The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Any places the KJV is more accurate than modern translations?

I ordered the Proper Name KJV.

https://namepublishers.com

In addition to using God’s name instead of LORD, it replaces the thou, thee, etc with modern English words. I’m aware that the KJV doesn’t use the oldest manuscripts (and I’ve crossed out textual additions in my NKJV that were made by scribes). Are there any places where the KJV gives a more accurate translation than modern Bible versions like the ESV, NASB, and NKJV?

There may be, but there are none of which I am aware.

@davo what do you think of KJV?

It particularly makes Christ look as majestic as possible. Taken from the textus receptus , I think a combination of manuscripts. Also I think leaned heavily on the Geneva bible. I have a KJV & NIV & NKJV & ESV.

The TR is newer (and therefore less reliable IMO), but as I noted in the OP, at least WRT to the NT I have a book that points all the places words were added in later manuscripts.

My inquiry is about translated syntax and semantics in the verses that are in both the TR and older manuscripts/fragments.

It’s ok… I prefer my NKJV in that it drops all the archaic thee’s & thou’s. However, I find comparing translations helps generate different thoughts that you don’t always get when sticking religiously to one particular version.

1 Like

This guy thinks the KJV is slightly more literal than ESV

What is meant by asking whether the AV (Authorized Version, that is, King James Version) is more accurate in places? Are you asking whether it is a better translation of the Greek in places?

But then the question arises: “Which Greek?”

The King James Version was translated from Textus Receptus. Erasmus was the author of 5 published editions of Textus Receptus in the years from A.D. 1516 to A.D. 1535. Thus based on this Greek text, the AV translators rendered John 1:18 as:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

For “the only begotten Son” the King James translators correctly rendered the Greek phrase
“ὁ μονογενης ὑιος” from Textus Receptus (except the Greek was all in upper-case letters with no punctuation marks).

However, there are two manuscripts prior to 300 A.D. that contain John 1:18.

Papyrus 66, dated about the middle of the second century (around 150 A.D.) has “ὁ μονογενης θεος” (the only begotten God) .

Papyrus 75, dated in the late second century (perhaps around 180 A.D.) has “ὁ μονογενης θεος”. Thus both these manuscripts clearly have “the only begotten God”.

These early dated manuscripts suggest that the apostle John wrote “the only begotten God” in John 1:18. If so, then the King James translators had it wrong, only because they translated from a later Greek manuscript that had it wrong.

So no wonder that the translators of the NASB, considered the pre-300 texts to be correct and thus translated John 1:18 as:

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

By the way, Sinaiticus also has “μονογενης θεος” (only-begotten God)

The Son of God, begotten before all ages, was the only begotten God. God the Father was unbegotten.

Not only that, but also if it’s a better translation of the Hebrew in the OT.