KJV vs NIV

[Andyman_1970]

it leaves out many different verses and it teaches people wrong.

You're assuming that those verses should be there to begin with, which is a rather large assumption depending on which manuscripts you use.

 

[SteveR2021]

So, you recommend as do my church to read the KJV?

Well that again is a personal thing. I work with street youth and I recommend the NLT to them because it is a translation they can understand.

I like the KJV because I am a tradition guy and I don't trust new scholarship to inform me of what the Bible originally meant to say. I figure the KJV was good for hundreds of years so why do we need to change now? BUT - I am not dogmatic about it. I think the key is that we get the most from our Bible reading. If KJV works for you than by all means read it.

I truly do not believe it is that important to get the 'right' translation - it is probably good to make use of as many as possible (when I write sermons I check out multiple versions). I would never insist that others use the KJV...

 

[PapaLandShark]

I read the KJV for the sheer beauty of the language. I study from the NASB Life Application Bible. Both are wonderful.

/currently buried eyebrow deep in "Bible Doctrine" by Grudem...

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I read the KJV for the sheer beauty of the language. I study from the NASB Life Application Bible. Both are wonderful.

/currently buried eyebrow deep in "Bible Doctrine" by Grudem...

Blessed are those who read wayne grudem... A beatitude perhaps?

 

[newbeliever02072005]

God will perserve his Word! He said that the winds and the fashions of this world may change but that he will never change and his word is unchangeable. The KJV is the the best one. It was translated from by men of God. These other bibles take the KJV and change the meaning by trying to make it easier to understand. I am the Lord thy God i change not! People need to stop trying to write new verison of the bible... they are also trying to write all these new books that teach how to become saved and how to get a closer relationship with God. There just making Money off of The bible and God. Why do we need a new book by some Pastor who just because he has thousands that attend his church thinks he is smarter than God and is writing down Books to try to teach us how to have a closer relationship with God. Why do we need one of those books when we have Gods word which is free. If the KJV aint broke dont fix it. It takes the spirit to understand Gods word. We have tons and tons of book that preachers and pastor and bishops are writing to help us with this or that .... and they charge you a butt Load of money. When you can have What God wrote for you. So theres what God wrote and what man wrote. God created Man. If they want to write the KJV word for word and just call it a diffrent name then fine i dont know why they would do that but still it would be Gods word. Just my opion on the KJV vs NIV. Thanks for reading.

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

 

[SteveR2021]

You bring to point that there is money being made off of these newer versions of the bible

Only the Message (as I understand it).

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?

Yes. Most of us have more read more about the Bible than we have read the Bible itself. Most of us have read more and talked more about prayer than we actually pray.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

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?

Language is fluid and words change. Let me give you an example:

Acts 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Regium (KJV)

Acts 28:13 And from there we sailed around and arived at Rhegium (NASB)

Do you know what "fetched a compass" means? There are no compasses at this time. Or the "Superfluity of naughtiness" in james 1:21 (KJV), what does that mean? Perhaps "rampant wickedness" in the ESV. There is nothing wrong with reading the Bible in your native tongue, which is present day english.

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?]

No my dear. That too is propaganda. See, one needs to ask themself why are they so similar? The Alexandrian copyists do not omit anything that would remove any of the major themes of scripture. If they are a cult one has to speculate why Jesus just inst a man like other cults teach?

Anyways, The text-types are named for there geographical refrences. Those who propigate the view that the alexandrians were heretics overlook the fact that there were some pretty robust characters in there own region. They will point to men like Origen as proof who was pretty interesting in some of what he did. The Byzantine area was chock full of arian heretics by the way. So its kind of a useless argument either way. Perhaps the most notable fella I can think of from the alexandria region was Athanasius who was a strong defender of the deity of Christ.

If you want the truth your going to have to ignore propaganda that does not deal with the manuscripts. What do the manuscripts say is the question you must ask. The KJV is a really good translation, do not get me wrong. However there are better out there such as the ESV, and the NASB. You must be on the lookout for the later additions to the text that were not in the most ancient sources.

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.

Your welcome. May you increase in your studies.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Yes. Most of us have more read more about the Bible than we have read the Bible itself. Most of us have read more and talked more about prayer than we actually pray.

Ouch, how true is that! The bible is complex to understand at first. We are so far removed from it culturally, philisophically, there is a language barrier and not to mention we are seperated by a huge amount of time. There is nothing wrong with using helps. If one begins to use the KJV they are going to need a help with the language if they want to understand what it is talking about because words have changed.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

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?

