KJV vs NIV

[TwinCrier]

For a verse to verse comparison I recommend using this for reference:
http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
Look for yourself and see if the omissions glorify God or not.

 

[Andyman_1970]

For a verse to verse comparison I recommend using this for reference:
http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
Look for yourself and see if the omissions glorify God or not.

You're assumption is that the passages were omitted rather than added to the KJV by the copyist's with no manuscript support (example 1 John 5:7 added with little manuscript evidence) - this is a rather large assumption and IMO false assumption.

 

[abednego]

I might sound like I am rambling but it makes me wonder - You bring to point that there is money being made off of these newer versions of the bible and scriptural study aids. Are we not the fault of that happening? The demand is there so ,that just encourages it to happen. Instead of new translations of the bible, why is there not more emphasis on study classes to teach the language that the KJV was translated from? Why not encourage more time in fellowship with other christians? Why do we depend on the "quick fixes" to learn God's word instead of taking the extra time to learn God's word? Is that because our lives have become so "rushed" that we have to find ways to even "downsize" our relationship with God? I now have been informed about the reasons why we should rely on the KJV and plan to read from that. Especially now that I am just beginning my journey of a christian. Maybe when I get secure in my studies I can use others has just a reference, but not to take it as a final answer.

I just had another thought. The reason why I did not start with the KJV was because of the style of writing. It was "forgeign" to me. Like Shakespear's writings. Has there been a popular demand for Shakespear's works to be re -written. Has anyone decided that what he wrote was not up to par and we should change things around so that our students can learn and understand it better? If not, then why does the world insist on changing the Bible? What is the difference?

[/QUOTE=The Lords Envoy] The verse is omitted in the NIV because the NIV translators used the Older Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts

I was told that the Older Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts was written by the people of the Alexandrian church. And that they were a cult. Is this true?



I guess, ultimately having a relationship with God is a personal journey. We do our studies from the bible, we have our fellowships with other christians and we try our hardest to be good examples of a loving christian so that we can be witnesses to non-believers. We have to PRAY and talk to God for the things that we are troubled with during our journey as a christian. Without, that alone time , praying to God - everything else is not going to help. I maybe be wrong about all of this, but I have to have faith that God is going to show me the right answers when I need them.

Thank you so much for giving me your opinions and comments everyone! It's been a great help and I truly enjoy reading everyones replies. May God be with you all and grant you peace and love.

's to everyone!,
newbeliever

Yes i know you would think that we would use that money for other things but yes i believe what you said in you last paragraph very true!

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

by the way, how do you like southeastern?

It's like everwhere else...there's good and bad, but I'm glad I'm following God here.

BTW, TLE, I would also like to add that I really enjoy reading all your posts concerning Textual Criticism. They're a little more in depth than what we went into in my NT class.

Someone asked about the Holman Christian Standard Bible, it was developed by Lifeway Christian Book Stores to use in their printed Sunday School materials instead of paying large sums of money to Zondervan to use the NIV. It's not an overall bad translation I myself wouldn't mind owning one.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

For a verse to verse comparison I recommend using this for reference:
http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
Look for yourself and see if the omissions glorify God or not.

Seems like quite a daunting list doesnt it? I will pick and choose a couple of these.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Matthew 1:25--(FIRSTBORN) is out. Speaking of the Lord Jesus.

Check Luke 2:7. If the modern translations are seeking to teach that Jesus was not born of a virgin, nor the firstborn they are doing a terrible Job at it because this very statement can be found in Lukes Gospel.

This verse is an example of parallel influence which I mentioned in passing above. What can be shown to have happened time and time again in the NT is when a scribe would attempt to "harmonize" the gospel accounts. What we find in the more ancient MSS is "firstborn" is omitted while later on a pious scribe transferred the word from Luke. No denial of Christ's virgin birth is being made.

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MT 8:29--(JESUS) is out. As Son of God.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Same thing, parallel influence, read Mark 1:24 in a modern translation to see that my bible does indeed teach Jesus is the son of God.

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mark 9:44--(VERSE IS OUT) About fire not quenched.[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Here it is KJV style: [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This one is fascinating. I am about to blow your mind, watch this in the ESV:

Mar 9:44 (OMITTED TEXT)
Mar 9:48 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'

Why do the modern translations OMIT this from 4 verses back? Its not so we can deny the eternal fires of hell thats for sure. It is because the earlier MSS do not contain the repitition which is a later addition.

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]THE BLOOD OF THE LORD JESUS IS
OMITTED 15 TIMES:[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Let us examine one of these.
[/font]

Col [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1:14--(THROUGH HIS BLOOD) is out, or in italics.[/font]

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (KJV)
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (ESV)

Another instance of parallel influence (pervasive in the Byzantine texts isnt it?). The Phrase "through his blood" in Colossians is omitted in newer versions because its not in the older manuscripts. A byzantine scribe imported it from Ephesians because the verse is quite similar. Again the newer translations, the NASB and the ESV are simply trying to get back to what the author originally said.

