Corrupted King James?

1 John 5:7 (KJV)"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8)And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."1 John 5:7 (NIV)"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."I've heard a lot of debate about why one version is better than another, and sometimes I agree with it. But often times, it seems that some of the KJV preferers, in particular, speak of how NIV, and other modern translations are perverted.Now, looking at the footnote of 1 John 5:7 in my NIV, it says, that in regards to how the KJV translates 5:7-8 is "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century". So, has something been added to KJV? There are many differences between KJV and NIV, in particular, and NIV always has a footnote explaining how they used the earliest manuscripts, versus the Texus Receptus, which is a much newer manuscript set.So, without just pouring out personal preference, or rumor, or opinion, does anybody know the history as to why there are so many differences, and which is really more correct?Grace and Peace...

1 John 5:7 is probably the most debated verse in the Bible so this discussion should be interesting, anyway:I'm certainly no authority on ancient Biblical text but what i heard about the textus vaticanus (TV) predating the textus receptus (TR) was something like this:Imagine you've recieved a letter from someone really important and so you want other people to read it, but you want to keep your copy so you copy it out perfectly word for word because you know it's come from someone really important and you dont want to lose any of it's text in copying, so you send a copy to say 4 friends each of which have the same feelings and copy it out word for word. Now someone else gets a copy of the letter and doesn't like some of it so changes a word here and there now this copy he copies out and sends it to his friends but his original he locks in box and keeps it safe.Now back to you, you like your letter that you recieved so much that you read it all the time, so do your friends eventually it begins to deteriorate but people are still making acurate copies but eventually all the acturate copies will deteriorate due to much use, the guy who made the dodgy copy now long dead kept his in the box.Some years later historians discover his dodgy copy and realise that it predates all the accurate copies of the original so the historians decide that because the dodgy one is older it must be more accurate.do you see the point of my rather poor analogy, like i said I'm not a Biblical historian and to be honest one of the reasons i responded was to keep this thread up so someone far more knowledgable in these things can spot it (thinkin of you Philologos)matt

So, has something been added to KJV? There are many differences between KJV and NIV, in particular, and NIV always has a footnote explaining how they used the earliest manuscripts, versus the Texus Receptus, which is a much newer manuscript set.I have been on both sides of the KJV only debate. What has kept me from embracing the KJV only position is the circular arguments and logic which are usually employed.The KJV is an excellent translation. But it is only a translation and if you read the preface to the 1611 KJV you will see the translators themsleves considered it to be "a better translation" than the previous "good translations" and the argued that "any translation no matter how mean, is still the word of God".And all the arguments the translators of the 1611 KJV put forth to produce their translation are argued against by those who see any attempt to make a better one as a corruption of the "perfect Word of God".But the underlyng Textus Receptus which was compiled by Erasmus is a composit of all the known existing manuscripts of that day. IN subsequent years many older text were uncovered including the infamous "Vatacanus B" which are Alexandrian in origen, but many feel they are corrupted and therefore unreliable.What strikes the strongest nerve in the KJV only andherents is the lists of verses of all the modern translations compared to the King james Version. They use the KJV as the standard, show all the verses in the others where a word or phrase is "ommited" and thereby conclude that they are corruptions of the Word of God which they define as the King James Version. I have yet to see one of these comparison charts where all of the verses including the King James is compared with the Greek text. Even the Textus Receptus.IF you set aside the superstitious belief that the King James is God's final Word, in His final translation, and accept it as an excellent translation of God's final Word in the origional texts, then you would do good to compare all the translations with the best Greek manuscripts.I would like to see a comparison chart which is side by side and where the King James has a phrase which is not found directly in the Greek text and "Added" would be in the note.This is a fair comparison.The implication is that if it is in the King James and not in a modern translation, then the modern one is wrong and corrupts the text and omits God's Words.I have also seen a chart where phrases omited in modern translations are found in the quotations of the earliest church Fathers, proving that they were in the origional. But in comparing many of these quotes, in the modern translations they are ommited from one place in the scritpure, but they are still found in another. So the quote of the church father is not necessarily of the omitted passage.IN other words, there is repetition in the Bible, and Paul used many similar phrases in his epistles. And even if in one version, a phrase is omitted in one passage, the same phrase is found in another book. Like Ephesians and Colossians.The argument of the newer translations is that a scribe inserted this phrase in one place because he is used to reading it in another. And so it went unnoticed. But it's ommision does not invalidate the truth contained in it as it is found in other passages.The bottom line is that all the manuscripts including the Alexandrian texts agree 98% and 9/10s of the 2% discrepancies are of typos and punctuation and spelling. and have little effect on its meaning.But I would add that there are some terrible translations out there. The new NIV has changed things of a doctrinal nature. They have changed the gender specific references to God as He or Him and replace them with, "He/She" And other such nonsense.Another notible example I found is changing the Word "forebearance" to "Tolorance". This is a doctrinal change. To forbear is to withhold judgement for a time to give space for repentance. To tolorate is to ignore and to accept and overlook. God forebears but He never tolorates.Graftedbranch