I'll raise my hand to the shakespear question, as I hate reading Shakespear for various reasons. I've said in other places, but it bears repeating here: EVERY translation IS an INTERPRETATION (that includes the KJV). There over 5,000 Manuscript witnesses to the Bible, but not all of them are complete, original or agree on every little point. Despite this text critics try to find the original language the best they can through various means, some are majority and some are older there are problems with both styles of criticism. By using ONLY the older text one could very easily be translating an error that crept in early, by using the majority a mistake could have been copied and sent out to be copied again. I say all this because I've read all the posts here and feel the need to say that best way to understand the scripture is to actually compare translations to try to get the best meaning, also checking a commentary (some are free online) will help with understanding. As for personal use I own 4-KJV's (three were gifts), an NIV, a NCT, an ESB (Catholic), a Living Bibile (paraphrase), a NKJV and a New Jeresulam Bible. But for study I also use the NLT, ESV, and the NASB (all three I hope to own a copy of one day).

 

[CFoster]

When someone brings up the difference between the KJV v. NIV they always bring up the omission of Acts 8:37. The verse is mentioned and written in the footnotes, so I believe it is a missrepresentation to say that it is no were to be found in the NIV, because it is. It is not like it was done underhanded either, because they did leave out the number and put it in the footnotes, I am guessing because they did this in respect to KJV readers.

The simple truth is, if we only have access to God's Word through the original text, then we better all start learning Hebrew and Greek.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I'll raise my hand to the shakespear question, as I hate reading Shakespear for various reasons. I've said in other places, but it bears repeating here: EVERY translation IS an INTERPRETATION (that includes the KJV).

No, this is not right. Translation and Interpretation are very different things. Interpretation refers to the verbal or written expression of the authors intended meaning. Whereas a translation is taking the text and transferring the authors words from one language to another. While it is true that some translations contain interpretations, such as parts of the NIV, others do not. It may sound nit picky but there is a difference.

There over 5,000 Manuscript witnesses to the Bible, but not all of them are complete, original or agree on every little point.

This is true, of the 5300+ mss that we have not all agree completely. Though I think it is important to stress that by and large the differences are just grammatical mistakes which are perfectly understandable if you know the coniditions copyists worked in. Bad lighting, no spaces between the words etc. "IFYOUKNOWWHATIAMSAYINGTHENONECANREASONTHATMISTAKESLIKETHISAREVERYUNDERSTANDABLE."

Other mistakes like that of parallel influence and the expansion of titles are prominent in the newer manuscripts but these are not grammar related.

Despite this text critics try to find the original language the best they can through various means, some are majority and some are older there are problems with both styles of criticism. By using ONLY the older text one could very easily be translating an error that crept in early, by using the majority a mistake could have been copied and sent out to be copied again. I say all this because I've read all the posts here and feel the need to say that best way to understand the scripture is to actually compare translations to try to get the best meaning,

The Logic here is very sound although I dont think textual variants, or parallel influence is as hard to figure out as you think (or at least I think your saying that it is hard.) One thing I want in a Bible Translation, is exactly that. A translation, nothing more. No mixed in interpretation. One thing I like about my ESV and NASB is that they tell me where the newer byzantine mss differ in a footnote. By and large we can know what the author originally wrote which is sheer divine intervention, praise God!

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

No, this is not right. Translation and Interpretation are very different things. Interpretation refers to the verbal or written expression of the authors intended meaning. Whereas a translation is taking the text and transferring the authors words from one language to another. While it is true that some translations contain interpretations, such as parts of the NIV, others do not. It may sound nit picky but there is a difference.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point as I have studied 6 years of German, 1 year of Spainish, and 1 Semester of Greek and have come to the realization that it is impossible to accurately portray many things in a different language (actually the concept that I mentioned came from my Grek/NT porf. here at seminary).

The Logic here is very sound although I dont think textual variants, or parallel influence is as hard to figure out as you think (or at least I think your saying that it is hard.)

I'm not saying that textual criticism is hard to understand, I'm just saying that no form of textual criticism is perfect.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point as I have studied 6 years of German, 1 year of Spainish, and 1 Semester of Greek and have come to the realization that it is impossible to accurately portray many things in a different language (actually the concept that I mentioned came from my Grek/NT porf. here at seminary).

sheesh... do you want to be a linguist or something because thats a lot of language studies. We will have to agree to disagree on this point though because unless everyone learns greek, hebrew, and aramaic the message of the original authors is lost to us or at least appears to be.

I'm not saying that textual criticism is hard to understand, I'm just saying that no form of textual criticism is perfect.

Amen.

by the way, how do you like southeastern?

