battle going over the proper conveyance of truth .Indeed the Catholic church understood this with the TR of Erasmus-he subsequently was listed as a hereticand the TR was condemned by the Church . So from the protestant side ,I would consider the KJV the crown in the english language and the TR (like the CC Vulgate),and was so for 300 years with great fruits. It is interesting as we splintered even more ,and mainstream denominations liberalized, that the attack s began. I do not mind rebuttal of kjv as the “only” bible, but to say she is “inferior” to others is suspect to rebuttal also. I believe most differences are quite “subjective” to ones’ theology, not improper spelling or translation.
Click to expand...
This issue is not a Catholic one or a Protestant one… it is about whether the KJV is superior or not.

I used to be in a KJV Only church (yes, a Protestant one) and I stopped believing in it as the superior version or the only good version when I was still Protestant.

Watch that vid… then we will talk

EDIT: P.S. the issues against the KJV are not subjective but historically and linguistically verifiable. I am not saying that people cannot hear the Gospel from a KJV Bible. I am just saying it is inferior to some modern versions, because of the things I have said before. The KJV is a product that is 400 years behind in unbiased Christian scholarship
 
david_ruiz said:
Justice_Mercy;9284960:
Majority
.From my understanding the vast majority of those manuscripts( from Greece, Asia Minor, England, Ireland,Constantinople, Syria, Africa, Gaul, Italy ) are in agreement with the KJV, Are they not also in conflict with the Alexandria manuscript ,the one liberals herald as “better”?
Click to expand...
Your questions and more are answered in that video… please watch and listen carefully
Click to expand...
 
Well i watched the video .Mr white is a better debater ,and he had some good points Still I would not make a hasty decsion based on a better debater .At best I would walk away thinking the KJV has 3 minor “flaws” and should not go around saying it is perfect .However from the debate would not guess which translation is better ,if any .Mr White sure put down a few translations but was happy only to debunk KJV as “king of the mountain " but would not say which is best .Not sure i agree with Mr Whites assertion that early church worried more about” getting the word out" than accuracy , suggesting that is how God worked .This is certainly not how God worked a century earlier before the church age ,where accuracy was paramount in manuscript writing in Old Testament tradition.Yes there were variations ,but what97 % agreed . Perhaps this is so no man would boast ,and needful of reliance of the Holy Ghost and so no man would say I am of Peter or Paul ,or of this translation or that,or of this tradition or that ,or of this church or that, for it is God who saves .Yet we are thankful for apostles and good translations,traditions and churches.
 
david_ruiz said:
Well i watched the video .Mr white is a better debater ,and he had some good points Still I would not make a hasty decsion based on a better debater .At best I would walk away thinking the KJV has 3 minor “flaws” and should not go around saying it is perfect .However from the debate would not guess which translation is better ,if any .Mr White sure put down a few translations but was happy only to debunk KJV as “king of the mountain " but would not say which is best .Not sure i agree with Mr Whites assertion that early church worried more about” getting the word out" than accuracy , suggesting that is how God worked .This is certainly not how God worked a century earlier before the church age ,where accuracy was paramount in manuscript writing in Old Testament tradition.Yes there were variations ,but what97 % agreed . Perhaps this is so no man would boast ,and needful of reliance of the Holy Ghost and so no man would say I am of Peter or Paul ,or of this translation or that,or of this tradition or that ,or of this church or that, for it is God who saves .Yet we are thankful for apostles and good translations,traditions and churches.
Click to expand...
He is not just a better debater, but he knows the facts. As he said in the vid, he is conservative… not some liberal with an agenda against the word of God. He is a “better debater” in this vid, because he presented objective linguistic & historical facts. Hr has also written a book on KJV Only.

In that vid he proved that the KJV is 400 years behind the times and is not as accurate as many modern translations. As far as which translations he likes… he seems to refer to the NASB the most.

There are many translations that are more accurate than the KJV, The RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV are among those that are are commonly used for doctrinal study among Protestants and Catholics… this is because they are objectively better for many of the reasons that video told you. Modern translations are not less accurate than the KJV, but more accurate. Those that have an emotional attachment to the KJV will never listen.

If you like the tone of the KJV, then I recommend the RSV… it is one similar to it in language.

I am glad you watched that video and are open to the truth that the KJV is not the superior Bible for all ages. The KJV translators would never have wished the Bibliolatry that some people have for their translation.
 
Justice_Mercy said:
He is not just a better debater, but he knows the facts. As he said in the vid, he is conservative… not some liberal with an agenda against the word of God. He is a “better debater” in this vid, because he presented objective linguistic & historical facts. Hr has also written a book on KJV Only.

In that vid he proved that the KJV is 400 years behind the times and is not as accurate as many modern translations. As far as which translations he likes… he seems to refer to the NASB the most.

There are many translations that are more accurate than the KJV, The RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV are among those that are are commonly used for doctrinal study among Protestants and Catholics… this is because they are objectively better for many of the reasons that video told you. Modern translations are not less accurate than the KJV, but more accurate. Those that have an emotional attachment to the KJV will never listen.

If you like the tone of the KJV, then I recommend the RSV… it is one similar to it in language.

I am glad you watched that video and are open to the truth that the KJV is not the superior Bible for all ages. The KJV translators would never have wished the Bibliolatry that some people have for their translation.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Still thinking about it .Do I have this right ,these newer versions you mentioned, are the manuscripts “supporting” them mainly the 2 (Va/Sinai) plus about 50 other newer finds ? Do the TR or MJ support them ? I believe 97 % support all good versions , but I guess the question really is as far as the variants (3%) ,how does the 5000 lean , to the KJV or those you mentioned ? Not sure I got it right from the video, but I thought it was the KJV.Thanks again.I am also wondering as to what brings on criticism,for anything .For instance many people are tolerant of gay issues, as long as issues are kept below the radar (keep it to yourself). However, when gay issues are thrust upon society, there is a natural “pushing back” . It is like perhaps some of the criticism Catholics receive is due to their stand on being “the” infallible church, the pope not just the leader of Catholics, but of all Christendom. The rebuttal is that perhaps she would not have to defend or define herself is such, if antagonism didn’t start up in the first place. So it is with the KJV maybe. At first I am not sure there were bibliolotars of the KJV, though it was progressively better than the 6 or 7 English bibles before it. Perhaps the “KJV only” arguments started coming out when ,as White pointed out, quite a few bad translations came out, and indeed attacks on KJV began. Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top