Darkness to Light Home Page

Books and eBooks by the Director

Comments on Bible Versions
(1999)

Below are assorted, short e-mails I received in 1999 on the items listed at Bible Versions Controversy. The e-mailers’ comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.


>Dear Gary,

I have been looking diligently for a hard copy of the Young's Literal Translation for sometime and have been in contact with Baker Book House recently regarding this quest. As of approximately 2 to 3 weeks age, I was informed by one of their salesman that the president of the company, Mr. Baker, okayed the printing of 5000 copies of the Young's Literal Translation to be completed sometime between now and march of 2000. It is my understanding that they will be paperbacks.

Needless to say, this was wonderful information to receive, and I am sorry to have not gotten the information to you and other interested parties until now. I will pass on any more information I receive on this subject as soon as I get it. Keep up the good work and may the Lord's providential blessing be upon you.

Robert
12/7/1999<

Thanks for the info. It is good to hear.


>Dear Gary,

Again, I would just like to extend my gratitude to you for having such a wonderfully informative website. It has proven to be very valuable in my recent inner struggle to find a new Bible.<

I am thankful my site has been of help to you.

> I have been using a paraphrase and I cannot bear it's diluted message any longer. I am very interested in picking up a hardcopy of the Literal translation you so highly recommend at least for study purposes. The only problem is that I have gone to 2 different Bible bookstores to find one but to no avail. My question is therefore; Where do you get it?<

The LITV can be ordered directly from Books-A-Million.

> The bookstore had nothing in it's computer about a "Literal Translation." (One woman I talked to was so misinformed that she recommended the NIV to me on the grounds that scholars have deemed it quite literal! This shows how important your ministry is!!)<

So much for informed salespeople!

> Aside from that I would like to know why there has not been a new version published that takes care of so many of the problems I read about on your website even with the NKJV. Why can't someone simply translate a Bible word for word in English based on the most realiable texts available whether they be the MT or CT + the Sead Sea Scrolls or whatever? Isn't this what you hope to accomplish in your ALT? I hope so. God bless and Thanks again.

Paul
11/30/1999<

A strictly word for word version would be very difficult to read. Yes, I am trying as much as possible to make the Analytical-Literal Translation a truly literal version, while still having it be as readable as possible. But it is difficult. You'll find some places in the ALT where the text is simply awkward. It is so as the Greek is hard to render in readable English. In a few instances I have had to deviate somewhat from a strictly word for word translation for readability sake. Until one actually translates the Greek text the difficulties are hard to explain.

That said, I do hope the ALT will be as readable for the average person while being as literal as a translation can get. In the meantime, the LITV is also a very literal version, that is still rather readable.


>What a great site! I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the wealth of well informed, even-handed information about textual criticism of the Bible you have made available on the web. Even though I don't agree with all of your conclusions (I'm very happy with my heavily annotated NRSV), it seems that you are one of the very few who is willing to present information on this topic without slanting it heavily in one direction or another. Very rarely while reading your articles on textual criticism and version comparison did I feel I was being *led* to a certain conclusion. I most often felt that the facts were being laid before me, with equal time for differing opinions, and the decision would be left to me and (given the subject matter) my relationship with God.

Interesting that I happened upon your site just as I was about to shout curses at my computer for offering up only biased, argumentative and alarmist pages.

Thank you again for your work,
David
11/17/1999<

Thank you for the very kind comments


>My main focus and I need your assistance desperately is the differences in the KJV and the other translations that take away the "power" and the "glory" that we were commissioned to accomplish and act with.

For instance in the Lord's prayer in the KJV it says "deliver us from evil." In other versions it says "deliver us from the evil one," instilling the deceiver into the Lord’s Prayer.

Is there any comparisons with line by line examples that are available and where are they on the Internet?

God Bless you brother for your steadfastness and your wisdom in these matters.

