-:-KJV or NIV-:-

[Godschild]

I personally prefer the NIV over the KJV because the NIV uses words that I can understand and not get totally confused.

 

[pmarquette]

-:-Giget-:-__________________ the NIV is a paraphrase version , printed for " readibility " not for accuracy . If you stay with the KJV / NKJV / NAB/ NAS / NARS / ETC. you get the full meal deal .

the best bible is the same flavor as your minister reads and teaches from . so you can follow along with him
paul

 

[He put me back together]

Actually, the KJV is a paraphrased version as well. As a matter of fact, in many areas the NIV is more literal than the KJV, and in ways that are not all trivial. Sure--while shoe latchets and wine bottles, which didn't exist in Jesus' life, are details that are not so important (but they are conclusive proof that the NIV is more literal than the KJV in those areas), though the term "wineskins" helps us understand the culture better.
The NIV DOES, however, use the terms "Hades" and "grave" in those areas where the grave is mentioned in the scriptures, where the KJV just blankets everything with a universal word "hell" and is done with it, for the most part. This is an extremely important difference between the two, as likening Sheoul and Hades to be the same concept as Gehenna has cost us dearly in our understanding of things.
Still, neither the NIV nor the KJV is perfect, as no human translation is. If you're looking for a more literal translation, I'd say the NAS is closer to such a thing than either, although, as stated before, it still contains some of that old traditional atmosphere to its style.
For a "full meal deal," though, if you're looking for a LITERAL translation, I say get a copy of the Scriptures, from the Institute of Scripture Research. It is the most literal translation I have seen--it lets EVERYTHING hang out, with no pleasantries, and no traditional styles to get in the way. If there is any debate, the original word is left intact and an analysis is written in the appendix. This applies to Elohim, El, El Shaddah, Yeshua, Yahweh, and all other names of God. No translation is completely literal--sentence structures, verb-nouns, and conjugations prevent such a dream. But this is as close to literal as it gets.

 

[He put me back together]

ugh--please excuse the useless "while"

 

[alongtheroad]

I prefer the KJV, it has withstood the test of 400 years of criticism and still stands as the principle English Bible without proven error. I'm thankful God has preserved His inerrant Words for us today in the KJV.

 

[P_G]

I beleive this all started with a young lady who wanted the precise word of God.

And I agree you definately need to make sure you make no mistake with what was written originally so I offer you this:

outwv gar hgaphsen o qeov ton kosmon wste ton uion tsbautou ton monogenh edwken ina pav o pisteuwn eiv auton mh apolhtai all exh zwhn aiwnion

«Ou(/twv» «ga\r» «h)ga/phsen» «o(» «qeo\v» «to\n» «ko/smon,» «w(/ste» «to\n» «ui(o\n» «to\n» «monogenh=» «e)/dwken,» «i(/na» «pa=v» «o(» «pisteu/wn» «ei)v» «au)to\n» «mh\» «a)po/lhtai» «a)ll'» «e)/xh|» «zwh\n» «ai)w/nion.»


You know what I can't get Kione Greek to register properly on the internet. I guess not that many people read or understand it anymore.


What you need to understand the Bible regardless of the translation you use is a good Strongs keyed to the translation you are using. NO translation can absolutely get all of the subtelties of another language.

I one time remember a friend asking a Korean man if he had a King James Bible written in Korean.

You know what King James didn't speak much Korean!


Blessings

Follow Y'suah

 

[sobresaliente]

The reason King James upholded the divine right of kings was to keep the Pope, who thought he had all power over kings and such, OUT of his country. I personally don't blame him.

Adios