It depends on the quality. What discoveries have been made to imporve our knowlege and understanding of the textswhat have we learned about the ideas that the words in the Bible bring up to those who heard them back then and how can we bring about the same ideas to modern readers. Newer is better if it gets us better in touch with the older, a better picture of what the Bible means.

Earlier, Rosangela was referencing the LXX, or Septuagint, in order to support some of her points. I've been looking recently at how the LXX came about, and have run across some things which call it into question.

Here is a quote regarding its origin that I found online, just to introduce the issue.



Now, a few comments pertaining to the above.

1) Which is it, anyway? The LXX? or the LXXII? There is an obvious discrepancy of numbers here.
2) It is clear that the significance of translating the entire Old Testament in 72 days by 72 scholars is somewhat symbolic to the thinking of those involved--but was this planned for symbolic effect?
3) The passage indicates that scholars are at odds over the time periods of the actual translation.

From my own experience, I would have to say that the translation of the entire Old Testament in 72 days by 72 scholars is near impossible. It didn't happen. For this to have really happened, I think angels would have been doing the translating while their human servants did the transcribing.

The KJV translation supposedly had 70 scholars involved (there were a minimum of 47 who participated, with King James having appointed 54 men himself), and yet it took them at least seven years.

More on this later, and on how it ties in with the issue of the modern translations versus the KJV & Textus Receptus....

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, it gets worse.....

"The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.

In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine inspiration" of the entire Septuagint.

Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?



The verifiable facts:

The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.

The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.

The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!

The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.



New Testament Evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament..."

It seems just more Alexandrian text, but with a story to try to give authenticity.....

Now look at the following:
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

Now you have to remember the Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles).

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts found in the Septuagint, makes one think there was a organized effort to spread these corrupt text, I wonder.......

So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate these new revisions of modern versions. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put int the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a well laid trap, picking up Gnosticism phoilisophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? That is the question......

Indeed. Thank you Rick. Now, here is the rest of the story...from the Bible.

God saw this coming. And God prophesied against it! There is a prophecy in the Bible which should give us ample warning against the use of any "scriptures" that might come from Egypt.

First of all, let us clarify again that these so-called codices have all passed through Egypt. The Septuagint is supposedly made in Egypt. The Codex Alexandrinus is. Alexandria was an important Egyptian city. The entire "Egyptian Text" which is used in the making of all of our modern versions comes from Egypt.

But God warned the Jews, and by extension has warned us, against any scripture that should arise from Egypt. Look at the following prophecies.



What did the people have to fear of Pharaoh in Ezekiel's day? And what does the "sword" represent in the Bible? (See Hebrews 4:12.) God is saying that He would cause the Scriptures to fall out of Pharaoh's hand. But it gets even stronger in Jeremiah's writing.



The Jews were expressly commanded to stay out of Egypt! Should they go there, they would become an "execration" and a "reproach." They would become a "curse." All this, and more, has happened.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now as to the I John 5:7-8, commonly referred to as the Johannine Comma, here is a good overview:

"..The epistle of I John was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the Apostle John. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for John's Gospel which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. 85-90).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate New Testament writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of the First Epistle [I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:
It [I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]
The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the Gospel of John is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in John 10:30, when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in John 10:30.[5]Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. John 1:1).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" (I John 5:6).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism...."

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm

But I'm not sure that is a proper question. Just because it is different doesn't mean it's wrong or right. Just because our favorite verses may not really exist, doesn't mean leaving them out is wrong. What matters is whether it is correct, not whether it supports our belief system or not.

I have missed most of this discussion due to time constraints, but I heartily agree with this sentiment. Different does not necessarily mean wrong, as many KJV-only folks believe. And new does not necessarily mean better, as many pro-modern-translation folks believe. And older does not necessarily mean more accurate, as many pro-Westcott-Hort folks believe.

Correct is better.

Going back to what I was saying earlier about fasting, as an example of some of the differences, take a look at the following table.

