KJV vs NIV

[JustinWindsor]

Most Bible scholars today would express the concerns that the translators of the King James Version did not use the earliest and best manuscripts. The other concern would be that, although stated to be a 'literal' translation, there is some debate about how much license was taken in order to accomodate the King James English. Of course that could be argued about today's 'literal' translations I suppose. It has been shown that there are some sayings used in English at the time which were also 'thrown' in, but I doubt that it caused any concern doctrinally. The "King James Onlyists" argue about the "inspiration" of the King James Version, but where does that argument leave us if earlier and more reliable manuscripts disagree?

In Hebrews 4:8 the King James Version renders a name to Jesus. The New King James Version, happily, has corrected this error and rendered the name Joshua. In the context of the passage, and indeed the entire letter, the name Joshua is the only one that makes sense. "Jesus" in this instance, being an error, led to some doctrinally unsound conclusions regarding Sabbath-keeping among our puritan ancestors.

Nonetheless, the KJV is still widely used and is dependable overall. Some folks find the 'poetry' of the English language used in the KJV, to be more 'authoritative' or 'majestic'. We must remember too, that the KJV was published in 4 various versions.

An exclusively 'inspired' rendering of the word of God... not in my opinion. A valid and useful translation... of course.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Most Bible scholars today would express the concerns that the translators of the King James Version did not use the earliest and best manuscripts. The other concern would be that, although stated to be a 'literal' translation, there is some debate about how much license was taken in order to accomodate the King James English. Of course that could be argued about today's 'literal' translations I suppose. It has been shown that there are some sayings used in English at the time which were also 'thrown' in, but I doubt that it caused any concern doctrinally. The "King James Onlyists" argue about the "inspiration" of the King James Version, but where does that argument leave us if earlier and more reliable manuscripts disagree?

In Hebrews 4:8 the King James Version renders a name to Jesus. The New King James Version, happily, has corrected this error and rendered the name Joshua. In the context of the passage, and indeed the entire letter, the name Joshua is the only one that makes sense. "Jesus" in this instance, being an error, led to some doctrinally unsound conclusions regarding Sabbath-keeping among our puritan ancestors.

Nonetheless, the KJV is still widely used and is dependable overall. Some folks find the 'poetry' of the English language used in the KJV, to be more 'authoritative' or 'majestic'. We must remember too, that the KJV was published in 4 various versions.

An exclusively 'inspired' rendering of the word of God... not in my opinion. A valid and useful translation... of course.

Excellent post I couldn't agree more. While the KJV is useful and a good translation it is just that a translation. The idea that the KJV is the only "authorized" version/translation of God's Word is a tradition of man and has no Scriptural or historical evidence to support that claim.

 

[TwinCrier]

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?

What is your source that this verse was added as a result of a bet? As I stated, and even the modern version admit in footnotes, this verse appears in most manuscripts.
I cannot speculate if or why Erasmus did not orginally intend to include that passage. My speculation would not add to the debate anyway.
The AV was translated (not paraphrased) from the textus recptus, so there is not need to align anything. It is an accurate translation.

...although stated to be a 'literal' translation, there is some debate about how much license was taken in order to accomodate the King James English. ....The "King James Onlyists" argue about the "inspiration" of the King James Version, but where does that argument leave us if earlier and more reliable manuscripts disagree?

How can you translate the munuscripts to modern English when there are words that do not exist in our language? The thees and thous that everyone likes to bellyache about are singular and plural forms of the pornoun you. That is lost in the modern paraphrases and makes it impossible to distinguish who "you" may be referring to.
Go and ask the common man on the street to list the ten commandments and the first words out of his mouth will probably be 'Thou shalt not..." Why? Why do churches still say 'Thine kingdom come' when reciting the Lord's prayer? because it flows, it's familular, so why change it? Our hymn book are filled with "How Great Thou art' and 'Have Thine own way Lord' etc. It it's not broke (and it's not) don't try to fix it, you'll just mess it up.

http://www.avpublications.com

 

[Andyman_1970]

Go and ask the common man on the street to list the ten commandments and the first words out of his mouth will probably be 'Thou shalt not..." Why? Why do churches still say 'Thine kingdom come' when reciting the Lord's prayer? because it flows, it's familular, so why change it? Our hymn book are filled with "How Great Thou art' and 'Have Thine own way Lord' etc. It it's not broke (and it's not) don't try to fix it, you'll just mess it up.

