The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Dino246]

If a translation is from man (like with Modern Bibles)

That's a gross assumption that has no evidentiary basis, so your comments based on it are also baseless.

if the translation was from God, then it would be the work of the LORD under the preservation of GOD, and the content of such an inspired translation

That's a gross misuse of "inspired". The only "inspired" translations are the ones in the record of Scripture. No "modern" translation (post 70AD) is "inspired". God didn't "breathe" the KJV wording... period.

God after all magnifies His word above His own name (See: Psalms 138:2 KJV).

Quoting the KJV version of that verse is never going to convince me that the KJV rendering is correct, nor that the "doctrine" based on it is sound.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's a gross assumption that has no evidentiary basis, so your comments based on it are also baseless.


That's a gross misuse of "inspired". The only "inspired" translations are the ones in the record of Scripture. No "modern" translation (post 70AD) is "inspired". God didn't "breathe" the KJV wording... period.


Quoting the KJV version of that verse is never going to convince me that the KJV rendering is correct, nor that the "doctrine" based on it is sound.

The problem in your belief is that there is no standard. It’s not duplicatable unless you create your own Bible version that is from the phantom Bible that exists only in your mind. James White does not agree with Dan Wallace on what the Bible says. Everybody is their own authority on what the words of God precisely says in the bizarro world of Modern Textual Criticism. This is the problem when you reject the Word of God (the KJV) which has demonstrated itself to be the pure Word of God in multiple ways. I am sorry, that is a reality you will have to face one day. I love you in Christ, but I don’t love the belief. Jesus quoted Scripture many times as an authority and He never acted like they could not be trusted sometimes. Jesus said His words would not pass away. Dan Wallace thinks we cannot be certain as to what Jesus said precisely. But the Bible says we can have the knowledge of the certainty of the words of truth (See: Proverbs 22:21). Your position is one based on sight, and not faith in what God’s Word says. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Granted, I am not saying you do not have faith in certain things in the Bible, but the other things that the Bible teaches in regard to its teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation you reject in favor of what men or scholars say. My trust is not in men in what they say, but it is in God and what His Word says. I believe that is the difference between us here on this topic of discussion. I say this not to wound you but to lead you to the truth (John 17:17) (Daniel 10:21).

 

[jamessb]

Anyone who says that the King James translation is the pure Word of God is totally wrong! There is absolutely no evidence to prove that preposterous claim.

It is just one of many translations and has been modified several times over the 413 years of its existence. Unlike some, I do not worship a book! I worship God.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

I worship God.

God's Word, which is what God says, has become flesh.

His Name is Jesus Christ so do you worship Him?

 

[jamessb]

In case people need to be reminded, neither God nor Jesus spoke English. In fact, the English language didn't exist when the Bible "books" were written, so every English Bible is a translation. Knowledgeable people know that it is impossible to translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into a precise English equivalent. (People who claim that it is possible have no idea what they're talking about!)

Recently, there was actually a post that counted the number of times words like "Lord Jesus", Jesus Christ", and "Lord Jesus Christ" appeared in a translation! Seriously! The claim was that if translation "a" contained more of these phrases than translation "b", then it was the more accurate translation. For example, "Jesus the Christ" didn't count in the number of times it appeared! WHAT A SAD JOKE!!

You would think that people would know better, but exactly like the Pharisees of the New Testament, they claim to have knowledge that others do not.

They seemed to have clearly overlooked this fact: the word "faith" appears in the King James Bible 336 times, while in the NIV it appears 458 times (36% more often!) That should tell them something!

 

[jamessb]

God's Word, which is what God says, has become flesh.

His Name is Jesus Christ so do you worship Him?

I worship God.

John 1:14, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." It says that the Word became flesh. It says nothing about worshiping Jesus Christ.

Here is what Jesus said in Luke 4:8, "Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

And in John 4:21, “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem."

Acts 7:7, "But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.’

And John wrote in Revelation 19:10, "At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”

 

[jamessb]

God's Word, which is what God says, has become flesh.

His Name is Jesus Christ so do you worship Him?

Do you not understand the difference between God (the father) and Jesus Christ (His Son)???

