KJV COMPARED
yhclifto (yhclifto@Oakland.edu)
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:00:03 -0500 (EST)
>
> Here is something I came across awhile back:
>
> The King James Version Compared
> -Joe Paterson-
>
> There are many people who feel that the King James Version of the Bible
> is "antiquated" and hard to understand; therefore, they use this
> reasoning to justify the use of other versions. What would you say if
> I were to prove that these other new versions have left words and in
> some cases verses out of the Bible?
>
> The best way to prove this to you is to back up what I am saying
> with scripture so that you can see for yourself that there are
> indeed omissions (200 in fact!) in the manuscripts that ALL modern
> versions have been translated from. Are these omissions important? I
> will let you be the judge - for the purpose of this comparison I will
> be quoting first from the King James Version and then the New
> International Version, lets take a look at some scripture:
Joe Patterson made some interesting points in comparing differences
between the NIV and the King James, but I would like to make some points
that I realy doubt he understands the process and philosophies of
translation.
In the first place I would like to point out that the examples of
differences between the King James and the NIV which he gave will not
confuse a person who read the majority of scripture for example:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matthew 1:25 KJV
> And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he
> called his name JESUS.
>
> Matthew 1:25 NIV
> But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he
> gave him the name Jesus.
>
> FIRSTBORN... is OUT!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
the term firstborn is only important if you think mary had a second child
by God (not Joseph.) Most bible readers would not be confused by this.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Word From the Textal Critics - The Experts.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Westcott and Hort (translaters of the newer versions) primarily used 2
> texts:
>
> "The text of W-H is... an essentially... 'B(Aleph) text, or even a 'B'
> text." (Greenlee, Introduction p.2)
>
>
> What Greenlee is saying here was that W-H often made their decisions on
> the basis of two manuscripts alone, and if these contradict one
> another (which they often do), on the basis of one manuscript alone,
> codex vaticanus (B)!
>
> The KJV was translated from the Majority Text, other versions from the
> Minority Text. The Majority text is a "FULL" text; the Minority Text is
> a "SHORT" text. Either the Majority Text has added, or the Minority
> text has subtracted. And if we take seriously the warnings of
> scripture, we must determine which is the correct text.
This is false, there was no majority text available to scholars in 1611.
In fact because of the distain which scholars of the time, who were mostly
humanists, had for scripture the greek available was characterized by its
editor "as more of a practical version than an edition."
(I owe this fact to Peter Walters in the introduction to "The text of the
Septuagint) but there was certainly no grand scale study of Byzantine
manuscripts available in 1611.
Like wise, modern translators (going back to the 1950s) do not simply
accept the texts as edited or one edition of the text. They elaborate
theories of text corruption based on a comparison of all available
manuscritps and several ancient translations to arive at the most probable
orignal text (an exception to this rule is many of the Anchor Bible
translators have declared this practice dubious.)
> Lets have a quick look at what the experts *did* actually say about the
> "supposedly" superior Greek Texts:
> TISCHENDORF'S GREAT EDITION ENUMERATES 14,800 PLACES WHERE SOME
> ALTERATION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE TEXT..
I would like to see a book with the number 14800.
>
> Now we come to an interesting observation...
>
> THE READER WHO DICTATED THE GOSPELS MUST HAVE BEEN SINGULARLY
> CARELESS, FOR AGAIN AND AGAIN WHOLE SENTENCES HAVE DROPPED OUT WHERE HIS
> WANDERING EYE HAD FAILED TO KEEP THE PLACE. A GOOD MANY OF THOSE WERE
> INSERTED IN THE MARGINS OF THE MANUSCRIPT BY SCRIBE A....
>
> There are internal evidences that lead to the conclusion that it was the
> work of a scribe who was singularly careless, or incompetent, or both.
>
I cannot overstate that the gosple texts are remarkable consistant
consiering the number of them available (compared to other texts.) And
these quotations seem dubious at best.
> (The Codex Siniaticus and Codex Alexandrinus (Oxford University Press
> 1938 pp. 9, 11, 12).
>
> Codex B (Vaticanus), in the Gospels alone, "leaves out words or whole
> clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless
> transcription on every page." (Fuller, True or False? p. 77)
>
> So much for the "superior scholarship" idea.
