Christian Publishing House Blog
Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity
KJV vs. modern translations: Dive deeper into the ongoing debate. Discover strengths & weaknesses of each, find the right translation for you, & strengthen your faith through God’s Word. #Bible #KJV #Translation
Whose fault is it that the churchgoer for decades has been less informed about the Bible that they carry than the atheists, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Skeptics?
Agnostic New Testament textual and early Christianity scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman states, God “didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.”
The KJVO/TRO argues, “Because the Scriptures are forever relevant, they have been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence.”
The Christian, on the other hand, but notably the Christian, have persistently sought to make their Bible speak all languages at all times. It is a curious fact that a Book written in one tongue should have come to its largest power in other languages than its own.
The Byzantine text family that makes up the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV, and the NKJV is 80-85% in agreement with the Alexandrian text family that is behind almost all modern translations. The King James Version Onlyists (KJVOists) & the Textus Receptus Onlyists (TROists) call the differences omissions in the Westcott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA). They would argue that many of the differences are actually additions to the original texts, which have now been restored to their original form by removing spurious interpolations. Who is correct?
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two of the great uncial codices, representatives of the Alexandrian text-type, are considered excellent manuscript witnesses of the text of the New Testament. Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament give precedence to these two chief uncial manuscripts, and the majority of translations are based on their text.
THERE are three great Book-religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other religions have their sacred writings, but they do not hold them in the same regard as do these three. Buddhism and Confucianism count their books rather records of their faith than rules for it, history rather than authoritative sources of belief. The three great Book-religions yield a measure of authority to their sacred books which would be utterly foreign to the thought of other faiths.
Below is the original essay prefixed to the King James Version in the edition of 1611, in which the translators defend their version against criticisms they expected to be brought against it.
The King James, or Authorised, Version of the Bible remains the most widely published text in the English language. It was the work of around 50 scholars, who were appointed in 1604 by King James (r. 1603–25), and it is dedicated to him.
While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in 1881 who would put the nails in the coffin of the Textus Receptus. The 1881 British Revised Version (RV), also known as the English Revised Version (ERV) of the King James Version,... Continue Reading →
This article explores the reasons why modern Bible translations have removed certain verses that are found in the King James Version, including the impact of textual criticism, the desire for accessibility, and the need to avoid theological bias. The article discusses examples of removed verses and the complex factors that influence the decisions of modern translators.