Your brother in Christ,
Timothy
10/17/1999<

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but as for "evil" vs. "the evil one" the reason for the difference is the Greek text has "the evil." It is rather ambiguous. The KJV leaves off the article ("the"), while some other translations take the article as indicating the word "evil" is to be taken as a substantive (a noun or title). Hence, "the evil one." Either rendering is possible.

As for where to compare different versions on the 'Net, see the sites listed on the following page of my site: Bibles Online.


>Hi Gary:

I picked up a copy of The Republic by Plato that is newly translated by Alan Bloom University of Chicago, author of The Closing of the American Mind) a few months ago at a discount bookstore. I finally got around to reading the intro and this reminded me of some of the stuff on translation prin. at your WEB site. He starts out his intro by extolling a very literal translation of Aristotle into Latin that was used by Aquinas and states "Aquinas ... became a supreme interpreter of Aristotle without knowing Greek." His goal is to do for Plato what that translator did for Aristotle.

Dr Bloom then goes on to compare his methods of translation to what is currently the most popular translation by a guy named "F. M. Cornford." Who would have guessed that the most popular version is the Plato version of the NIV! Bloom says of Cornford "...whose translation is now the one most widely used, ridicules literal translation and insists that it is often misleading, or tedious, or grotesque and silly, or pompous and verbose.' "

I thought you might get a kick out of the fact that "translation wars" are not restricted to the Bible. Dr. Bloom also does a "verse by verse" comparison between his version and that of Cornford. He says you cannot follow the principles laid down in Plato because of the thought translaton. The work looses its continuity because the same words are translated differently based on the whims of the translator.

Lance
10/15/1999<

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.


>Hi Gary,

I don't know if you might remember, but I wrote to you previously about how Thomas Nelson Publishers was considering publishing a Majority Text-based edition of the New King James Version of the Holy Bible. Just as a follow-up, I recently received the following (attached) e-mail from Thomas Nelson on that subject ... sadly, it appears that they will not in fact produce such an edition.

In the Spirit,
Jon
9/18/1999

-- Forwarded Message --

Thank you for your recent inquiry.

Our publishing committee has considered publishing a New Testament from the Majority Text; however, we have currently decided that we will not pursue that project at this time. Thank you for your suggestion and we will continue to seek ways to best produce the Word of God.

Bible Editorial Department
Thomas Nelson Publishers


>Gary:

Greetings! May I ask if you know of a web site that lists which Greek Text (CT/TR/MT, etc) the various English versions were translated from and what method was used (formal, dynamic, etc)? Thank you for your kind attention.

Gordon
7/8/1999<

There are several such sites. I have links to them on my Bible Versions links page. The site BibleVersions.com is particularly good, if it's finished by now. The last time I looked it was still in progress. But there are others also listed.


>Dear Mister Zeolla,

Did you now that the Southern Baptist are making a new translation of the Bible? It will be called the Christian Standard Version. The primary reason it is being made is a growing discontent among evangelicals over the NIV. According to what I read the translation will be as literal as the NASB and as readable as the NIV.<

Someone sent me information on this version before. It did look interesting. But the info said they would be using the "latest research in textual criticism" which probably, though wrongly, means the CT. But since Farstad (the late founder of the MT Society) started the project it's hard to be sure. I would have to see the text to be sure.

Also, according to the previous info I received, the name of the version will actually be the Christian Standard Bible (CSB).

>Also, what is your take on the gender neutral Bible issue?

Love in Christ,
Gabriel
6/10/1999<

Basically, the text should be as "gender neutral" as the Hebrew and Greek texts allow; but under no circumstances should a masculine term be changed to make it inclusive (e.g., changing "he" to "they"). For more details, see the question on this subject on the ALT: FAQ page, along with relevant terms in the ALT: Glossaries. These items are listed at ALT: Background Pages.


> Dear Mr. Zeolla,

Recently in the bibletools discussion list, your name and email address were given as a source for a document entitled Differences Between Bible Versions. Would you please send it to me? ....