Hebrews 12:28, "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe"

Revelation 7:11, "All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

Revelation 11:16, "And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God,

Revelation 19:10, "At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”


And there are more verses, but the point is clear: WE ARE TO WORSHIP GOD.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Anyone who says that the King James translation is the pure Word of God is totally wrong! There is absolutely no evidence to prove that preposterous claim.

I have 101 Reasons, and so I beg to differ.

It is just one of many translations and has been modified several times over the 413 years of its existence.

Sorry. Your mistaken. Printing errors that were later corrected don’t count; And KJB believers regard either the 1769 Oxford KJV edition or the 1900 Pure Cambridge KJV edition as the settled KJV edition for today. Modern Bibles have tons of intentional changes to them. They do it to maintain the copyrights and get monetary kickbacks. Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well.

Unlike some, I do not worship a book!

Right, and this would be false slander because most KJV believers have not claimed to worship a book.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

In case people need to be reminded, neither God nor Jesus spoke English.

Well, God knows the end from the beginning. So God would be 100% aware of the English language long before it came into existence. I mean, how do you know that God or Jesus never spoke English? You do realize Jesus (God) did many things that were not in Scripture, right?

In fact, the English language didn't exist when the Bible "books" were written, so every English Bible is a translation.

Again, the words, the King of the Jews written in three languages and translated for us is a translation. So yes. This is a perfect translation unless you simply lack faith to believe this part of Scripture.

Knowledgeable people know that it is impossible to translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into a precise English equivalent. (People who claim that it is possible have no idea what they're talking about!)

With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.

Recently, there was actually a post that counted the number of times words like "Lord Jesus", Jesus Christ", and "Lord Jesus Christ" appeared in a translation! Seriously! The claim was that if translation "a" contained more of these phrases than translation "b", then it was the more accurate translation. For example, "Jesus the Christ" didn't count in the number of times it appeared! WHAT A SAD JOKE!!

They seemed to have clearly overlooked this fact: the word "faith" appears in the King James Bible 336 times, while in the NIV it appears 458 times (36% more often!) That should tell them something!

None of us perfect. This was not a point that I had seen under scrutiny before. I actually decided to remove this reason from my list of reasons for the King James Bible. However, do not be so quick to gloat. I have a lot other better reasons than this one.

You would think that people would know better, but exactly like the Pharisees of the New Testament, they claim to have knowledge that others do not.

Jesus had knowledge that others did not have. So this is not a good argument.

 

[jamessb]

I have 101 Reasons, and so I beg to differ.



Sorry. Your mistaken. Printing errors that were later corrected don’t count; And KJB believers regard either the 1769 Oxford KJV edition or the 1900 Pure Cambridge KJV edition as the settled KJV edition for today. Modern Bibles have tons of intentional changes to them. They do it to maintain the copyrights and get monetary kickbacks. Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well.



Right, and this would be false slander because most KJV believers have not claimed to worship a book.

I decided to read this post, even though I will continue to have you on "ignore" status.

a) Your information about KJV revisions is incorrect. Now you are qualifying which versions are correct, thereby implying that the others are not correct. If, as you claim, the KJV is the perfect word of God, how can differing versions be correct?

b) Your statements that "Modern Bibles have tons of intentional changes to them. They do it to maintain the copyrights and get monetary kickbacks" and "Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well" are both nonsense.

And you wonder why I have you on "ignore"! I will continue to keep you on that status until you begin to make any sense at all.

 

[Tims]

Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well.

This caught my eye, do you happen to have some examples at hand? Which (modern) Bible versions would be affected?

 

[jamessb]

I would ask anyone who is interested in a particular translation to read the introduction. Each Bible has an introduction that clearly demonstrates the intention, the methodology employed, the sources referenced, etc.

It is patently absurd to claim the kind of foolishness that Bible Highlighter claims about modern translations. I feel sorry for him; his thinking is clearly deluded.

I remember well the advice a professor of mine gave in graduate school: try to prove yourself wrong, as others will surely do so. When you read the claims of Bible Highlighter and others, a) ask yourself the actual purpose of those claims and b) verify them on your own.