 

[jlujan69]

I understand the debate and appreciate the viewpoints. While I am grateful for the information on why certain verses were "removed" in the newer versions, I can't help but notice that at least some of those verses made a crucial point. The same goes for some verses that were altered (compared to KJV). As an example, in John 6:47, Jesus says to "believe in Me and have eternal life" in KJV, whereas the newer versions simply has Jesus saying to "believe". Now, we know what He meant, but this verse appears more complete in the KJV and can easily be used to show the skeptic the exclusivity of Jesus, as an example. Another example is 1 John 5:7, where the newer versions leave out (compared to KJV) the Trinity as being One. I've used this on anti-Trinitarians and upon seeing this, they've usually resorted to making harder to defend claims like the corruption of KJV or misunderstanding of the verse. While winning debate points doesn't translate into someone being saved, if the specificity is there in a particular verse, then I'd go with that version. As for my personal choice in bibles, the KJV/AMP parallel suits me fine.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I understand the debate and appreciate the viewpoints. While I am grateful for the information on why certain verses were "removed" in the newer versions, I can't help but notice that at least some of those verses made a crucial point. The same goes for some verses that were altered (compared to KJV). As an example, in John 6:47, Jesus says to "believe in Me and have eternal life" in KJV, whereas the newer versions simply has Jesus saying to "believe". Now, we know what He meant, but this verse appears more complete in the KJV and can easily be used to show the skeptic the exclusivity of Jesus, as an example.

Perfect example of a textual dispute! Read back a few verses to John 6:40 in both the NASB and KJV and I'll bet you'll be surprised. Do you see what happened? A copyists read something similar and either accidently or intentionally added it again. Ever done that, copy the same thing twice? Mean to say one thing but think something else and say what your thinking? Sure you have. Its all understandable.

If you want to preach to someone the exclusivity of Christ all you need to do is read 7 verses back. When you do that the context of 6:47 which only says "believe" in the NASB fits perfectly. The reader will know what the author is talking about. The newer versions do not remove this. This is an awesome example of KJV only propaganda at work yet again.

Another example is 1 John 5:7, where the newer versions leave out (compared to KJV) the Trinity as being One.

Ah yes, I was waiting for this to be brought up. Its called the Comma Johanneum. Do you know the history of it? Let me fill you in. There was a man named Erasmus who was putting together a greek manuscript that is known as the Textus Receptus (hereafter TR). The TR's first addition that came out in 1516 did not have the Comma in it. Basically, some folks were outraged, actually 2 fellas: Edward Lee, and Diego Lopez Zuniga who charged Erasmus with being an arian. Erasmus used about 6 byzantine mss to produce the TR, and in turn the KJV translators used the TR to produce the english version.

Erasmus stated basically "look guys, it is not in any of the manuscripts I have, but only in the vulgate." Then Erasmus said, "you show me a greek mss that has it in there and I'll put it in." So these two fellas went off and did just that. Its called Codex Montfortanius and is to this day repudiated to be a fabrication. But, Erasmus being trapped by his word threw it into the mix so as not to be called a liar. You can read his testimony to this in the annotations to the TR.

So, by the principal of cause and effect, we now have it in the KJV. By the way, the Byzantine MSS, which we have the most of, out of all of them, only like 5-6 even contain this verse. Plus, the ones that do have that reading have it off to the side in the margins, and not imbedded in the text itself, which indicates that its probably just a "help note" or a commentary of sorts. Thats a powerful testimony in and of itself that this was not part of John's original. It is safer to use the older ones that do not contain it. The exclusion of this verse in no way denys the principal of the trinity, which is most basic. Though it was nice of some pious copyist to throw it in the mix for us.

I've used this on anti-Trinitarians and upon seeing this, they've usually resorted to making harder to defend claims like the corruption of KJV or misunderstanding of the verse. While winning debate points doesn't translate into someone being saved, if the specificity is there in a particular verse, then I'd go with that version. As for my personal choice in bibles, the KJV/AMP parallel suits me fine.

I think your intentions are good and no one here will argue that 1 John 5:7 is biblical whether or not it was part of the originals. But dont argue something and say look at what the original author wrote when there is a credible dispute about this. You could be lying with that claim and not even know it. Can you see what I am saying?

In conclusion I would like to say that constantly the NASB and ESV can continiously be shown to be superior to that of the KJV. It's not unsual since we have had 400 more years to find more manuscripts and advance the studies of the original languages and textual criticism. That doesnt mean that the KJV is inherently bad because I would argue otherwise, though I think it should be read for personal prefrence moreso than for the reason to believe its "perfect version."

 

[LostnFound]

...jumping in, waving hand wildly....

I was cruising the LifeWay site the other day, and they seem to be all over the Holman (is that right?) Bible. What do you think about that? It looks like a good translation, but I hesitate to buy a Bible until I've held it in my hand and thumbed through it, myself.