But I would add that there are some terrible translations out there. The new NIV has changed things of a doctrinal nature. They have changed the gender specific references to God as He or Him and replace them with, "He/She" And other such nonsense.Another notible example I found is changing the Word "forebearance" to "Tolorance".This is a doctrinal change. To forbear is to withhold judgement for a time to give space for repentance. To tolorate is to ignore and to accept and overlook. God forebears but He never tolorates.Glad you caught that Graftedbranch

There are (as far as I know) two different lines of texts of the New Testament, the Alexandrian and Byzantinian texts.There are known instances where scribes of the "early" Christian church would take viewpoints of the day and inscribe them into copies in order to better explain a verse or put in what they considered a very valuable insight into God's character. Kind of like sidenotes getting inscribed in. Other than being not quite proper, the actual variations are relatively minor. Throughout the bible, there are fewer discrepencies even in these texts than the most "historically reliable" materials we have ala the Illiad.As far as use of the NIV, etc., there are a few things to consider. The KJV attempted a literal translation into a modern tongue. The NIV is a more literal translation but was also written to "better explain" (or some might say "dumb down") and so is taken as a partial interpretation as well. This does make it less accurate. The most accurate bible according to modern scholars of language is the NASB '95 edition, which incorporates some of those same Byzantinian text bits with subnotes as well as several other identified discrepincies.As of note, the Alexandrian texts generally hold more true to each other - there are fewer discrepincies in the texts themselves, but are generally less complete. The Byzantinian texts are quite complete (all together) and we have more of them at our disposal (by far). There are differences in verses, but the vast majority of differences are based on spelling and gramatical errors (someone puts el instead of ed for example).Although I've been given bits and pieces in several locations, the most accessable and generally what I found to be a good reference would be A Ready Defence by Josh McDowell.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0840744196/103-3628924-0208629?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glanceIf all of my references weren't paper copies from different seminars and classes and all stored a goodly distance away, I'd post some of them for you (and have some really spiffy numbers). I've tried to find a good online source that has these uploaded, but I haven't had much luck yet.I really should find a graph with a lot of the translations in terms of their respect to language. The lines of "accuracy" are more a distinguishing of "literal" vs. "interpreted" and the balance your bible uses. In that respect, the KJV is more linguistically accurate than the NIV. Like the Message is a complete interpretation (and should be handled as such.) The KJV falls below the "common" translations of the NASB ('95 ed., the older is less accurate) and the ASB.

I was once die hard KJV, but for readability and understanding I have diversified. Has anyone come across error in the ESV. When reading in parallel with the KJV, ASV, Amplified and others, I find it to be accurate (or at least as accurate as the others), when compared to the KJV. I for one do not do/use NIV, NLT, the Message.Anyone familiar with Interlinear Scripure Analyzer

There is definitely a problem concerning some modern translations. I myself don't like the "interpreted" versus the "translated ones". There's a chart that I've seen that talks about differing versions, and how they were translated. While some, like NAS strive to be a more word-for-word translation, NIV is a little more phrase-for-phrase, while some go so far as to change the names of people, so as not of "offend" readers, like Oxford's Inclusive Language Version, or change the text to interpret what the translator thinks the writer might have meant.http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/index.phpBut going back to the original texts, the fact that there are such differences between translations should speak volumes. If what the NIV translators wrote in their footnotes is true, then KJV should be considered a corrupted version. Likewise, if texts that are used, like the Vaticanus B are corrupt, then translation that use them should be watched a little more carefully when studying doctrine.I guess on a personal note, I memorize scripture in KJV for two reasons. (1)Most "christian" cults use KJV, (2)The old-time language seems to perk listeners ears, sounding more authoritative.Outside of that, I like to read NIV, but study using NAS. Now, I don't know much about the history of translations, but hearing so much speculation and uneducated opinion thrown into the mix, I want to find some truth to stand on.Grace and Peace...Grace and Peace...

I have a question: If you are KJV only... what does that mean for non-english countries?

I have a question: If you are KJV only... what does that mean for non-english countries?Ah so thats why the Lord gave me that I could read English! ;-) :-P

I'm a bit late to this discussion, although I suspect we have had it several times here on SI.I'm certainly no authority on ancient Biblical text but what i heard about the textus vaticanus (TV) predating the textus receptus (TR) was something like this:Your analogy showing the bad logic of 'older is better' is accurate but the quotation above needs a bit of tweaking. The Vatican Codex is an actual manuscript held in the Vatican. The 'Textus Receptus' is NOT a manuscript. The definitive 'Textus Receptus' does not exist anywhere. (and I am a TR man!)Modern translations beging with someone compiling a Greek text from many Greek manuscripts (just talking about the NT here) These texts are usually called 'eclectic' which means 'gathered out' of many manuscripts. The first 'eclectic text' was created by Erasmus which became the prime text for early translations into the vernaculars of several European countries. Later this was 'improved' by StephensMaurice Robinson has writtenFor over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which texttype might be favored by any critic.[6] This undisputed bulk of the text reflects a common pre-existing archetype (the autograph), which has universal critical acceptance. In the remaining one-fifth of the Greek New Testament, the Byzantine/Majority Textform represents the pattern of readings found in the Greek manuscripts predominating during the 1000-year Byzantine era. Early printed editions of the Greek New Testament reflect a general agreement with the Byzantine-era manuscripts upon which they were based. Such manuscripts and early printed editions are commonly termed "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" documents, based upon the term applied to the Elzevir 1624 printed Greek edition. Other editions commonly termed "Textus Receptus" include the editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephens 1550, and Beza 1598. George Ricker Berry has correctly noted that "in the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus."The phrase 'Textus Receptus' has come to be used as a synonym for the Byzantine Textform, but this is NOT a manuscript but an 'eclectic text', in other words, a compiled Greek text created by textual scholars.