King James' Version	New International Version
Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. (Matthew 15:32, KJV)	Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.” (Matthew 15:32, NIV)
The message is a little different in these two texts, though the difference is subtle. In the KJV rendition, it is implied that the people have been fasting already, and thus may "faint in the way." The NIV avoids the term "fasting" altogether and seems to speak as though the people had just run out of food yet have a bit of a journey ahead for which they have no stores. Ultimately, notice the aversion to the use of the word "fasting" in the NIV.
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21, KJV)	ENTIRE VERSE OMITTED IN NIV
It's pretty clear what the NIV did here, isn't it? Basically, the translators faced a dilemma. If they ommitted only the word "fasting," as they have done in some other places, it renders the translation almost ridiculous. After all, what is the difference between invoking Jesus' namewhen casting out demons and prayer? Anytime we call upon Jesus can be called prayer. So if it were to say "only by prayer," then the discipleswould have had a case with Jesus, for had they not called on Him? "Now in the name of Christ they commanded the torturing spirit to leave his victim; but the demon only mocked them by a fresh display of his power." (EGW)
And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. (Mark 8:3, KJV)	If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.” (Mark 8:3, NIV)
Again the NIV avoids the use of the word "fasting." Consider that "fasting" implies a voluntary action, whereas "hungry" is involuntary.
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29, KJV)	He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”(Mark 9:29, NIV)
The NIV translators went ahead and changed Christ's words here, probably so as not to draw undue attention to the fact that for Matthew 17:21they had omitted the entire verse. At least this time the leave half the message intact, however questionable it might seem.
And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. (Luke 2:37, KJV)	and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. (Luke 2:37, NIV)
The NIV turns the meaning of this verse into pure ridiculousness! The translators seem so worked up about eliminating all doctrine of "fasting" that they have overlooked the meaning they have now imposed upon the text! (They allow historical accounts of fasting, just not commandsor examples to fast.) How can a woman be a widow all her life until the age of 84?This one is hilarious! The KJV is clear that fasting is a part of worship. The NIV might also imply this, but seems to account for it by thefact that the woman never even left the temple, as if it were one long, continuous fast! (I have yet to meet anyone who can fast for that long--84 years--and then find a husband in that condition!) Or are they trying to say that her fast is of a different sort?
And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, (Acts 10:30, KJV)	Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me (Acts 10:30, NIV)
This is a fairly important passage with respect to clean and unclean definitions. Many people understand it to speak of foods. The reference to fasting, only in the KJV, shows the humility of Cornelius and helps the reader to understand the true meaning of the passage.
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23, KJV)	Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:23, NIV)
Since I've been quoting every single NT verse which uses the word "fasting" in the KJV, I went ahead and included this one. Both versions here record that they prayed and fasted. But this is not in command form, nor does it appear to necessarily recommend the custom. So the NIV translatorsleft it alone this time. The more interesting change in this verse is that related to the concept of "ordained." NIV avoided that term here.
And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing. (Acts 27:33, KJV)	Just before dawn Paul urged them all to eat. “For the last fourteen days,” he said, “you have been in constant suspense and have gone without food–you haven't eaten anything. (Acts 27:33, NIV)
Again, the NIV omits the word "fasting." In this particular case, it is unclear if the fast were on account of having no other option, or if it were voluntarily practiced. In either case, the NIV wastes no opportunity to shift to a different word.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Corinthians 7:5, KJV)	Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:5, NIV)
Here again, in their haste to eliminate the doctrine of fasting, the NIV translators have turned this verse into a ridiculous one.First of all, does one need to abstain from marital relations in order to pray? How much sense would that make? Secondly, when fasting asa part of one's worship to God, an individual will be keeping their thoughts pure and have a greater measure of self-control (theoretically).It would seem, then, inadvisable to cease relations unless devoting oneself more completely to God in this manner, lest he or she betempted as the text says. Now, notice what the NIV does with the meaning? This one gets reversed! Is it a "lack of self-control" to beable to refrain from marital relations while devoting time to God? The KJV, on the other hand, correctly speaks of the temptation which wouldresult from a lack of continuance in the marital relation. Whether or not one deems himself to have self-control, this text, in the KJV, servesto warn him against prolonging such a fast.
In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; (2 Corinthians 6:5, KJV)	in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; (2 Corinthians 6:5, NIV)
Again, no mention of fasting in the NIV--only the involuntary counterpart.
In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (2 Corinthians 11:27, KJV)	I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2 Corinthians 11:27, NIV)
Here, the KJV lists both the voluntary "fastings" and the involuntary "hunger and thirst." The NIV erases the voluntary form.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No comment on the doctrinal issue for now, but I must say that I like the table format very much.