Personally, I trust the excellent scholarship that his given us a wide variety of Bible translations. There is at least one translation that suits a person's reading level, comprehension level, etc. so that God can clearly communicate His words and thoughts to you.

As I have recommended before, go to a site such as biblegateway.com and read selections from the various translations, then decide which one most clearly communicates God message to you personally.

Don't let "know it alls" decide which translation is best for you. God can clearly do that without their help.

 

[ResidentAlien]

This caught my eye, do you happen to have some examples at hand? Which (modern) Bible versions would be affected?

Throw a dart. If you hit anything but the King James version it teaches false doctrine. Or so the argument goes.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I decided to read this post, even though I will continue to have you on "ignore" status.

a) Your information about KJV revisions is incorrect.

Uh, no. I've looked into this before, and it is not as you claim. You need to prove that the major KJV editions used by the people at large went through intentional and gross changes by those who updated them. Until you come back with proof or evidence, your claim is simply an empty one. You are only saying this mindlessly because you don’t like the idea of a perfect Word to be under authority-to because you are your own authority. You have no Bible that you can hold in your hands and declare it to be the perfect, inerrant, words of God. You prefer the translation theories of men that comes from German Rationalism instead of simply believing God's Word by faith in that His words are pure and that they are preserved as Scripture teaches.

Now you are qualifying which versions are correct, thereby implying that the others are not correct. If, as you claim, the KJV is the perfect word of God, how can differing versions be correct?

While Psalms 12:6 has a primary meaning, it also has a prophetic one.

Psalms 12:6 (KJV)
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

So just as there are seven purifications mentioned here, there are seven MAJOR KJB editions that the church used.
It was finally settled with the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) which happened to be the 1st major KJV edition used today that used offset printing technology and not movable type printing. Movable type printing always led to printing errors. But of course God is sovereign and He is in control of the casting of lots (See: Proverbs 16:33).

b) Your statements that "Modern Bibles have tons of intentional changes to them. They do it to maintain the copyrights and get monetary kickbacks" and "Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well" are both nonsense.

The NIV website says you cannot quote more than 500 verses in any form (including audio, which is speaking). First, this just sounds greedy and controlling. What motivation do they have to be so restrictive? Surely after a company creates a copyright on a book, they can also acquire a Creative Commons license that permits others to quote from their work entirely without charge, while still safeguarding it against alteration and prohibiting individuals from profiting from it for personal gain.

Furthermore, New Modern Bibles are derivative works. A derivative work must contain a sufficient amount of original and creative content that distinguishes it from the original work. Also, why does there have to be so many NIVs that are different? The KJV was trying to get back to the original and fix printing errors. The NIV has no such excuse. The new changes they make are horrific. Mark 4:1 is one example. Another is the 2011 NIV, which has gotten a lot of flack even by Textual Critics.

Also, the claim is made that Modern Translations are created by non profit organizations as if to suggest that a non profit organization cannot make profit. This is an illusion or deception. The average annual Biblica Inc Salary for President & Chief Executive Officer is estimated to be approximately $737225 per year. Obviously, Joel Olsteen files his church as a non profit, and yet he is a millionaire as a result of his mega church. Just go to a Christian book store, and look up how many NIV study bibles there are and ask yourself, “Is this really just for non-profit reasons, or does it look like they are doing this for personal financial gain here?”

As for false doctrines in Modern Bibles:

Obviously you like the Modern Bibles because they remove direct references of the Trinity, and they water down the deity of Jesus Christ.
Many liberals like Modern Bibles because it fits their liberal theology.
Westcott and Hort were liberals. I think one of them (possibly both) rejected the Genesis account as being literal.

And you wonder why I have you on "ignore"! I will continue to keep you on that status until you begin to make any sense at all.

I believe the truth upsets you, and that is why you have me on ignore. But we can agree to disagree of course.

May God's good ways be upon you (even if we do not agree on what the Bible says).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This caught my eye, do you happen to have some examples at hand? Which (modern) Bible versions would be affected?

Your statement that.... "Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, .... are... nonsense.