Thank you
Art
6/5/1999<

It's so nice to know someone's talking about me somewhere! I sure hope it was in a "good" context!

But seriously, Differences Between Bible Versions is the title of a small book I wrote several years ago. The book is no longer in print. However, updated versions of all of the chapters of the book are posted as separate articles on my site. They are listed at Bible Versions Controversy. The pages with the word "book" in the URL are from my little book.


> Dear Mr. Zeolla,

Since my preferred translation is the NKJV, my interest has been piqued by your site and I have read much it with interest.

As an English teacher of thirty-four years' experience (retired), I wonder if you know this very interesting tidbit. In 1611, William Shakespeare was forty six years old. In Psalm 46 (KJV), the 46th word from the beginning is "shake," and the 46th word from the end is "spear." I know Shakespeare to have been a very clever fellow who delighted in creating delicious little mysteries.

Is this an accident? It is too "coincidental" for me to think so. But how could Shakespeare have imbedded his name in the Bible. I'm no historian of the KJV, but if I were king, and I had someone like the Bard on my payroll, who would I get to polish my new version of the Bible?

If you can debunk this theory, fine. If not, perhaps it is simply a delicious piece of trivia. Or is it simply too exact to be an accident? I'd appreciate your conclusions, if indeed you think this matter worthy of investigation.

I wish you God's peace.
John
5/29/1999<

You are correct in your observation. I first found out about this phenomena when reading Arthur Farstad's book, The New King James Version in the Great Tradition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993).

According to Farstad, Shakespeare was consulted in the final stages of the translation of the Book of Psalms for the KJV. And it was as a "tribute" to him that the KJV translators "hid" his name in Ps 46. The "trick" also works with the NKJV.


>Hello, I will make this short. I am looking for a Young's Literal Translation. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
David
5/21/1999<

If you're looking for it in hardcopy format you're out of luck. YLT was re-published by Baker a while ago but it is now out of print. I tried getting it through Amazon.com but even they couldn't find it for me.

However, it is widely available in digital form. Several different Internet-based Bibles have it, along with Bible software programs like the Online Bible. I have links to such sites on the following page of my site: Bibles Online.


>Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time that you spent looking. I have been looking for three months now, with no luck. Now I am starting to look for old book stores in Europe. Thanks again for your help.

David
5/23/1999<


> Dear Mr. Zeolla

Do you know how to contact the Lockman Foundation so as to express to them my concern that they edit the New American Standard Version with the Majority Text to make it more accurate.

Love in the name of the Almighty Lord;
Gabriel<

I don't know how successful you'd be with such suggestion; but it's worth a try!

The e-mail address is: nasb@lockman.org.

The "snail mail" address is:
The Lockman Foundation
900 S. Euclid St.
La Habra, CA 90631

>P.S. Let me make it know to you that because of you and David Englesma of the Protestant Reformed Church I have come over from Arminianism to Calvinism as being Scriptural.

5/6/1999<

Glad to help to you "see the light!" : )


>Hi Gary:

For a very good early (1983) review of the NKJV, check out this link.<

Thanks. I will check it out.

>This is a very good article, except for the inexplicable statement, "In spite of other good and accurate versions, the nine BMA Seminary professors who worked on this study do not recommend any substitute for the 1769 version of the 1611 King James Bible", despite the fact that the NKJV gets an "A" rating.

In Christ,
Chris
5/18/1999<

That is rather "inexplicable" but understandable coming from what must be KJV-only folks. But if they are, it is even more "inexplicable" that they would give any version other than the KJV an "A" rating!


>Dear Gary,

Why was the Apocrypha included in the 1611 KJV? What year was it dropped out of the Bible?

Your friend,
Ed
4/16/1999<

I cannot say for sure why it was included. Probably out of tradition. The Apocrypha had been included in the Vulgate, although against Jerome's protests, back in the late 300's. Whether it was Scripture or not was debated all along, but it was at least included, though often in a separate section in many translations of the Bible after that.

