The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Modern Bibles

Hi

First of all, I think it is appropriate to say that I am glad to see the boards up and running again. I really missed them.

I was wondering if anyone knows whether there are any modern day Bibles that are translated from the same text that the KJV is.
My understanding is that the KJV was translated from the Byzantine text, while the majority of the Bibles out there use the Alexandrian text.
My main Bible is the KJV, but I am thinking that I would like to get a new Bible that is at least as accurate as the KJV. I am leaning towards the ESV, because I am told that it is very accurate, yet written in today’s English.
However, my understanding is that it was not translated from the Byzantine text and I have yet to find one that is.
This is not a big deal to me, but from what I have read about the Byzantine text and the Alexandrian text, I favor the Byzantine text.

Tom

Tom, I quote from the preface of the ESV:

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed 1983) and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition) edited by Nestle and Aland.

It is perhaps worth visiting www.esv.org for more detailed information.

Hope this helps

Johan

Tom,

My 'regular' Bible is a KJV also. However, the KJV nor the Byzantine text, aka: Textus Receptus or Received Text is inspired, which I am sure you realize. Thus what should be most important, IMHO, is the accuracy of the translation from the source text, whether Byzantine or Alexandrian.

Again, as you are fully aware, the major divide between most all translations is the method of translation; Formal Equivalence or Dynamic Equivalence. I have found that the KJV, ASV (my personal choice for serious study), NASB, NKJV and ESV are worthy of consideration. All others, because they are the product of Dynamic Equivalence, I find unacceptable. I cringe when I hear someone reading from the NIV, for example, especially when the text is theologically rich as is Romans 3:19-31, where the NIV totally ignores and/or removes and/or changes terms and phrases which are critical to one's understanding of the redemption accomplished in Christ Jesus our LORD.

So, my advice would be to not concern yourself so much about the "text" but the "method of translation".

In His grace,

Just to clarify, I don't think the ESV is based on the Byzantine text, but the critical text which, to my understanding, usually means the Alexandrine text is mostly used.

I had some translation questions recently in this thread

To my knowledge (possibly incorrect), there are no recent translations based on the Byzantine text. I find this curious. On the other hand, I tend to agree with what Pilgrim wrote.

John

If my understanding is correct about the Masoretic text, its origins are around the 8th century. Though this is from memory and my memory has failed me before.
There are some that question whether or not it was a legitimate source to translate from. They prefer the Septuagint, which is much older and according to them is a much more accurate rendition of the Scriptures. However, one source that believed this also said that Jesus himself quoted from the Septuagint. I find this quite laughable since the Septuagint’s origins are between the 1st and 3rd century.

I only mention these things, because I thought they were interesting, but quite frankly beyond my ability to know if they are true.
I do however have my doubts, because there are many Bible's such as the KJV and the ESV that use the Masoretic text.

If I don't have my facts straight, by all mean correct me.

Tom

Pilgrim

I agree with you on everything you said.
You are quite right to say that the Byzantine text is not "inspired", since only the originals were inspired.
It would be interesting to know for sure which manuscripts are closest to the originals.
This is something that I probably will never know, seeing how the supposed experts disagree with each other on this matter.
I also find it quite strange that I haven't found a modern Bible that is translated from the Byzantine text. Do you know why that is?

Tom

Tom,
this may not help you immediately but there is a great book out there that was intended to be a refutation of the KJV-Only position but is in actuality a really good overview of this very issue...manuscripts, what's the difference, why does it matter, the real skinny on all of this.

It's called "The King James only Controversy" by Dr. James White.

I highly recommend it.


Aside from that, in answer to your question; here is the split;

TR - King James, New King James

Alexandrian - All other bibles


I HEARD that there might be a new translation coming out based on the TR but I don't know.

Hmm I could have swore I've heard that before, however Tom I would suggest that you wait until James White finishes his second edition which will greatly expand much of what he has previously written with more information.

I also suggest you go here: Bible Researcher it has a lot of good stuff there.

I believe he's very close to finishing now. It shouldn't be long.

It may be already out I think I saw an ad for it somewhere.

rpavich

I was told that even the NKJV is not translated from the TR.
Can you provide any information to show that it is indeed translated from the TR?

Thanks
Tom

Tom,

I don't have a NKJV handy at the moment to check the preface, but a simple search turns up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version


and

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html


Both state the NKJV uses the TR for the translation of the NT.

John

Hello Everyone,
John is correct; the NKJV (my own version of choice) uses the 'Received Text' of the NT.
For some reason, some extreme KJV-only folk tend to deny this, but it is a fact.

Steve

I prefer the King James Bible as to me, most modern versions read like "Dick and Jane" books, and are like trying to shave with a bananna.

The NKJ does not fall into the above catagory but I still have some problems with it.

See here The New King James Version: A Critique (A123) pdf



William's
Have a good Lord's day.

I'm acquainted with Malcolm Watts' critique and find it rather sad. This KJV-onlyism is another rending of the body of Christ. It would be quite possible to do a similar critique of the KJV, but what would be the point? Let those who love the KJV use it and be happy.

If the NKJV really is not satisfactory, then let us have a better modern-language translation of the TR, and who better to do the job than the TBS? But speaking personally, there is no way in the world that I'm going back to the KJV as my Bible of choice; when I preach from it, I find that I have to explain the language before I can expound it, and for private use I find it deadening.

Steve