I have a question: If you are KJV only... what does that mean for non-english countries?I have 'discussed' some of these topics with individuals here on SI who tell me I must not 'correct' the King James Version by referring to the Greek text!Although 'foreign translations' cannot be 'KJV' they can be based on the Byzantine textform and so become local 'equivalents' of the KJV in their own language. Most modern translations both English and 'other' are now not based on the Byzantine textform.

It's not exactly a 'comparison chart' but you can use Michael Marlowe's Comparison to compare the different 'editors'.

Hi Graftedbranch...!I have been on both sides of the KJV only debate. What has kept me from embracing the KJV only position is the circular arguments and logic which are usually employed.The KJV is an excellent translation. But it is only a translation and if you read the preface to the 1611 KJV you will see the translators themsleves considered it to be "a better translation" than the previous "good translations" and the argued that "any translation no matter how mean, is still the word of God".And all the arguments the translators of the 1611 KJV put forth to produce their translation are argued against by those who see any attempt to make a better one as a corruption of the "perfect Word of God".But the underlyng Textus Receptus which was compiled by Erasmus is a composit of all the known existing manuscripts of that day. IN subsequent years many older text were uncovered including the infamous "Vatacanus B" which are Alexandrian in origen, but many feel they are corrupted and therefore unreliable.What strikes the strongest nerve in the KJV only andherents is the lists of verses of all the modern translations compared to the King james Version. They use the KJV as the standard, show all the verses in the others where a word or phrase is "ommited" and thereby conclude that they are corruptions of the Word of God which they define as the King James Version. Well said. I prefer to use the currently accepted edition of the King James Version (from 1769). It is the most widely used version, and the bulk of all study aids from the past are geared around it. However, I still use other academic translations -- like the NASV, and (gulp) even the NIV (1978). The ease of use, present-day english used, and the "scrutinizable accuracy" is acceptable to me. The Word of God is indeed perfect. But all translations -- including the King James Version -- are flawed. Why? Because they were created by flawed (although well-meaning) men. That is why I pray about the verses and passages that I read. The Spirit is more than able to lead us and guide us into all truth.What bothers me the most about this issue are the believers that immediately pass judgment upon or dismiss those believers that are not KJV-only. I am certain that many of such believers feel that they are doing a service for the Lord. They feel that they "know" the certainty of this issue, and refuse to accept the notion that their research may not be totally accurate -- or may be slightly "nearsighted." I "listen" to both "sides" in this debate -- but I do not blindly accept the argument of either.:-)

I have 'discussed' some of these topics with individuals here on SI who tell me I must not 'correct' the King James Version by referring to the Greek text!Yes, one wonders how those in other contries which do not speak English get on without the "Pure Words of God" contained in the 1611 King James Bible.I suppose only a translation of the King James Bible is acceptable with no aids from the Greek manuscripts.Graftedbranch

Does anyone know of any modern translations that are based on the Textus Receptus? My experience has been that there are none. Are there any other translations,besides the KJV, that are?Thanks,Billy

Does anyone know of any modern translations that are based on the Textus Receptus? My experience has been that there are none. The Modern KJV by Jay P. Green Sr is based on the Byzantine Textform. It is available for most Bible software and in a printed version. It also tries to be a more 'literal equivalence' translation.There is a full explanation of the MKJV and its philosophy here.

So, there's really no way to know which texts are more original? Grace and Peace...

So, there's really no way to know which texts are more original? The whole discipline of 'Textual Criticism' is concerned with this very issue. It simply means a reasoned approach to ascertaining what the original 'autographs' (the copy in Paul's own handwriting etc) actually said. This discipline can be very subjective in its development which is why many are deeply suspicious of the philosophy behind the various scholars who engage in this work.If you have two manuscripts which have the slightest difference you are immediately launched on a study of which is the better. If you have 3 manuscripts which differ slightly you have the added possiblities and even the possibility that none of them is completely accurate. You then have to say which is likely to be closest to the originals. Some scholars say the longer version is likely to be the more accurate, some say the shorter version and some say the middle one! If a single word is different in all three you then ask the questions about which is the most likely original or which is the most likely mistake that a copyist may have made.This is a very complicated study process and godly men have sometimes come to different conclusions about this. I have studied the topic over many years but not intensively. I understand it sufficiently to follow some of the more complicated arguments. But it is a highly technical field of study and pretty difficult for most to follow precisely.

Hey philologos,Can you tell me what the difference of the NKJV and the MKJV is? The page you quoted didn't mention the NKJV. I already know that those are not the same.