Is the NIV or the KJV the truer word?

Wolftone said:

I was discussing things Biblical with Mrs Wolftone over breakfast this morning. I have always been a little concerned that the NIV is slightly too liberal a translation and I have always been worried that part of the word has been lost through innocent mistake. The NIV is, admittedly an easier read but read Psalm 23 from both editions and the KJV certainly is a prettier read.

Anyway, back to the point of the thread. We were discussing whether or not the commandment 'Thou shall not kill' is actually 'Thou shall not murder'. In the KJV it's 'thou shall not kill' and in the NIV it's 'You shall not murder'.

We decided that the NIV is actually a truer translation of the Hebrew than the old KJV on the basis that the commandment 'kill' contradicts God's own commands in various places throughout the Bible whereas 'Murder' doesn't.

Here's the clincher In the Hebrew Manuscript the word is “Ratsach” which means murder and NOT kill. I looked it up in a few places and the writer of the article is spot on.

This made total sense to me and illustrates the dangers of inaccurate translation. What about you?

Click to expand...

I have always accepted that the older NIV versions were more accurate because we have access to better translators, better documents, and more documents from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek sources than they did when the KJV was produced. However, the new NIV versions and especially the TNIV began a liberal crusade of gender neutrality that is in my opinion, extraordinarily grave. I cannot tolerate the new NIV versions tampering with eh word (even if it changes "mankind to humanity" and "man" to "person" in a couple dozen places. NIV84 is in my opinion very good.

However, as I said, it is very possible for newer original translations (those not based off of the KJV) to be far more accurate, provided they are translated in an unbiased manner.

The ESV and NASB both use "murder" in Exodus 20:13. The NASB has long been my favorite translation although I've been moving towards the ESV now.

ProudMomxmany said:

The ESV and NASB both use "murder" in Exodus 20:13. The NASB has long been my favorite translation although I've been moving towards the ESV now.

Click to expand...

ESV has been one of my favorites for a long time now. Very nice translation. I also love NKJV but between ESV and NKJV I feel they are both equally good and equally my favorite.

One thing I did not know until the last couple of years is that there are some serious flaws with some translations. I don't remember the exact verses discussed at this point but it was a matter of either adding one word or leaving one word out that totally changed the meaning to the point that atheists caught it and used it as ammunition against the authority of The Word. Conclusion: If something doesn't sound right in one translation, check another one. KJV is good but not perfect.

Wolftone said:

I was discussing things Biblical with Mrs Wolftone over breakfast this morning. I have always been a little concerned that the NIV is slightly too liberal a translation and I have always been worried that part of the word has been lost through innocent mistake. The NIV is, admittedly an easier read but read Psalm 23 from both editions and the KJV certainly is a prettier read.

Anyway, back to the point of the thread. We were discussing whether or not the commandment 'Thou shall not kill' is actually 'Thou shall not murder'. In the KJV it's 'thou shall not kill' and in the NIV it's 'You shall not murder'.

We decided that the NIV is actually a truer translation of the Hebrew than the old KJV on the basis that the commandment 'kill' contradicts God's own commands in various places throughout the Bible whereas 'Murder' doesn't.

Here's the clincher In the Hebrew Manuscript the word is “Ratsach” which means murder and NOT kill. I looked it up in a few places and the writer of the article is spot on.

This made total sense to me and illustrates the dangers of inaccurate translation. What about you?

Click to expand...

Hi wolftone,

I'm not sure I understand your position from what you post. You logically of your own mind say the word in the commandment should be 'kill' based on other places of Scripture, although I'm not sure what they would be, yet you wholly agree that the Hebrew word strictly means 'murder'.

So, what did you and the misses decide as to which translation is the more accurately translated version based on the word for word translating. I choose to use the claim 'accurately translated' since I believe that both translations are just as 'true'

As you pointed out in your example of the psalm, obviously some of your affection for the KJV isn't really based on whether the actual defining of the translated words is the issue so much as you just like the flowery prose by which those words are delivered to the reader in the KJV. However, I am one who believes that flowery prose doesn't really have any bearing on the truth, or lack thereof, of what one is reading. That would just be a personal choice of how one likes their reading. Just as some people prefer reading thrillers over romance stories.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Gentlemantech48 said:

One thing I did not know until the last couple of years is that there are some serious flaws with some translations. I don't remember the exact verses discussed at this point but it was a matter of either adding one word or leaving one word out that totally changed the meaning to the point that atheists caught it and used it as ammunition against the authority of The Word. Conclusion: If something doesn't sound right in one translation, check another one. KJV is good but not perfect.

Click to expand...

Hi G,

Of course, whether a word is added or left out cannot be based on just weighing the two separate translations. One must go to the best available copies that we believe we have of the Scriptures themselves and find out if a word has been added or left out of either translation. My study of this issue has been that the KJV, in some places, is guilty of having words in it that, when we go to what we have as the best available copies, some having been found since the translating work of the KJV, really aren't there.