>
> Even if you discount the above evidence from the textual critics,
> consider that most of the 200 omissions that I have seen are to do
> with:
>
> 1. The Deity of Christ
> 2. The Virgin Birth
> 3. The Atoning Blood of Christ
> 4. Obedience to the Gospel of Christ
> 5. The Name of Jesus Christ
> 6. Holiness and Christian Life Issues
>
>
> Are the omissions in the newer versions consistent with each other?
>
> This is an interesting phenomena, as many of the newer versions used
> the same texts for their translation, lets take a look:
>
> Version Omissions out of 200
> ------- --------- ---
>
> New English New Testament 197 Out of 200
> Revised Standand New Testament 189 --- -- ---
> Berkeley Version New Testament 185 --- -- ---
> Weymouth's in Modern Speech NT 184 --- -- ---
> New American Standard NT 183 --- -- ---
> Good News for Modern Man NT 182 --- -- ---
> Williams New Testament 180 --- -- ---
> Ivan Panin's Numeric NT 180 --- -- ---
> Goodspeed's American Translation 179 --- -- ---
> Moffats New Translation NT 175 --- -- ---
> Wuest's Expanded Translation NT 169 --- -- ---
> Amplified NT 165 --- -- ---
> Twentieth Century New Testament 161 --- -- ---
> Philip's New Testament 142 --- -- ---
> Darby's Translation NT 138 --- -- ---
> Living New Testament Paraphrased 130 --- -- ---
> New Confraternity New Testament 119 --- -- ---
> Norlies New Translation 62 --- -- ---
> Lamsa's Eastern Text NT 49 --- -- ---
> John Wesley's Translation NT 43 --- -- ---
> Martin Luther's German NT 0 --- -- ---
> King James New Testament 0 --- -- ---
> Textus Receptus (King James Greek) 0 --- -- ---
By this method of enumberation you ignore new translations which have more
about the diety of Christ or about babtism, and cling to Erasimusus text
as a norm (and as stated earlier Erasimus had serious doubts about his own
scholarship.)
> As you can see there is no consistency, among the "newer" versions.
>
> Here's the Acid Test
> --------------------
>
> Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the GREEK TEXTUS
> RECEPTUS, form which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is
> certainly to be founded on corrupted manuscripts. Origen, being a
> textual critic is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of
> the sacred manuscripts . Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed
> them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and
> allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind,
> certain manuscripts became corrupt. Evidently from this source our
> modern revised version Bibles and paraphrases have come. Read pages
> 900-902, volume 16, 1936 edition Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and you
> will see that ORIGEN TAUGHT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS A CREATED
> BEING WHO DID NOT HAVE ETERNAL EXISTANCE AS GOD.
>
> -Joseph Paterson- Jan 95
>
> This Article was Compiled and Written by Joe Paterson, thanks and
> recognition is given to the following sources - please support them and
> verify the information in this article is correct:
>
> Futher Reading:
> --------------
>
> WHICH BIBLE?, Dr. Otis Fuller, D.D.
>
> THE KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDED, Dr. Edward Hills, Th. D.
>
> GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE. J.J Ray, Missionary.
>
> A NEW EYE OPENER. (Tract)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Above books are available from:
>
> Eye Opener Press
> BOX 77, Junction City, OREGON 97448 (Write for Price List)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Search for the Word of God (A Defense of the King James Version)
> Daniel L. Seagraves
>
> PPH
> 8855 Dunn Rd, Hazelwood, MO 63042
>
> --
>
> Pastor J McNair :-)
> jmcnair@auracom.com
> http://users.atcon.com/~jmcnair/jmcnair.htm
>
This whole posting seems alien to everything I know about translations and
texts from imediate sources (translator notes whether new or old.)
I relize that as a pastor you should use the King James (inferior
translations are not acceptable from the pulpit.)
And you need a rational for your congregation, but I am fearful of what
seems to be a paranoid tone to your posting, because a great deal of it
could be discredidted by consulting greek texts and translator notes.
After all the new translators rather than claiming
"speriority," for the most part claim to have inhereted the same form of
scholarship which existed in 1611 and 1536 (when the real translation was
done by Tyndale.)
The King James Version has survived amoung scholars as well lay readers
because it was well done by any standard and great poetry by any standard.
Efforts to discredit new translations could in effect leave members of
your congregation paranoid, because placed there faith in a long time
reading the old translations they may come to believe that they have not
read the bible (I know people almost driven away by this fear) or it could
lead them to doubt the King James (if one translation is bad all may be
bad.)