P.S. TLE, Could you increase your font. I'll even give you the blessings to do it!!! ;-) This old chick is going BLIND, trying to soak up your teeny-tiny wisdom! hehe

 

[aReformedPatriot]

...jumping in, waving hand wildly....

I was cruising the LifeWay site the other day, and they seem to be all over the Holman (is that right?) Bible. What do you think about that? It looks like a good translation, but I hesitate to buy a Bible until I've held it in my hand and thumbed through it, myself.

P.S. TLE, Could you increase your font. I'll even give you the blessings to do it!!! ;-) This old chick is going BLIND, trying to soak up your teeny-tiny wisdom! hehe

Is that better? My wisdom is indeed teeny-tiny, there are countless others who are smarter than I am and who actually use good grammar.

I have a HCSB New Testament and I like it for the most part. It hasnt been something I've used consistently but a good number of my friends like it.

 

[LostnFound]

My wisdom is indeed teeny-tiny, there are countless others who are smarter than I am and who actually use good grammar.

Oh nowwwwwww. You know I didn't mean it like THAT!!!!! And, sometimes, good grammar can be WAY overrated! hehehe Thanks for the font size!

 

[Andyman_1970]

Perfect example of a textual dispute! Read back a few verses to John 6:40 in both the NASB and KJV and I'll bet you'll be surprised. Do you see what happened? A copyists read something similar and either accidently or intentionally added it again. Ever done that, copy the same thing twice? Mean to say one thing but think something else and say what your thinking? Sure you have. Its all understandable.

If you want to preach to someone the exclusivity of Christ all you need to do is read 7 verses back. When you do that the context of 6:47 which only says "believe" in the NASB fits perfectly. The reader will know what the author is talking about. The newer versions do not remove this. This is an awesome example of KJV only propaganda at work yet again.


Ah yes, I was waiting for this to be brought up. Its called the Comma Johanneum. Do you know the history of it? Let me fill you in. There was a man named Erasmus who was putting together a greek manuscript that is known as the Textus Receptus (hereafter TR). The TR's first addition that came out in 1516 did not have the Comma in it. Basically, some folks were outraged, actually 2 fellas: Edward Lee, and Diego Lopez Zuniga who charged Erasmus with being an arian. Erasmus used about 6 byzantine mss to produce the TR, and in turn the KJV translators used the TR to produce the english version.

Erasmus stated basically "look guys, it is not in any of the manuscripts I have, but only in the vulgate." Then Erasmus said, "you show me a greek mss that has it in there and I'll put it in." So these two fellas went off and did just that. Its called Codex Montfortanius and is to this day repudiated to be a fabrication. But, Erasmus being trapped by his word threw it into the mix so as not to be called a liar. You can read his testimony to this in the annotations to the TR.

So, by the principal of cause and effect, we now have it in the KJV. By the way, the Byzantine MSS, which we have the most of, out of all of them, only like 5-6 even contain this verse. Plus, the ones that do have that reading have it off to the side in the margins, and not imbedded in the text itself, which indicates that its probably just a "help note" or a commentary of sorts. Thats a powerful testimony in and of itself that this was not part of John's original. It is safer to use the older ones that do not contain it. The exclusion of this verse in no way denys the principal of the trinity, which is most basic. Though it was nice of some pious copyist to throw it in the mix for us.

I think your intentions are good and no one here will argue that 1 John 5:7 is biblical whether or not it was part of the originals. But dont argue something and say look at what the original author wrote when there is a credible dispute about this. You could be lying with that claim and not even know it. Can you see what I am saying?

In conclusion I would like to say that constantly the NASB and ESV can continiously be shown to be superior to that of the KJV. It's not unsual since we have had 400 more years to find more manuscripts and advance the studies of the original languages and textual criticism. That doesnt mean that the KJV is inherently bad because I would argue otherwise, though I think it should be read for personal prefrence moreso than for the reason to believe its "perfect version."

A hearty brother.............

 

[mannysee]

Hi,

Our church (Westminster Presbyterian) reads from the NIV. When i first started going there I thought, hmmmn (I read from the KJV). Recently i purchased a ESV, which I quite enjoy reading from. I have learned that this is an example of a 'formal equivalent' translation??
Anyway, I am gradually being humbled from by KJV background, as this was the bible I began to read when I started reading the bible.
One thing I came across some time ago while reading the Old Testament was an account where someone read from the Law to a group of people (Jews?) that didn't understand Hebrew for some reason which I can't remember, so the text was translated into their language, and when this was finished they all worshipped God. I was quite happy to come across this, as at the time i had been reading a few things about this translation/texts thing. Isn't God wonderful!