The NIV chooses to handle this situation through the use of footnotes. If something reads differently in the NIV than what is found in the KJV there is usually a footnote that will explain why this is different. Usually it boils down to what is actually found in the majority of the textual copies that we have. Sometimes it will come down to just a difference in two textual copies and by using the footnotes the translators allow that there is an alternate translation and allow the reader to research on his own, if he so chooses. Often it's a difference in the Majority Text vs. the Masoretic Text, and other than just fairly circumstantial evidence we don't really know, today, which one is the truer words of God.

However, always in this issue of 'which translation is the best' question, I like to always point out that God's purpose in delivering to us the Scriptures through His people Israel, is that we may know the truth. That's it! That an individual might be able to read what God has revealed to us through His Holy Spirit and come to know the truth and choose to follow it. In that singular statement of purpose, for which I believe the Scriptures were given unto us, most every reliable translation suffices to do the work for which God sent it forth to the hearts of men.

If I sit down and read the KJV, NIV, NASB, NRSV and many of the other reliable translations, as an individual I cannot come away not knowing that there is a God, that He created all things, that He loves mankind and has made a way that each man may, if he chooses, to also love Him and follow after His heart as David did. Now, do I know whether he intended to mean to convey to us some difference in understanding in using a word that would mean 'murder' over 'kill'? No, and quite frankly I don't see that it makes a bit of difference to the overall purpose of God's delivering to us His word.

My encouragement to every born again believer, and to those who hold themselves up as Christians who are not born again, is to worry not so much about the gnats of word meanings, but to teach the truth of God that some men may be saved. I am much more comfortable taking whatever translation of the Scriptures are at hand or that a particular individual chooses to use and say to that person as Phillip asked the Eunich, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

If you will, and want to know, type in on the subject line, "Take the NIV test". Use both the NIV and KJV Bibles to take the test. It is also interesting to know that the KJV was compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls and was found to be 99.?% exact.

Just FYI, and something to research.

MWood said:

If you will, and want to know, type in on the subject line, "Take the NIV test". Use both the NIV and KJV Bibles to take the test. It is also interesting to know that the KJV was compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls and was found to be 99.?% exact.

Just FYI, and something to research.

Click to expand...

Hi M,

Yes, and if you compare the NIV with the dead sea scrolls you will find pretty much that same quantification of agreement. The old covenant isn't what folks usually hold up as so different in the KJV vs other translations debate. Of course, even in that, that 1% can be a lot of words. There are roughly 773,000 words in the English rendering of the old covenant. That means that some 7.773 words could be wrong. Friend, that's entire sentences, even paragraphs, even chapters that could be wrong if we use the measuring rod of the dead sea scrolls to measure correctness in our translation work.

The issue is usually in the writings of the new covenant and if you are satisfied with 1% as an allowable variance, then the NIV meets that variance when measured against the KJV. There are somewhere around 180,000 words in the KJV translation of the new covenant and to date I haven't found anyone that holds that there are more than 1,800 words that are materially different. That of course discounts the use of old English pronouns in place of you, they, etc.

So, if you are willing to accept that the KJV is a satisfactory translation because it is within 99% agreement with the dead sea scrolls, then you should also be satisfied that the NIV is also within 99% agreement with them as regards the old covenant translation and also within 99% agreement with the KJ translation of the new covenant writings.

I always instruct that in these discussions regarding which translation is 'more' correct, that the purpose of God's delivering to mankind the Scriptures is that men may be saved. They tell us who God is, what He has done and our purpose in this realm that He has created. In doing the work for which God sent forth the Scriptures through the power of His Holy Spirit, then any translation that has faithfully worked to translate the Hebrew and Greek writings is sufficient for that purpose. That, of course, does not refer to those translations where translators have gone in and tried to change the actual words, as relates to pronouns that are in the oldest manuscript copies, to be 'politically correct'. And I would also hold that translations such as the NWT, Message and some others do not faithfully translate the original manuscript copies that we have.

However, God is great! Even in these we still find the purpose of God to be explained to us pretty clearly. The NWT does have some error, I believe, in who Jesus is, but the overarching purpose of God in delivering the Scriptures to mankind is still gained. Who God is, what He has done and our purpose in this realm that He has created.

Let us be more like Phillip and not be so concerned with the translation that people read but rather, "Do you understand what you are reading?"


God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Dear miamited,

I agree with your last statement in your reply so much. Today we always bicker about small things but reality is that most translations are perfectly satisfactory to convey the message of Jesus and the old and new covenants. Even with small errors we are men and because of that, a translation wwill never be perfect in the sense of flawless. I agree that we should rather make sure we understand what we are reading. Thank you for great reply!
Blessings,
Brandon

Many may not be aware of this (KJVO or not) but the preface of the KJV actually encourages the use of other translations. Just an interesting tidbit I have come across through casual research.