It was in 1629 that the KJV was first offered either with or without the Apocrypha (Farstad. Arthur L. The New King James Version in the Great Tradition. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993, p.24).


> Hi... I know you are busy but if you have time could you please tell me what you think about The Message by Eugene H. Peterson... Do you consider this in the same group as the NIV or the Living Bible... I have always used the NKJV but I was wondering about The Message...(I know as of now The Message is only NT, Proverbs and Psalms but he is suppose to be working on the OT).

Thanks for your time...
Rodney
4/7/1999<

The Message would definitely be in the same class as the LB. It is paraphrase done by one person. As such, IMO, it should not be called a "translation" or a "Bible" at all. It is one man's opinion on what the Bible means. So, at best, it should be called a commentary.

I've haven't studied The Message enough to say whether it is a good or poor commentary; but personally, I would prefer just to use a real commentary rather than one masquerading as a Bible. But if you're going to use it, recognize it for what it is, and is not: a commentary not a translation.


> Thanks Gary....

Rodney
4/10/199<


> Dear Gary:

Just a note to tell you I've been thoroughly enjoying your web site, especially several of your articles on the reliability of the MT and NKJV bible. I appreciate your scholarship and willingness to discuss your findings and the viewpoints of others, and publish them for the rest of us.<

Thank you for the kind comments.

>My wife and I have a burden for persecuted Christians. It seems to me (from Bible society web pages) that foreign language translations of the Bible/NT pretty much use the United Bible Societies' Alexandrian-text type Greek NT.<

You are probably correct. Moreover, they also generally use a dynamic equivalency or "meaning"-based" translation method rather than formal equivalency. As such, I would have a hard time supporting such groups like Wycliffe and the American Bible Society.

> I'd really like to locate publishers that use instead the Majority text for the basis of their translation work, as I'd like to be able to take such translations with us overseas to restricted areas (especially the Middle East and Asia) and/or make them available via Internet web-pages (especially online versions). Do you know, offhand, of any groups or publishers that would supply these materials?<

The only one I can think of would bed the Trinitarian Bible Society. I believe it generally uses the Textus Receptus. But I'm not sure on its translation methodology nor of its address. Maybe an internet search would turn something up.

>Also, what are your views on the "Bible codes" research that's reported widely? I know Yacob Rambsell and Grant Jeffrey are 2 Christian researchers of note. I'm particularly interested if the Bible code effect found in the OT is seen in the Masoretic text underlying the NKJV; I'd heard it is not found in the version(s) underlying the NIV and other "non-KJV" OTs. Also, if any such research has been done on the NEW TESTAMENT Greek texts.<

I haven't really studied the issue; but my initial reaction is one of skepticism. Also, I don't believe there is any significant difference between the Hebrew text underlying the KJV/ NKJV and other versions. But I'm not really familiar with OT textual criticism. I don't know of any such "research" being done on the NT.

> Any thoughts you might have on these, or pointers to additional resources, would be welcome.<

The above isn't much; but I hope it's at least a start.

>God bless you, Gary, and thank you for your faithful labors. They are a real encouragement.

Sincerely,
L.G.
4/5/1999<

Thank you again for the kind comments.


> After reading your articles about Majority vs Critical Text, I was wondering where you stand as to the validity of the KJV.<

I believe the KJV is a good Bible version, provided one can understand the Elizabethan English. But I am completely opposed to any kind of "KJV-onlyism." Basically, I would recommend any version that follows a "formal equivalence" translation principles and is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) or Majority Text (MT). I also prefer a version which uses modern day English. This would include my two favorite versions, the NKJV and LITV, along with, of course, my own translation, the Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT).

> Many and most great revivals in the last 2-300 years have been based around the doctrines propigated by the Majority text versions.<

For the record, the KJV is based on the TR. The TR is very similar to, but not identical to, the MT. It is with the "Critical Text" (CT) that more significant differences can be seen.

