My understanding was that the New KJV was (substantially) translated from the same texts as the old KJV and that was the ground of its claim to be a "New" KJV.

As other correspondents have pointed out most of the other modern versions are done (substantially) from a different family of texts.

However this is not exclusively so. Translation committees consult all of the texts available in the process of translation - as well as other textual sources such as writings of ancient church leaders and so on.

In actual fact the differences between the families are slight and the study of textual criticism shows where the differences emerged in a convincing way.

I have, on occasion, ended up in discussions on the net with people criticising modern translations and holding up the KJV as the ideal. While I greatly respect the KJV, in every case I have debated the modern translations were actually a far more literal translation than the KJV - especially the NIV and the New American Standard. What I would do is go back to the KJV and use my Youngs concordance (based on the KJV). Young gives a literal translation of the Greek or Hebrew word as well as the way it is translated in the KJV. Often words are translated several different ways in the KJV, most of them not the actual literal translation. As I say, in every case I have debated the modern translations were far more literal than the KJV.

One cannot hold up as an ideal something that is not an accurate translation in itself.


John B