KJV vs Living Bible as a study guide?

26 Comments

• 

  Reply September 26, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  Here is how the seven modern translations score on test passages with an overall rating that takes other considerations into account:
  Test Passages Rating
  MEV 5/5 9.5
  AMP 4/5 8
  NRSV 4/5 8
  NAB 2/5 6
  NLT 2/5 5
  MSG 2/5 2
  NCV 1/5 3
  and older versions:- Rating Test Passages
  KJV 9.5 5 for 5
  NKJV 9.5 5 for 5
  HCSB 8 3 for 5
  ESV 8 3 for 5
  NASB 7 2 for 5
  NIV 5 1 for 5
  NET 3 0 for 5

• 

  Reply September 27, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce how does this makes any sense to you in relation to OP

• 

  Reply September 27, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  kjv and nkjv are top of traditional translations in accuracy on key Bible passages; new living translation is near bottom of modern translations on same key Bible passages. NIV is near bottom which is the most interesting point.

• 

  Reply September 27, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce did you see my post on digital NIV vs printed

• 

  Reply September 27, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce are you KJV only?

• 

  Reply September 27, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  no i prefer NKJV, but don’t like NIV.

• 

  Reply September 27, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  NIV is missing a lot nowadays – the digital NIV is even worse http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/digital-vs-printed-niv-versions/

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  Michael Ellis Carter Jr.

  Troy Day I have two issues here personally. Any test that has the NASB or ESV for that matter rated below KJV is suspicious and makes me skeptical of the data. No one except a person interested in making KJV the preferred bible would remotely do so. The test passage has to be a u I’ve really accepted original passage, I would be interest in what the test passage was. The NIV argument is always interesting I’m curious to which digital outlets are not including proper footnotes because most of the time that’s the issue we fail to read the note so we think something has changed. Great discussion on this topic

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  Michael Ellis Carter Jr. so you are KJV Like RichardAnna Boyce ?

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  Michael Ellis Carter Jr.

  Troy Day absolutely not… I prefer a bible without unaddressed translation issues or at least egregious ones

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  Troy Day i told you i am NOT KJV, but PREFER NKJV

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  JAMES 2:14 Note how our five translations handle this verse, and pay special attention to the different ways they translate the last part of this verse, the question dealing with the connection between faith and salvation/deliverance. KJV “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” NKJV “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” NASB “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him?” NIV “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” NET “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?” The NIV, NASB, and NET qualify faith the second time it appears in the verse: “such faith,” “that faith,” or “this kind of faith,” respectively. The KJV and NKJV do not supply the qualifiers. The Greek merely refers to “the faith” (he„ pistis). The definite article is also used with pistis in the nominative case in vv 16, 17, 20, and 22. Yet in none of these other places do the NIV, NASB, or NET translate the expression as that faith, such faith, or this kind of faith. The translators are making an interpretive decision for the readers here. KJV and NKJV more accurately represent the Greek, with no pejorative description of the faith in question. In addition, the NIV and NET also seem to be interpreting for the reader when they translate ean lege„ tis (literally “if someone says”) as “if a man claims” or “if someone claims.” Yet this destroys the verbal tie here with v 12. There the same verb, lego„, is used and clearly it refers to speaking, not claiming, there. Note even the NIV and NET translations of v 12: “Speak and act as those who are going to [or will] be judged by the [or a] law that gives freedom.” The issue in James 1:21–2:26 is that we are to be doers and not speakers.

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  1 John 3:16-18. The issue in v 12 is saying versus doing, not claiming versus doing. Claiming has a pejorative tone. Why wasn’t v 12 translated that way then: “Claim and act as those who are going to be judged…”? The reason is obvious. That isn’t the point in v 12. The NASB is on target as are the KJV and NKJV on this point. The Free Grace person using the NIV or NET is doubly handicapped on this verse. The NASB user is also handicapped, but not quite as much. The KJV and NKJV are friendly to the Free Grace position in this verse. This passage serves to illustrate how translators sometimes find it difficult to set aside their theological convictions when translating. If the goal were simply to convey what the original language says as clearly as possible in English, then they would not resort to this sort of interpretive rendering of the text.

