Are non King James bibles significantly different from ones translated directly from older versions?

Question

I'm not ultra religious, it just fascinates me learning how religions come about, how they change over time, and how little those changes have to do with god. I ask about the king james version because my grandmother is a jehovas witness and constantly talks !@# about it.

Answer 1

Modern bibles are much more accurate than the King James version because it is written in a language that we actually use today, and we have older more accurate manuscripts from which to translate from.

I would admonish your grandmother not to talk so disdainfully of it, however. The King James version was a good translation in it's day, and Jehovah's Witnesses used it for many many years.

Modern translations do not effect doctrine much though. Most of our beliefs have not changed since the days when we used the King James version. Most bibles says the same thing.

- Bob

Answer 2

The KJV - It probably is the most beautiful, elegant, literary English translation that will ever be produced. In fact, it contributed a great deal to the formation of the English language. Modern translations usually lack the poetry of the King James because modern biblical scholars are more scientists than artists.

Nevertheless, there are two major problems with the King James Version. First of all, when it was translated in 1611, there were relatively few Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available and they tended to be recent and less accurate. In the nearly 400 years since then literally thousands more manuscripts have been discovered, ranging from small portions to complete copies of the Old or New Testaments. Many of these are very early and more accurate.

Secondly, the English in the King James Version is not at all the same language spoken today. Both the vocabulary and grammar have changed considerably. As a result, a reader often must retranslate the King James into modern English in his or her mind. For many people, especially children, reading the King James Version is like reading a foreign language.


The most accurate translation, and the most literal, is the NASB. New American Standard Bible (NASB) - completed in 1971, was produced by 54 conservative Protestant scholars sponsored by the Lockman Foundation. This version is very literal in vocabulary and word order, although the resulting English is quite wooden. It often is preferred by those who want an English version that reflects the grammar of the original. An Update was published in 1995 which seeks to use more modern English while preserving the literal nature of the translation.


I wouldn't use the KJV.

Answer 3

spiritro gave mostly verifiably accurate information, although his subjective opinion of the accuracy of the NASB is questionable. Generally, when translation is involved, literal and accurate are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Nevertheless, the NASB *is* a well-regarded version. It simply is the most *literal* translation, not the most *accurate* translation. I mention this because that answer was the best so far.

As to your question: it is difficult to understand. Most modern, scholarly versions are translated "directly from older versions" or, to be more precise, from older manuscripts. The King James Version (KJV) was translated from the best original language manuscripts that were readily available to the translators at the time, but they are of poor quality, authenticity and number when compared to the manuscripts available to the translators of today. Thus, although the KJV is almost entirely in agreement with the modern scholarly versions available today, there *are* a few instances where the translation is known to be inaccurate, and a few cases of the inclusion of unauthentic additions.

As for the specific case of Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs)and what "those changes have to do with god," the main complaint that the JW organization seems to have with modern translations is the removal of the word "Jehovah". I will not cover the origins of this word here: it is long and interesting, but not directly pertinent to this question. What *is* pertinent is that, in the tradition of English translations (and, indeed, in Hebrew manuscripts long before any English translation), it is standard practice to replace the tetragrammaton with the word "lord". The tetragrammaton is the Hebrew name for God, and is usually transliterated "Yahweh." The KJV used the word "Jehovah" in, I believe, 2 or 3 locations in the Old Testament, and replaced the tetragrammaton with "lord" (small caps) throughout the rest of the translation. Most modern versions, in an attempt to be internally consistent *and* compliant with tradition, use the word "lord" throughout and thus (in the view of JWs) "remove" the name of God, "Jehovah." Some versions do not even offset the word with small caps, so neither the reader *nor* the listener can differentiate between "LORD" (the replacement for the name of God) and "lord" (master, superior, boss).

In truth, the JWs have a point: the translation of the tetragrammaton is uncertain, but it is commonly accepted that it cannot mean "lord". The use of the word "lord" in place of the tetragrammaton is both a mistranslation and misleading to hearers of the word, who cannot differentiate between a small caps "lord" and a lower case "lord". A far superior method is the one employed by the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) which, when faced with clear uncertainties in translation, uses transliteration. In this case, the NJB uses the transliteration "Yahweh" in every instance of the tetragrammaton. Thus, the use of the name of God is clear to reader and listener, without exception. This *can* make a difference in the interpretation of certain passages (like these)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=110&verse=1&version=49&context=verse
NJB: "Yahweh declared to my Lord, 'Take your seat at my right hand,
till I have made your enemies your footstool.' "

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=1&verse=24&version=9&context=verse
NJB: "Hence the Lord Yahweh Sabaoth,
the Mighty One of Israel, says this,
'Disaster, I shall get the better of my enemies,
I shall avenge myself on my foes.' "

As you can see by comparison, even though the NJB is using the transliteration of words in a foreign language, the meaning is much more clear than that of the comparison passages.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 4

Do you mean to suggest that any repetition of Isaiah is plagiarism? Like when the Christians used Jewish scripture it's plagiarism? Or when Christ quoted Isaiah it was plagiarism? Scriptures available to Smith were written in the Old English style; therefore the Book of Mormon was written in that style as well. However there are a large amounts of variants in the Isaiah of the Book of Mormon and KJV bible; these variants can be compared with the different manuscript variants with the various old manuscripts we now have that didn't exist in the 1820's and show one fascinating fact: Out of the places in which the KJV and BoM disagree; there are more places in which the Bom agrees with the other manuscript than the KJV. While neither agree 100%, the BoM has a proven and definite lead over the KJV in terms of accuracy based on available documents.

Answer 5

One of the delineating lines that is changed by people in other supposed translations is:
1John5:4: For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5: Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
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.

The Trinity is always a point of attack by deviating sects. The basic reason for this is that people like to make up their own rules instead of following God's way. I check out this verse in every other translation before I consider it in any way shape or form.

Answer 6

Consider the source...she's been trained to believe and accept the JW's version, and all others are not accurate.
The KJV is probably the best English translation there is. Modern ones leave some verses out, change words.

Answer 7

Yeah some translations are made to suite a particular belief like the NWT version, some versions omit sodomy to be homosexual friendly, some omit the divinity of Jesus for those who want heaven without Jesus etc.

If the bible has copyright then there is a good chance there is false information in it. KJV has no copyright and imo is the "most" accurate to the greek and hebrew.

Answer 8

KJV is based on Erasmus' TEXTUS RECEPTUS (the "received" text). It is not real accurate as a translation for various reasons. People like the phrasing of it in some places, and it is familiar, because for many years it was the main translation of Scriptures. The JW "New World" translation is mostly very good, but like most everyone they bent a few texts so they would say what they wanted.

Answer 9

No, the majority of the non-kjv bibles are not different in translation with the exceptions of JW's NWT and other cult bibles that were twisted to suit what they want to preach.


(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")-(")
Sweetie

Answer 10

The KJV does not "significantly differ" from the first manuscripts. In fact it does not differ at all. It is 100% true to the first manuscripts.

The KJV is 100% reliable and is 100% the Word of God, and the Word of God is 100% true and is the only true authority on all matters.