I dont have the time to go through all of these but hopefully this little cross section shows you the websites fallacy.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font] Look for yourself and see if the omissions glorify God or not.[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font]

 

[aReformedPatriot]

BTW, TLE, I would also like to add that I really enjoy reading all your posts concerning Textual Criticism. They're a little more in depth than what we went into in my NT class.

Thank you

 

[g4goddess]

This is one of the reasons why I am a KJV only reader.

and this is why I have several different translations of bibles - I think I have about 6!!

 

[aReformedPatriot]

and this is why I have several different translations of bibles - I think I have about 6!!

We really have no Idea how blessed we are to have multiple leatherbound bibles on our shelves arent we? Shame we so often let them collect dust.

 

[TwinCrier]

You're assumption is that the passages were omitted rather than added to the KJV by the copyist's with no manuscript support (example 1 John 5:7 added with little manuscript evidence) - this is a rather large assumption and IMO false assumption.

Not a false assumption at all. Many of the "older" manuscripts used in the "newer" translations were decayed and parts were literally broken off, missing. Many of the footnots clearly read "some mss say" or something to that effect to state that some of their manuscripts did indeed contain these verses. The KJV translators used italics when they added even the smallest word. It's not "little manuscript evidence," it;s what the majority text says, which is what the KJV was translated with, the majority. It most of the manuscripts have contain it it would not make sense to omit it.

 

[TwinCrier]

I dont have the time to go through all of these but hopefully this little cross section shows you the websites fallacy. [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

It's not fallacy at all. They can't change it all at one, deception must be subtle. Ever hear the old frog in the boiling water analogy? The publishers just want to make money, but Satan has a much bigger plan. Has the church been getting more righteous with these newer versions? I don't see it.

 

[Sinai]

I just came from bible study this evening and was a bit upset. Apparently, I have been reading the wrong bible As a new christian I feel my faith is being shaken. When I started to read the bible I was told the easiest one to understand was the NIV. So, obviously that was the one I read. All those....Thy's, wilest, mayest...etc. just was distracting for me and I couldn't get past it to find the meanings of the scriptures. This evening I was given an example with a major difference between the two bibles. It was in Acts 8:37....it reads as follows:

KING JAMES VERSION: Acts8:37... And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

N I V: Acts 8:37... (NOTHING TO READ FROM, SCRIPTURE IS GONE!)

​

How is a new person coming to know the Lord, supposed to pick up on missing information or words that have been changed around, to know? Thank goodness I was informed in the church. Makes me worry about the people that picks up a bible that does not attend churches and has support to fill in the blanks. What happens to them? We are all guilty of sin...intentional or unintentional. Following a bible that is inaccurate makes me wonder if God is frowning down on us. I know that this sure has knocked my confidence down about certainy of the bible.

I was given a website that has a comparision of each of the bible translations. Its www.avpublications.com maybe someone would like to check it out.

I truly hope that I can weather this storm, the devil sure is attacking my confidence. Please pray that I can keep the faith and strength to keep learning more without doubt. Thank you very much.

God Bless!
newbeliever

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with different parts being written in one of those languages. No word-for-word translation can be fully "literal" and still express all the nuances of the original language.

Each of the major translations of the Bible attempt to accurately convey what the Bible has to say--but may do it in different ways. For example, the NASB tends to do a good job of accurately translating the original meaning of a word to its current English counterpart--but may sacrifice some clarity of thought in the process. The NIV tends to do a better job of translating the thought being conveyed in the original language to a nearly equivalent thought in modern English--but may sacrifice some word-to-word accuracy in the process. The Amplified attempts to give more of the nuances of the original language by placing various English synonymns in parentheses, while a parallel Bible may place each of those other translations (or some other translations) side by side.



There are many good study Bibles available. I typically carry the Life Application Study Bible with me to church, but prefer the Complete Biblical Library for serious study….


You will note that many of the modern versions may omit certain passages or parts of passages that appear in the KJV. The primary reason this occurs is that the oldest manuscripts available generally do not have those particular passages--which probably means that someone who was later copying the manuscript added those words or phrases. Most of the translations that omit the questionable passages will include them in a footnote.

 

[MrJim]

New Believer: Just try a New King James Version. All the KJV in modern language and save yourself the hassle of juggling versions. After the kids are grown you can take your Greek classes.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Not a false assumption at all. Many of the "older" manuscripts used in the "newer" translations were decayed and parts were literally broken off, missing. Many of the footnots clearly read "some mss say" or something to that effect to state that some of their manuscripts did indeed contain these verses. The KJV translators used italics when they added even the smallest word. It's not "little manuscript evidence," it;s what the majority text says, which is what the KJV was translated with, the majority. It most of the manuscripts have contain it it would not make sense to omit it.

