I've started to become attached to the KJV, is there any proof though that its the..

[OzSpen]

To all who are interested, here is a thread on the topic of the NIV from 2011.

Please give it a read as it points out problems with the NIV.

SBC votes to boycott the 2011 NIV

God Bless

Till all are one.

There is another view that is expounded in the article, ''Controversy over the new NIV".

See also "Designer Bibles".

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Speaking of 1 John 5:7, you wrote:

I believe that it was a gloss, or piece of commentary that was then incorporated as if it were a correction.

Simon J Kistemaker in his commentary on 1 John (1986 New Testament Commentary: Exposition of James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, pp. 353-354) wrote of 1 John 5:7,

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blook." Of the English-language translations, only two (KJV, NKJV) have the expanded verses (vv. 7-8). "For there are three that bear witness on earth" (NKJV). The translators of the New King James Version, however, state in a footnote that the Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies, and Majority Text) "omit the words from 'in heaven' (v. 7) through 'on earth' (v. 8)." Only four or five very late Greek manuscripts contain these words.
John actually writes that three (Spirit, water, and blood) are testifying. But why does John place the historical facts of Jesus' baptism (water) and death (blood), to which the Spirit testifies, on the same level as the Spirit? How can water and blood testify along with the Spirit? We need to look at the text from a Semitic point of view. Impersonal objects can testify: for example, the heap of stones Jacob and Laban put together was called a witness (Gen. 31:48). And according to the Mosaic law (Deut. 19:15), "One witness is not enough.... A matter must be established by testimony of two or three witnesses."

So only 4 or 5 late manuscripts contain the additional words that are in the KJV and NKJV. The earlier manuscripts do not included them. So, the KJV and the NKJV have added these words that are not in the earliest versions.

Oz

 

[BlueLioness]

*Deep sigh* I've read the Holy Bible so many times it's coming out of my ears and nose. And then when you realize you're sick of something and you've had enough of it you put it down.

 

[BlueLioness]

Oh, you are KJV-Onlyists? Yeah, so's my Church.

 

[OzSpen]

*Deep sigh* I've read the Holy Bible so many times it's coming out of my ears and nose. And then when you realize you're sick of something and you've had enough of it you put it down.

Why don't you convert this comment into some meaningful conversation with which we can engage?

Oz

 

[graciesings]

I have a KJV and an NLT in my room. They are sort-of-opposite translations (as in one is hardest and one is easier to read) but I REALLY like having two different translations. I learn more that way, because I can compare the texts. The KJV seems more poetic to me, (and maybe a touch more accurate, but how would I know?) while I sometimes learn more from the NLT because the vocabulary isn't as complex.

I also have a copy of the Apocrypha. Even though most Protestant churches don't regard the books Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc. as Holy Scripture, they are interesting reading.

 

[yogosans14]

I have a KJV and an NLT in my room. They are sort-of-opposite translations (as in one is hardest and one is easier to read) but I REALLY like having two different translations. I learn more that way, because I can compare the texts. The KJV seems more poetic to me, (and maybe a touch more accurate, but how would I know?) while I sometimes learn more from the NLT because the vocabulary isn't as complex.

I also have a copy of the Apocrypha. Even though most Protestant churches don't regard the books Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc. as Holy Scripture, they are interesting reading.

I have the NLT and KJV as well!

I really like the NLT but prefer KJV when it comes to accuracy

 

[Aibrean]

Just interjecting that the original KJV had the Acrophypha in it. It has obviously changed over the years. I don't believe when last I researched that the text also remained unchanged.

 

[OzSpen]

I have the NLT and KJV as well!

I really like the NLT but prefer KJV when it comes to accuracy

What criteria do you use to determine that the KJV is more accurate than the NLT?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I have a KJV and an NLT in my room. They are sort-of-opposite translations (as in one is hardest and one is easier to read) but I REALLY like having two different translations. I learn more that way, because I can compare the texts. The KJV seems more poetic to me, (and maybe a touch more accurate, but how would I know?) while I sometimes learn more from the NLT because the vocabulary isn't as complex.

I also have a copy of the Apocrypha. Even though most Protestant churches don't regard the books Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc. as Holy Scripture, they are interesting reading.

The KJV and the NLT are not really "sort-of-opposite translations" as that would make them contradictory. They use 2 different philosophies of translation. The KJV uses formal equivalence, which tries - as much as possible - to give word-for-word translation. That's very difficult to do when one understands Hebrew and Greek.

The NLT uses dynamic equivalence as a translation method, which is meaning-for-meaning from the original languages to English.

Oz