The majority of Modern Bibles teach false doctrines. After all, most of your Modern Bibles come from a different line or stream of manuscripts than the KJV. The King James Bible uses the Textus Receptus New Testament Greek manuscripts which aligns with over 90% of the 5,800 Byzantine Greek manuscripts.

Modern Bibles are based on a smaller number of manuscripts that the church did not use and they are primarily Alexandrian in text type or origin. Most of your Modern Bibles use the Alexandrian text type manuscripts known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two New Testament Greek manuscripts were used by stealth or deception by Westcott and Hort in what was supposed to be a KJV update called the Revised Version (an English translation). Poster "Resident Alien" admits to this deception and simply is unable to see the obvious glaring problem in the Modern Bible movement to begin with. Even the Old Testament is based on different Hebrew texts that was originally translated by a German who was not even a Christian, and who was antisemitic. His son even joined the Nazi party and he created a New Testament Theological Dictionary that many pastors have used over the years.

Anyway, when you compare the KJV vs. Modern Bibles, you will discover that they do not always teach the same doctrines.

You can check out my list of Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles starting in my post #1,777.

Here is a list of Catholic ideas in the NIV (Which also appear in other respected Modern Bibles).

Catholic Ideas in the NIV - ChristianChat.

In fact, the Revised Version (the first English Bible of the Modern Bible Movement) promoted about 6-7 Catholic ideas. This number grew with the following Modern English Bibles over the years.

The Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek Critical Text is the basis for most of your Modern English Bibles today. A textual Critic Eldon Epp says that the 28th edition is barely any different than the Westcott and Hort 1881 NT Greek text. What should disturb you even more is that the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland NT Greek Critical Text says it was supervised by the Vatican. Do you want to follow a Bible that was influenced by the Vatican? I sure don’t. Well, unless a person is Catholic or ecumenical I suppose it would not be a problem. Note: Again, all recent Modern English Bibles follow the Nestle and Aland.

 

[jamessb]

Uh, no. I've looked into this before, and it is not as you claim. You need to prove that the major KJV editions used by the people at large went through intentional and gross changes by those who updated them. Until you come back with proof or evidence, your claim is simply an empty one. You are only saying this mindlessly because you don’t like the idea of a perfect Word to be under authority-to because you are your own authority. You have no Bible that you can hold in your hands and declare it to be the perfect, inerrant, words of God. You prefer the translation theories of men that comes from German Rationalism instead of simply believing God's Word by faith in that His words are pure and that they are preserved as Scripture teaches.



While Psalms 12:6 has a primary meaning, it also has a prophetic one.

Psalms 12:6 (KJV)
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

So just as there are seven purifications mentioned here, there are seven MAJOR KJB editions that the church used.
It was finally settled with the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) which happened to be the 1st major KJV edition used today that used offset printing technology and not movable type printing. Movable type printing always led to printing errors. But of course God is sovereign and He is in control of the casting of lots (See: Proverbs 16:33).


The NIV website says you cannot quote more than 500 verses in any form (including audio, which is speaking). First, this just sounds greedy and controlling. What motivation do they have to be so restrictive? Surely after a company creates a copyright on a book, they can also acquire a Creative Commons license that permits others to quote from their work entirely without charge, while still safeguarding it against alteration and prohibiting individuals from profiting from it for personal gain.

Furthermore, New Modern Bibles are derivative works. A derivative work must contain a sufficient amount of original and creative content that distinguishes it from the original work. Also, why does there have to be so many NIVs that are different? The KJV was trying to get back to the original and fix printing errors. The NIV has no such excuse. The new changes they make are horrific. Mark 4:1 is one example. Another is the 2011 NIV, which has gotten a lot of flack even by Textual Critics.

Also, the claim is made that Modern Translations are created by non profit organizations as if to suggest that a non profit organization cannot make profit. This is an illusion or deception. The average annual Biblica Inc Salary for President & Chief Executive Officer is estimated to be approximately $737225 per year. Obviously, Joel Olsteen files his church as a non profit, and yet he is a millionaire as a result of his mega church. Just go to a Christian book store, and look up how many NIV study bibles there are and ask yourself, “Is this really just for non-profit reasons, or does it look like they are doing this for personal financial gain here?”