Here are some links:

http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_were_the_kjv.htm

http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_appendix_a.html

all translations have some issues. All are reasonably good (meaning the mainline ones, not the fringe ones done for a specific agenda)

Hi Bjornke,

I'm encouraged by all who believe as you write. It is, of course, natural for men to bicker over the words in anything that gives instructions in how we should live. After all, that's what keeps congress and the supreme court in business. LOL! But, as to this issue by those who would claim to be born again believers that one translation is so much better than another in the work of the translators, I am saddened. We, as born again believers who are commanded to go out into all the world teaching and baptizing, should really be more concerned with helping others understand the purpose and plan of our Creator rather than standing around the water cooler dissing one translation over another.

Of course, yes, there are some very bad translations and for any of us to discourage their use is valid, but as others, and myself, have written, of the couple of dozen fairly good and accurate translations, the message that God has purposed that all men have an opportunity to know and understand is crystal clear. That is the purpose of God's giving unto men the Scriptures through His Spirit and His people Israel. That each man may have the opportunity to know and understand who God is, what He has done and His desire for mankind which He created.

In the end, the last chapters of the Revelation, there is no one asking, "Well, which translation did you use to come to faith?"

If the KJ is the translation that speaks to your heart, then I encourage you to use it and be just as diligent in searching out the plan and purpose of your God as one who would pick up the NASB, NIV, NRSV, RSV or any of the good and reliable translations. Our work as born again believers should then be just like Phillip examples for us. When we come upon someone who is desiring to understand the plan and purpose of God through any of these reliable translations, rather than point out that they aren't reading the 'correct' translation, we should be asking, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

The original question is, "Is the NIV or the KJV the truer word!

I gave Info where he could do the research, not debate the translations.
Thanks for slapping me around and making me look foolish!
It seems to be your nature!

Why is God's "word"...the message itself...locked into only one specific language from one specific time period...and who decides what message from what era?

MWood said:

The original question is, "Is the NIV or the KJV the truer word!

I gave Info where he could do the research, not debate the translations.
Thanks for slapping me around and making me look foolish!
It seems to be your nature!

Click to expand...

Hi MWood,

I'm going to assume that this response was directed to me since I seem to be the only one who has responded to your post.

I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention and I honestly can't see how you understand my response to you as 'slapping you around'. However, since you have said that's how it made you feel, then I'm sorry. You made the statement that the KJ was in agreement with the dead sea scrolls by 99% and I just wanted to point out to you that the NIV is also in agreement with the dead sea scrolls by that same quantifier.

I did assume that since you said the KJ was 99% in agreement with the dead sea scrolls that you then held it as the 'truer' translation. All I did was point out that if that is the benchmark to be met, then the NIV also meets that benchmark. The real issue here that those who decry the NIV, or many of the other translations, has different wording than the KJV can not be determined by just holding one translation up against another translation. The truth of that claim can only be determined by holding each one up against the original manuscript copies that we have.

If you are understanding of the languages that the manuscript copies that we have are written in, then what you have to do to assure which translation may be corrupt in the few places that differences are pointed out, is to take each translation and compare it to the manuscripts. Now, you have researched and found that the KJ is in 99% agreement with the dead sea scrolls. Ok, now you have to take the NIV and also measure it against that same measuring rod. Have you done that? Are there more than 7,000 words that are different in meaning between the NIV and the dead sea scrolls? Just to say that one translation is in 99% agreement with the dead sea scrolls does not make any determination of the other translation.

Further, as pointed out, the issue that separates those who hold the KJ up as some godly appointed translation over all others is not usually the old covenant. Both the NIV and the KJV and most others use the Hebrew texts that were already well adopted as Scripture even before Jesus came. This is why you will find that both the NIV and the KJV meet that 99% quantification. No, it is the new covenant where we find the greater differences between the two translations and so to honestly know which one is more faithful to the original manuscript copies, then, just as with the dead sea scrolls with the old covenant, we have to take both translation and measure them against the manuscripts and not each other. Just to measure them against each other still doesn't answer the question of which one is 'truer' The only thing that will determine is that there are places where they are, in mostly very minor points different. But, the question still remains to be answered, which one is different from the original manuscripts? For that is what determines which one is 'truer'.

God bless you and I am sorry that I seem to have offended you, but please understand that that was not my intention. And yes, hopefully the OP will look into this further if he feels that there is any merit to the issue.
In Christ, Ted.

MWood said:

The original question is, "Is the NIV or the KJV the truer word!

I gave Info where he could do the research, not debate the translations.
Thanks for slapping me around and making me look foolish!
It seems to be your nature!

Click to expand...

Give me a break. Your "Take the NIV Test" takes him straight to a KJV Only website. That's not "research". That's as one-sided as you can get.

You're way too transparent.

Did you take the test? Take the test. Lay your NIV and the KJV on the table, And take the test!

No bible is perfect and I think to know what bible is better you need to know the hebrew and greek languages, but, even then, you would need to find out a way o determine which of the scrolls are the most accurate as well.

Are you talking about the 1984 NIV or the 2011 NIV?