Bible Version Scripture Changes

[Wansvic]

Many are uninformed concerning scripture verses that have been modified/removed etc. from newer bible translations. Some changes seem benign whereas others, whether intentional or not, modify references to Jesus' deity, hell, etc.

Due to file size it was necessary to upload individual pages noting scripture changes between the King James Version and newer translations separately.

 

[Wansvic]

Pages 4-6

 

[Wansvic]

Pages 7-10

 

[Wansvic]

Pages 11-15

 

[Wansvic]

Pages 16-22

 

[Wansvic]

@persistent
@Amanuensis
@Dino246

Posts #1-5 contain the documents listing verse modifications within many modern bible versions.

 

[Dino246]

Many are uninformed concerning scripture verses that have been modified/removed etc. from newer bible translations. Some changes seem benign whereas others, whether intentional or not, modify references to Jesus' deity, hell, etc.

Sadly, you are uninformed regarding basic logic. For there to be modifications or removals from newer translations, the verses would have had to be in the newer translations; they aren't, and weren't.

There are DIFFERENCES between the KJV and the newer translations. The KJV is not the accepted objective standard by which newer translations are measured, any more than the newer translations are the standard by which the KJV is measured.

 

[oyster67]

The KJV is not the accepted objective standard by which newer translations are measured

...is for me.

 

[Dino246]

...is for me.

I have no issue with people preferring the KJV. I have no issue with people thinking (for themselves) that the KJV is the standard. However, such thinking does not hold any logical or evidentiary value.

 

[Amanuensis]

@persistent
@Amanuensis
@Dino246

Posts #1-5 contain the documents listing verse modifications within many modern bible versions.

I don't understand your point. Of course there are differences. That was the point of them attempting a new translation work. These expert scholars believed that in many cases the translation into English could be done more accurately than what had been done already.

I am sure that if the KJV scholars were still alive and were able to examine the reasons why some of these Modern translations differ from the KJV, in many or most cases they would agree with these newer translations.

There has been much learned, and uncovered since the KJV attempted their translation. They idea that no other scholars attempting to translation from the original language to English could ever make any improvements would appear to be an idea based on ignorance of the challenges involved in translating from one language to another.

 

[ResidentAlien]

There has been much learned, and uncovered since the KJV attempted their translation. They idea that no other scholars attempting to translation from the original language to English could ever make any improvements would appear to be an idea based on ignorance of the challenges involved in translating from one language to another.

Not that much has really been learned or uncovered. The discovery of codex sinaiticus in a Catholic monestary; and codex vaticanus which was stored in the Vatican library. The fact that both of these have Catholic connections should make a person suspicious right out of the gate.

The "expert scholars" are Constantin von Tischendorf, Henry Bradshaw, Fenton John Anthony Hort and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. These are the ones we trust when they tell us that sinaiticus and vaticanus are the oldest and most reliable manuscripts available. But these men are anything but experts and shouldn't be trusted without first looking into the opposing side. There are always two sides to everything.

 

[Amanuensis]

Not that much has really been learned or uncovered. The discovery of codex sinaiticus in a Catholic monestary; and codex vaticanus which was stored in the Vatican library. The fact that both of these have Catholic connections should make a person suspicious right out of the gate.

The "expert scholars" are Constantin von Tischendorf, Henry Bradshaw, Fenton John Anthony Hort and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. These are the ones we trust when they tell us that sinaiticus and vaticanus are the oldest and most reliable manuscripts available. But these men are anything but experts and shouldn't be trusted without first looking into the opposing side. There are always two sides to everything.

I am speaking about the science of translation in general.

Not the different manuscripts being used to translate but the decision as to why a certain Greek word should be translated into a certain English word.

There are cases where a Greek word occurred only once in the NT and there are no known contemporary examples of that word in other documents from the first century.

We have discovered documents where some of these words were used and this helped confirm the best English word that should be used.

We have learned a lot since the KJV translation.

But most importantly when discussing why NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB might have slight differences in wording from the KJV one must consider the challenges of translating from one language to another and especially ancient languages into another. There will be slight differences of opinion even if they are working off the same manuscript and one must read the explanations of the translators to understand why.

This making a big deal about slight differences in English words from one translation work to another is not a conspiracy or a matter of evil motives.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I am speaking about the science of translation in general.

Not the different manuscripts being used to translate but the decision as to why a certain Greek word should be translated into a certain English word.

There are cases where a Greek word occurred only once in the NT and there are no known contemporary examples of that word in other documents from the first century.

We have discovered documents where some of these words were used and this helped confirm the best English word that should be used.

We have learned a lot since the KJV translation.

But most importantly when discussing why NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB might have slight differences in wording from the KJV one must consider the challenges of translating from one language to another and especially ancient languages into another. There will be slight differences of opinion even if they are working off the same manuscript and one must read the explanations of the translators to understand why.

This making a big deal about slight differences in English words from one translation work to another is not a conspiracy or a matter of evil motives.

If that's what was actually going on I would agree. But we're not talking about minor differences of opinion about how to translate certain words. We're talking about completely different manuscripts with completely different words.

 

[Amanuensis]

If that's what was actually going on I would agree. But we're not talking about minor differences of opinion about how to translate certain words. We're talking about completely different manuscripts with completely different words.

I doubt that these modern translations are ignoring the best manuscripts in extant when they do their work.

My sense of reality leads me to believe that selecting the best, most trustworthy, manuscripts and variants is a major foundational principle in doing these translations.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I doubt that these modern translations are ignoring the best manuscripts in extant when they do their work.

My sense of reality leads me to believe that selecting the best, most trustworthy, manuscripts and variants is a major foundational principle in doing these translations.

Believe what you want. I'm not here to convince anyone.