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  ANYONE NAMED BROTHER: 1 CORINTHIANS 5:11 The key question here is how the various translations handle the Greek words tis adelphos onomazomenos. I have italicized the portion of the translations below that handle those words. KJV “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater…” NKJV “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater…” NASB “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any socalled brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater…” Bible Translations 9 NIV “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, or an idolater…” NET “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater…” In this passage Paul is telling the believers in the church of Corinth that they are to judge those who are inside, not those outside, the church (vv 10, 12). If one takes the view that those inside the church are believers, then Paul is telling the believers in Corinth to separate from immoral or covetous or idolatrous believers in the church. If, however, one believes that those inside the church include both believers and unbelievers [or false professors], then Paul is telling the believers in Corinth to separate from immoral or covetous or idolatrous unbelievers in the church. If the job of the translator is to translate and not interpret, the translator should seek to make his translation of this passage as vague as the original. In this case the first two translations, the KJV and NKJV, fill the bill. A Greek participle, onomazomenos, has a literal meaning of “anyone bearing the name.” The NKJV gets it just right and the KJV is close. The other three, the NASB, NIV, and NET, all interpret this phrase for the reader rather than translate it. There is nothing in the Greek that suggests the phrase “so-called brother.” Indeed, the context strongly suggests that this is a genuine believer (compare vv 10 and 12). There is also nothing in the text about what the person calls himself. The Greek verb to call is not found in this verse. Nor is the word himself. The last three translations reflect an interpretive bias which springs from Reformed theology. If there is no such thing as a believer who is immoral or covetous or an idolater, then Paul isn’t warning about believers here. But note well that even if I was convinced this passage was warning about false professors, I still would translate it “anyone who bears the name brother” or “anyone named brother.”

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  LET HIM BE ACCURSED: GALATIANS 1:8D (AND 1:9D) KJV “…let him be accursed.” NKJV “…let him be accursed.” NASB “…let him be accursed.” NIV “…let him be eternally condemned!” NET “…let him be condemned to hell!” Three translations have “let him be accursed.” This is a literal rendering of the Greek (anathema esto„). It is ambiguous and could refer to a curse in this life, or in the life to come, or both. The last two translations, the NIV and NET, are not really translations at all. They are interpretations. The word condemned is not found here. Nor are the words eternally or hell. The translators have allowed their theology to color their translation. Evidently they believe that there is no such thing as a regenerate person who at some later point actually promotes a false gospel. I would say that there is a lot of evidence in Paul’s writings and even in Galatians (see 2:14!) that some genuine believers fall doctrinally and actually preach false theology and even a false gospel. Additionally, practically speaking, how would a believer in one of the cities in Galatia let someone be eternally condemned or let them be condemned to hell? Would this mean that they weren’t to witness to them? Or would it mean the opposite—that they were to treat them as someone who is hell bound and thus witness to them? If we leave the translation as vague as the original, then the practical application is simple: treat these people as those who are cursed. Do not support their ministry financially, prayerfully, or with your time and talents. People who are proclaiming a false gospel, which in Galatians is any gospel other than justification by faith alone (Gal 2:15-16), whether they are Christians who have fallen or unbelievers who never knew the truth, are ones we are not to aid in any way.