As for false doctrines in Modern Bibles:

Obviously you like the Modern Bibles because they remove direct references of the Trinity, and they water down the deity of Jesus Christ.
Many liberals like Modern Bibles because it fits their liberal theology.
Westcott and Hort were liberals. I think one of them (possibly both) rejected the Genesis account as being literal.



I believe the truth upsets you, and that is why you have me on ignore. But we can agree to disagree of course.

May God's good ways be upon you (even if we do not agree on what the Bible says).

Thank for the laugh!

Everything that you wrote here is absurd. Clearly you have no interest in the truth! (That is so sad! Jesus said the same thing about the Pharisees, who were so stuck in their own "truth" that they couldn't see Christ as divine.

a) I don't need to prove anything. I have stated facts. If you can't accept them, that is your problem, not mine., Your posts (plural) are clearly biased; they are nothing more than propaganda!

b) You are clearly writing your posts mindlessly because you don’t like the idea that other Bibles besides the King James translation -- a political document -- are the word of God. You claim to be an authority but anyone with a small amount of insight can see right through your false statements.

I don't know what you have against modern Bibles! They are the result of hard work by qualified men and women to give us the best possible translations in our own native language. Thou thinkest because the version thou likest is written in olde Englyshe it is somehow more true to the source documents. That is utter nonsense. You have been deluded! Some time in the past you must have seized on the idea that the KJV is perfect, and have then manufactured all kinds of reasoning to justify your premise. But there is not one iota of proof in what you write!

A clear example of your biased nonsense is this statement: "The NIV website says you cannot quote more than 500 verses in any form (including audio, which is speaking). First, this just sounds greedy and controlling." Greedy and controlling? Seriously? Obviously you don't realize that the King James Bibles that you buy today are copyrighted! The KJV publishers are just as "greedy" as the NIV publisher. My King James translation, the Thompson Chain Bible, has this notice: "Copyright 1964 by B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co, Inc." Also, "Previous Editions Copyright 1908, 1917, 1929, 1934, 1957 by Frank Charles Thompson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD" How greedy can you get??? I've got news for you: every Bible publisher is in it for profit! They all sell their translations with the idea of making as much money as possible! In the case of the above, they don't even permit 500 verses!

I am getting tired of trying you to realize the truth and not cling to your delusion. => I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE REAL REASON YOU ARE SO OPPOSED TO TRANSLATIONS OTHER THAN THE KING JAMES <= What you post is clearly rationalizations that don't hold under even casual scrutiny! C'MON, TELL US THE REAL REASON FOR YOUR DISTORTED THINKING AND STRIDENT OPPOSITION TO THE TRULY EXCELLENT BIBLES PUBLISHED TODAY.

And please, state the facts for once!

 

[jamessb]

For anyone who wants the truth, here is part of the introduction to the NRSVue Bible (with my emphases in bold):

Motivated by love and respect for Scripture, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) hopes that you will find this New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) suitable to inspire, inform, and guide daily living. The goal of the NRSVue is to offer a readable and accurate version of the Holy Bible to the global English-speaking community for public worship and personal study, for scholarship and study in classrooms, and for informing faith and action in response to God." [read that sentence again!!!]

Together with religious leaders from diverse communities of faith, we join in the conviction that the Scriptures offer good news of God’s love—wisdom to guide, hope to sustain, truth to empower, forgiveness to change, and peace to bless all of creation.

The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions. The NRSVue, like the NRSV, follows “in the tradition of the King James Bible, [introducing] such changes as are warranted on the basis of accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English usage, . . . as literal as possible, as free as necessary” As also stated in the NRSV preface, the Bible’s message “must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning; it must be presented in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.” (NRSV’s preface “To the Reader”).