> Any denomination using other "new" Bibles (RSV, NIV) either began or were already heading toward worldliness in some form(s).<

I don't know if a direct one-to-one correspondence can be made towards the overall quality of a church and the Bible version it uses. But I do know I would not attend a church where a version like the NIV was the primary version utilized.

> After your obvious exhaustive research, can you conclusively nail down which text you would say is "God-breathed and Inspired"? I know there are several versions based on the Majority texts that adhere in entireity to basic Bible doctrines. (I am not KJV only, just Majority text only) DO all versions contain Scripture or is there one or several versions that are totally reliable?

Please answer.
P.C.
3/31/1999<

I personally prefer the MT over the TR or CT. I believe the MT is the closest we can get to the originals (probably about 99.8% accurate). The TR differs from the MT about 1-2% and the CT about 3-4%. So even with the CT you still have a text that is at least 96% accurate. Moreover, out of the differences, the majority are insignificant and wouldn't even should up in translation.

But there are some significant differences, especially as I said, between the MT/ TR vs. the CT. How severe these differences are is a matter of great debate. Personally, I think the more important question is the style used to the translate the Bible: i.e. formal equivalence (or word for word translating) vs. dynamic equivalence (or thought for thought translating). I discuss the differences in detail on my site.

The reason this is more significant is, the textual issue only affects those verses with variants whereas the style of translating affects every verse in the Bible. And personally, I have no use whatsoever for DE type of translating.

In other words, I believe a version like the NASB (FE-CT) has greater value than say the NIV (DE-CT). In fact, the NASB is one of the versions I am comparing as I am working on the ALT as its handling of tenses is rather good, even better than the NKJV. But I wouldn't waste my time even looking at the NIV.

Putting all of the above together, and I hope answering your question, I don't believe there is or ever can be one "perfect" Bible version. Some are definitely better than others. Some such as the NKJV I recommend wholeheartedly; others like the NASB can have some value, but with reservations; but others, like the NIV, I would never recommend.

For my own translation I am using a FE or literal method of translating. It is currently based on the TR but I will eventually be changing to the MT, while footnoting the TR readings. So that should give you an idea of how I think things should be done.


> Gary,

Thanks for the site. I have never come across [such] a balanced and unbigotted site which presents the facts in a reasonable way. After reading I am tending to the versions you suggest and for the same reasons. This site achieved what a thousand KJV-only sites could never do through their illogical rhetoric.

Thanks again,
David
3/19/1999<

Thank you for the kind comments. And I am thankful I could be of help.


>Good morning, Gary:

Thank you for your informative web site, which I trust will assist many, many people.<

You're welcome, and thank you for the kind comments.

>I would like to ask a question that I have never been able to find an answer: The King James Version has many italicized words in it. Please tell me, friend, why these words are italicized.

Thank you for your assistance.
David
12/25/1999<

The italicized words indicate words which are not translations of actual Hebrew or Greek words but which were added by the translators for clarity. The same format is seen in the NKJV, NASB, and some other versions. Some versions bracket such words instead of using italics. While others, like the NIV, don't bother to distinguish between added words and original words.

Although it can be a little more awkward, I prefer using the brackets. Today, italics are generally used to emphasize words, which is the exact opposite of what the KJV translators had in mind. The words should receive little if any emphasis. They are simply there to make the text read more naturally in English.

I hope that helps.


>Sometime ago, I read somewhere that St. John had gathered all the letters of the other apostles and then had copies made by his followers in Antioch. After that, some copies stayed in Antioch which later were used for the KJV. While other copies were sent to Alexandria where they became the Alexandrian families of Bibles.

Can you please guide me into where, I can re-find this information.

2/10/1999<

This is a new one to me. Sounds like an apocryphal story, or maybe on invented by KJV-Onlyists. The closest I have heard to it is the mention by a church father (I forget which) that "bishop" Onesimus gathered together the epistles of Paul.