• 

  Reply September 29, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION: ROMANS 8:1 This example deals not so much with differences in how the verse was translated, but in which words were translated. Two of these versions contain an additional phrase at the end of the verse that potentially totally changes the way it is to be understood. KJV “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” NKJV “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” NASB “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” NIV “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Bible Translations 11 NET “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The reason the KJV and NKJV have a longer reading is because the majority of manuscripts of this verse contain the longer reading. The NET has a footnote here that is instructive as to why it excluded the longer reading: The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts have no additional words for v 1…Later scribes… added the words…“who do not walk according to the flesh,” while even later ones…added…“but [who do walk] according to the Spirit.” Both the external and internal evidence are completely compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were obviously motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v 4), for otherwise Paul’s gospel was characterized by too much grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in Byz.11 I’ve always found these types of arguments to be extremely subjective. Might it be that those who adopt the shorter reading have misread the text? After all, if the same idea is found in v 4, why is it so antithetical to the context to have it in v 1 as well? The key word in this verse is the one translated condemnation in all five translations. It is the Greek word katakrima. According to Moulton and Milligan it means “penal servitude,”12 that is, slavery to sin. Might not Paul’s point in v 1 be that those who walk according to the Spirit do not experience slavery to sin? After all, this verse is part of Paul’s sanctification section in Romans. The verses which follow clearly deal with sanctification and not justification. Paul spent much of chapter 6 showing that believers are no longer slaves to sin and challenging them to no longer live in their experience as slaves to sin. In chapter 7 he shows that a legalistic mindset will not free the believer from sin’s bondage, but will increase it. The very last verse in Romans 7, the one immediately preceding this one, alludes to slavery to sin! It says, “I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh [I serve] the law of sin” (emphasis added). Does it not make sense that the next verse would build on this idea of serving God or serving sin based on whether we live according to the Spirit or the flesh? Then in chapter 8 Paul shows how it is the Spirit of God that enables us to live in our experience as we are in our position: as those free from slavery to sin. Regardless of how you understand Rom 8:1, it is vital that you are looking at what Paul actually wrote. Readers of English translations should realize that the issue is not merely how the translators handled the Hebrew and Greek text, but also which text they translated.

• 

  Reply September 30, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce whats the point of your major copy paste flooding? proofs nothing

• 

  Reply September 30, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  gets Biblical scholars thinking

• 

  Reply September 30, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce I did not see you citing any scholars I would like to see WHO do you regard as scholarly first But at the same time I am very interested in discussion on versions if you got any

• 

  Reply October 1, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  sorry, the comments come from Dr. Bob Wilkin (ThM, PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) has served as an evangelist on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ, a hospital chaplain, a pastor, and a college professor of Greek and Bible. He is the founder and Executive Director of Grace Evangelical Society (GES).

• 

  Reply October 1, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  Troy Day, this was his introduction to compare how each translation handles the selected key passages. “There are a little over 5000 manuscripts of the NT. For any given book, there are between 100 and 1000 manuscripts. The Critical Text is a collation of Greek manuscripts that assumes the correct reading, the original reading, is typically the one which is found in the majority of 3 6 Davids, “Three Recent Bible Translations,” 532. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 6 Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society Spring 2004 early manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) which it regards as relatively pure and untainted by scribes. If 2 of these 3 agree, the NASB, NIV, and NET usually call that the correct reading.9 The Majority Text essentially suggests that the correct reading is the one which is found in the majority of all existing manuscripts, not simply the majority of 3 manuscripts Bible Translations 7 1657, the Cambridge Revision of 1762, and the Oxford Revision of 1769.10 What we now call the New King James Version is really the 6th revision of the KJV. My good friend, the late Dr. Art Farstad, was the general editor of the revision and he personally explained to me how they took great pains to merely update the language common in 1769 to that of the latter part of the twentieth century. With this as a brief background, let’s compare how each translation handles the selected key passages.”

• 

  Reply October 1, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce Your last comment lacks any scholarly backing but we can take it from this point on – DTS is a pretty liberal school as anyone will be fast to tell you

• 

  Reply October 1, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  DTS has changed since the likes of Chafer, Bing, Hodges, Wilkins etc etc were professors, who formed Free Grace; whose primary mission is to expose the false Lordship Salvation of MaCarthur, Piper etc. Possibly DTS is giving in to LS now, as most of Christianity has unfortunately 🙁

• 

  Reply October 1, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce I do not wish to bring baptist topics in this Pentecostal group DTS is NOT any of our focus What about this % stats you posted on NIV that have no resources?

• 

  Reply October 1, 2019

  RichardAnna Boyce

  The research was done by Free Grace, not Baptist. I admit that the Bible verses FG used to score the accuracy of the different versions, maybe challenging to Pentecostals theologically; hence you trying to shoot the messenger and avoiding the theology 🙂

• 

  Reply October 1, 2019

  Varnel Watson

  RichardAnna Boyce So tell us more about this research and what does it claim Is it NIV related? Does it indicate printed VS digital NIV versions out there ?