So if this is the case how come 1 John 5:7 was added without the majority of the manuscripts having it?

 

[GreenEyedLady]

KJV

KJV
KJV

KJV
Praise the LORD for the KJV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[aReformedPatriot]

KJV

KJV
KJV

KJV
Praise the LORD for the KJV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Praise Him for the NASB and ESV as well

 

[aReformedPatriot]

So if this is the case how come 1 John 5:7 was added without the majority of the manuscripts having it?

yes, i would like to know as well.

 

[daveleau]

People get wrapped up too much in which Bible to read, IMO. Each of the translated versions has their share of minor (and all are minor) errors...even the dozens of KJVs that have been written since 1611. The best thing to do, again IMO, is to read several versions. You can do so, for free, by downloading e-sword software from www.e-sword.net. People say that the NIV leaves things out about Baptism or the deity of Christ by quoting specific verses that have been "left out". The truth is that the theologians that translated the NIV (or any of the newer USB or NA based Bibles) used texts that were recently found (within the last 100 years through archeology and that came mostly from Jerusalem, other areas of Israel and some from the Egyptian Jews) and noted that older Israeli texts did not have these verses. These were most probably added by Scribes to help describe a text. The claims of the anti-NIV is not really sound because Baptism and the history of Christ are not affected by the removal of these probable additions since these topics are heavily addressed elsewhere. The KJV is a great Bible. The NIV is a great Bible. The same can be said for the NASB, NKJV, HCSB and many others. The key is to harmonize the Bibles to maximize YOUR understanding of what Scripture tells us. The King James English is a language no longer used. Moving away from it is causing the same conflicts and debates that occurred when moves were made to replace the Latin Vulgate with Bibles from current languages.

Simply know what type of Bible you are using (I'll explain in just a moment) and use one from each type.
Types:
Literal, word-for-word translations: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV
Thought for thought (abbreviated T4T) (less literal attempting to get the meaning of the text in easier language): Amplified, New Living Bible, CEV
Mix of literal and thought-for-thought: NIV, HCSB (more literal than T4T)
Paraphrase: The Message, Living Bible

My favorite is the parallel Bible. The Bible I carry to church is a KJV/NIV parallel. My pastor teaches from the KJV because our congregation is older and is used to it. But, the NIV next to it can help translate the Old English into current language. It is the best of both worlds. I also have a NIV, NKJV, Amplified, NASB parallel that I use for studying. It is too large to lug around, but is a great desk Bible for research and reading.

Whatever you decide on, don't let people's opinions on Bibles alter your faith. The NIV is the top selling Bible of the past 30 years for a reason and would not have gotten to that amount of use if it had major flaws over the other versions.

God's Word is perfect. Our translations have messed it up slightly. Each translation tries to take the copies available to make it as perfect in our language as possible. The Autographs (the original copies) were perfect. But, even with the slight imperfections which each english version has, the Bible is the perfect Word of God and should be followed and believed. The rifts in doctrine are NOT because of translational disputes, but interpretive disputes. Continue to read your NIV and know that it is no less problematic than the KJV or any other version.

Pray and talk with your pastor for more guidance.

God bless,
Dave

 

[TwinCrier]

So if this is the case how come 1 John 5:7 was added without the majority of the manuscripts having it?

It may not be the majority in the Greek manuscripts, but it is in the majority of the Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. It also follows well with the next verse, which also refers to triune doctrine. Also, since the next verse starts with "and" it indicates that there should be a sentence before it that follows the same pattern.
1 John 5: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
I personally feel that Satan attacks this particular verse more than any other, because it is such a strong description of God as triune, an essential doctrine for believing in the true God.
Thank you so much for asking this. I pray that this will help remove some of your doubts and inspire you to read the KJV.

 

[Cright]

aren't the Latin manuscripts all translations too?

I read NIV, ESV and KJV

I have an online resource to look up greek/hebrew words.

2 pastors I know are studying greek right now.

I say read the version that is easiest, when you have a question consult another version, if you can get a few email addresses together, if you still have questions, send them to a few people and discern their responces. Ask them to use scripture when giving their answers too.

God Bless,
Carina

 

[Andyman_1970]

It may not be the majority in the Greek manuscripts, but it is in the majority of the Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts.

Wasn't Erasmus translating from the Greek and not the Latin? Erasmus was not orginially going to include 1 John 5:7 in his translation and only did so after a bet of sorts and being presented a highly suspect Codex from the two fellas he had the bet with that contained the passage and being a man of his word Erasmus added the passage.

If 1 John 5:7 was in the majority of the Latin Text's why then did Erasmus not orginally intend to include that passage?

Note: please know I whole heartedly affirm the triune nature of YHWH, however I would rather my Bible be as close to the orginal Greek and Hebrew as possible with as little "additions" by man along the way.

Also TwinCrier, should the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts be changed to align with the AV?