Whether this is the same Onesimus mentioned in the epistle to Philemon is not sure. But it would explain how such a seemingly "unimportant" and personal epistle like Philemon was include in the Pauline Corpus. But, as far as I know, that is the only mention of a specific person gathering together books of the NT in the first century.


> I was wondering what you thought about the New Living Translation? I kind of picked up your opinion on the paraphrase Living Bible while reading about NAS95, but more info would be nice. Also, do you disregard all paraphrases? I feel that these books, while definitely not good for scholarly study of the Bible, do present intriguing interpretations which can help when studying a true translation. What do you think? ...

Thank you for excellent information!

Michael
2/7/1999<

As for the NLT, I have had questions on it; but right now I do not have a copy of it so I really cannot comment. However, when the upgrade for my BibleWorks program comes out (due sometime within the next month) it is supposed to have the NLT on it. So maybe then I will do a review of it similar to the one on the NAS95.

As for using paraphrases for their "intriguing interpretations" - this would be a legitimate use provide one recognizes that is in fact what they are, one person's opinion on what God MEANT by what He SAID and not actual translations of what He said. In other words, it would be the same as using a commentary. Personally I would prefer to use a real commentary though.

It does bother me, however, that paraphrases are sold as if they are real Bibles rather than the commentaries that they are.


> Dear Mr. Zeolla how accurate is the Old Testament of the New American Standard Version? I know that the NT is quite inaccurate compared to the NKJV and KJV since it is based on an inferior Greek text.<

Your servant in Christ;
Gabriel
2/5/1999<

Translation wise, the NASB is rather good in both Testaments. As you say, there is a problem with the NT due to the use of the Critical Text. The original NASB (NAS77) did have a problem in the OT in the use of archaic language. But this has been updated in the new version (NAS95).

As I say in the review of the NAS95 I recently posted, if it wasn't for the Greek text used, I would add it to my "recommended" list. As it is, it still is good for comparison purposes. If you haven't seen it, the review is posted at: NAS95: A Review.


I received the following, forwarded letter from a reader.

>To: Bible Editorial Department, Thomas Nelson Publishers,

Thanks for a wonderful translation of the Bible in the NKJV version! I was wondering though, if Thomas Nelson might ever produce a Majority Text (MT) edition of the NKJV? That is, to integrate the readings of the Majority Text instead of the readings of the Textus Receptus into the New Testament? I would imagine that this would not take much time, expense, or effort, because the MT readings are already included in footnotes in the NKJV text.

Personally I know many people who would be interested in purchasing a MT edition of the NKJV, but would not now in light of the fact that the NKJV NT is only based on a handful of documents. I hope Thomas Nelson would consider producing a MT version of the NKJV! Thanks!

Sincerely,
Jon
1/21/1999<

Jon said he received a reply back from TN saying producing a MT version of the NKJV was "under consideration." If anyone would like to encourage TN in this direction, the e-mail address to send to is: editorial@nelsonbibles.com


> I have fully enjoyed reading the items on your web site (although I have yet to finish them all). I stumbled upon it while searching for a site that could explain the differences in the various English translations of the Bible (I wore out my RSV, and will probably replace it with a NASB '95).

If you haven't seen it yet, I recently posted a review of the NAS95. It is located at: NAS95: A Review.

> The lack of intelligent and insightful Christians has always bothered me, but your articles have shown that there are still many who can look at things in an intelligent manner, but still realize that we believe by faith, not intelligence (I have found few Christians who are willing to admit that out Bibles have been influenced by those who translated/wrote them).

May God continue to bless your efforts, and may you continue to enjoy the work you do for Him, out of love for His Son.

Michael
1/27/1999<

Thank you for the kind comments.


>I thought I would never convert from the KJV to another translation, but I have-the NKJV! I have you to thank for my change of mind.