The NRSV has been called the most accurate of English-language translations, based on the available manuscript evidence, textual analysis, and philological understanding. In the more than thirty years since its first publication, hundreds of ancient manuscripts have been studied in exacting detail. The NRSVue is informed by the results of this research. Laboring through this material has deepened scholarly insight into Jewish and Christian sacred texts and advanced understanding of ancient languages. With new textual evidence, historical insights, and philological understandings (which include exploring the meanings of ancient texts in light of the cultures that produced them), the NRSVue brings greater precision in interpreting Scripture today. The goal of these practices has been to translate the ancient texts as accurately as possible while reflecting the cultural differences across time and conditions. Such a translation approach permitted the Editorial Committee to present the text as literally as possible and as freely as necessary.

First published in 1611, the King James Version slowly but steadily attained a well-deserved stature as the English language’s “Authorized Version” of the Scriptures. At the same time, the scholarly foundation that produced the King James Version shifted as new manuscripts came to light and philological understandings improved. As a result of these scholarly advances, the Revised Standard Version was authorized to improve the translation, based on more evidence of the original texts and early translations of the Bible, the meanings of its original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as ancient translations into Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian Greek, Syriac, and Latin), and changes to the English language itself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare that to the misleading tripe that Bible Highlighter writes about modern Bibles!!!

 

[Dino246]

The majority of Modern Bibles teach false doctrines. After all, most of your Modern Bibles come from a different line or stream of manuscripts than the KJV.

You are implying that the difference in sources results in "Modern Bibles" teaching false doctrines. That's a non sequitur.

 

[jamessb]

In case anyone is interested in the publishers' greed that Bible Highlighter claims, there isn't a single print version of the King James Bible that is free. (Source: Amazon)

 

[ResidentAlien]

For anyone who wants the truth, here is part of the introduction to the NRSVue Bible (with my emphases in bold):

Motivated by love and respect for Scripture, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) hopes that you will find this New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) suitable to inspire, inform, and guide daily living. The goal of the NRSVue is to offer a readable and accurate version of the Holy Bible to the global English-speaking community for public worship and personal study, for scholarship and study in classrooms, and for informing faith and action in response to God." [read that sentence again!!!]

Together with religious leaders from diverse communities of faith, we join in the conviction that the Scriptures offer good news of God’s love—wisdom to guide, hope to sustain, truth to empower, forgiveness to change, and peace to bless all of creation.

The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions. The NRSVue, like the NRSV, follows “in the tradition of the King James Bible, [introducing] such changes as are warranted on the basis of accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English usage, . . . as literal as possible, as free as necessary” As also stated in the NRSV preface, the Bible’s message “must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning; it must be presented in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.” (NRSV’s preface “To the Reader”).

The NRSV has been called the most accurate of English-language translations, based on the available manuscript evidence, textual analysis, and philological understanding. In the more than thirty years since its first publication, hundreds of ancient manuscripts have been studied in exacting detail. The NRSVue is informed by the results of this research. Laboring through this material has deepened scholarly insight into Jewish and Christian sacred texts and advanced understanding of ancient languages. With new textual evidence, historical insights, and philological understandings (which include exploring the meanings of ancient texts in light of the cultures that produced them), the NRSVue brings greater precision in interpreting Scripture today. The goal of these practices has been to translate the ancient texts as accurately as possible while reflecting the cultural differences across time and conditions. Such a translation approach permitted the Editorial Committee to present the text as literally as possible and as freely as necessary.

First published in 1611, the King James Version slowly but steadily attained a well-deserved stature as the English language’s “Authorized Version” of the Scriptures. At the same time, the scholarly foundation that produced the King James Version shifted as new manuscripts came to light and philological understandings improved. As a result of these scholarly advances, the Revised Standard Version was authorized to improve the translation, based on more evidence of the original texts and early translations of the Bible, the meanings of its original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as ancient translations into Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian Greek, Syriac, and Latin), and changes to the English language itself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare that to the misleading tripe that Bible Highlighter writes about modern Bibles!!!

With all due respect, the blurb at the front of a Bible isn't necessarily the best place to get an objective idea of what it really is. You can get some information like sources and translation philosophy that's helpful; but you have to remember they're trying to sell Bibles, so I look at most of it as advertising. The marketing department is going to put the best possible spin on it. You have to look elsewhere to get the facts and the truth.