First, I have spent over a year comparing translations and studying various sides of the debate concerning the "Bible version controversy" and have come to the conclusion that that the Majority Text is to be preferred over the Critical Text.

Second, I believe the Literal Translation is the best available translation of the Received Text, but even it is not perfect (I believe Green is coming out with a major revision in March). However, the Received Text is grossly inferior to the Majority Text and the Critical Text in the book of Revelation, as I explained in an earlier letter [see Greek Texts and the Revelation].

Third, although Green's Literal Translation may be the best translation of the RT, it has too few helps to be of much value in serious individual or group study. Therefore, I have selected the NKJV as my primary Bible and the LITV as my secondary Bible.

Finally, there are very strong arguments on both sides of the CT/MT debate that properly will not be resolved until another major discovery of New Testament manuscripts are found. Due to the abundance of helps (dictionary, concordances, study Bible, etc.) and its excellent footnotes, the NKJV is the overall best translation available.

Greg
1/16/1999<

I am thankful I could be of help in you decision on Bible versions and related issues. It sounds like you came to your decision to use the NKJV primarily and the LITV secondarily for many of the same reason I did. May God bless you in your Bible studies.


>Gary: I want first to thank you for providing all the information you have on your site. I have gained much valuable information. <

I am thankful you have found my site helpful.

> Second, I need to know every difference between Scrivener's TR and Robinson and Pierpont's MT [Byzantine Majority Text]. Can you tell me where I can find that info.

Thanks
Walt
1/4/1999<

There used to be a Web page that listed all the differences. But I just tried to check for it and it no longer exists. So the best I can recommend is the textual footnotes in the NKJV. It is based on the TR but footnotes differences between the TR and the MT. Actually, The NKJV Interlinear (edited by Arthur Farstad and published by Thomas Nelson) has even more textual footnotes than the NKJV, except it is the reverse: it is based on the MT and footnotes differences with the TR.


>Thanks very much Gary. I have a copy of the NKJV interlinear, and it has exactly what I was looking for.<

Glad to be of help.

>What would be very interesting to me would be a parallel Greek NT showing, verse by verse, each of the significant Greek textforms (in interlinear format); perhaps using color to indicate common words verses a specific textform. This would be a very graphic, and easy-to-follow way to make comparisons. Having to jump to footnotes to see differences is very distracting for me.<

That would be interesting. I don't know of anything currently like it.

>I may write Nelson Co. with the suggestion.

Walt
1/5/1999<

It's worth a try.


>I am doing some research on the 1769 KJV. I was hoping that you could direct me to information as to how this version/edition was put together. I am particularly trying to find out if the 1769 is a *translation* or a mere edition. I have a "standard" (1769) KJV and a 1611 facsimile, and there are many differences, and I would like to find out what the 1769 editors were doing when they put together this version.

Deana
1/3/1999<

The book The New King James Version in the Grand Tradition by Arthur Farstad overviews the several different editions of the KJV (pp.24-26). Basically, yes the 1769 edition was just that, an edition not a new translation. Note, the 1769 edition was the last revision of the KJV. It was also updated in 1629, 1638, and 1762.

The first two were done by groups of scholars from Cambridge. The 1762 one by Dr. Thomas Paris and the 1769 one by Dr. Benjamin Blayney.

As Farstad writes about the 1762 edition, "The English language underwent many changes in spelling, punctuation, and grammar in the 150 yeas since the first edition of the KJV." The 1769 edition kept most of these changes and added a few more.

So it was mainly an updating of archaic word forms. But an occasional more significant change was made also. The following Web page details some of these more significant changes: KJV  Revision is no "Myth".

I hope that helps some.

Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light

Bible Versions Controversy: Yearly Comments
Bible Versions Controversy

Text Search      Alphabetical List of Pages      Subject Index
General Information on Articles      Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page
www.dtl.org

Books and eBooks by the Director