So even though Jesus (He was Jewish remember) and Moses never said “Thou” – and the Tem Commandments in their original language don’t have an English equivalent to “thou” it “ok” to have those words in their because the AV has them? Just because it’s familiar or been said that way for so many hundreds of years doesn’t make it automatically right or true.

The attitude of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is exactly the attitude Erasmus encountered when creating the TR when those around him thought the Vulgate was “only God’s Word” and how dare he create something else…………do you see the irony in this?

This is exactly why I’m learning Biblical Hebrew so that I can read and say and understand the Text rather than have someone “tell” me such and such version/translation is correct or whatever term they choose to use.

Anyway, we’ll have to agree to disagree……………….shalom sister……………..

 

[JustinWindsor]

...was translated in order to have a version of the Bible in the language of the time. It was developed using, to their knowledge, the best manuscripts available to the translators.

NASB, NIV, etc. are translated using the best manuscripts available to these talented people in our day. They also have as their goal, to make a translation available in the language of the time.

There is not much wrong with using any of these three, or other, translations as long as we are aware of the stated goals of the translation and its limitations. For example, as stated previously in this thread, the KJV error with the name in Hebrews 4:8, which the NKJV has corrected.

May God Bless

 

[TwinCrier]

Bible correctors frequently drag out this dead fish and try to raise a stink about how the King James Bible is in error when it refers to "JESUS" bringing the children of Israel into the promised land.
These noted scholars try to place you in the position that you can never read your Bible and know for certain, "Thus saith the Lord", unless you first consult with them to find out if you have the correct text they approve of, and that the text that you have is translated properly according to what they declare to be the correct rendering. Yet none of them believe any single Bible out there is totally infallible and without error. They themselves become the Final Authority for what God REALLY said.
In Hebrews 4:8 we read: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."
Likewise in Acts 7:45 we have: "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David."
The Greek texts all literally have the name JESUS in these two places, though the contexts refer to the man Joshua. Joshua himself is a pictoral "type" of our Lord Jesus Christ. Joshua, along with Caleb, did believe God had given them the promised land, but the rest of the people entered not in because of unbelief. Later this same Joshua ('Jesus' in Greek) led the people into the land. The promised land typifies the spiritual rest from our own works which was accomplished by the greater Jesus, the Son of God Himself.
Other Bible versions that read JESUS in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4 like the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395, the Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby's translation 1890, and the 1950 Douay version.
The Spanish 1999 Las Sagradas Escrituras also reads like the KJB, having: "Porque si Jesús les hubiera dado el Reposo..."
Joshua himself was called by four different names including Jeshuah Nehemiah 8:17; Joshua in Joshua 1:1; Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11. He is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, once in Acts 7:45 and again in Hebrews 4:8. In Greek his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English. This is exactly the same way "Jesus" is spelled in every case.
There are also other people in the Bible whose name was Jesus. In Acts 13:6 we come across a false prophet and a sorcerer. He was "a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus." Bar-Jesus means "son of Jesus". We also meet a fellow Christian worker in the book of Colossians 4:11 - "And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision."
In the genealogy of Christ, the Traditional texts, the Majority of all manuscripts including A, and the Syriac all read like the King James Bible, by mentioning "the son of Er, which was the son of JOSE..." (or Joseph). However the corrupt manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read: "the son of Er, the son OF JESUS", and so do the RV, ASV, RSV, Goodspeed, and the J.W. versions. The NASB, NIV have changed this to read: "the son of JOSHUA".
It is obvious that many people in the Bible were called by several names, as Peter, Cephas, Simeon, and Simon Barjona (all one man), and that there were many people with the same name. It is not too hard to figure out who is who just by reading the context.
Both Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the literal Greek "Jesus" refers to the man Joshua, who himself believed God and is the "type" of the true Jesus, who indeed does lead us into the promised land and gives us rest from our own labours. The type and the antitype both have the same name. God Himself inspired the Bible in this way to teach a spiritual lesson.
John Gill remarks in his commentary that Joshua " was an eminent type of Jesus Christ. There is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one; and in their office they were both servants; and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity. Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained."
The King James Bible and all the others are not in error, as some allege. Rather it gives a literal translation of the Greek name Joshua, and reveals the "type" or divine foreshadowing of the fulfillment which was completed in the Son of God.

source: http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/issueskjv.htm

 

[eldermike]

Food for thought

2CO 3:4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Be very careful of making laws, the law never saved anyone.

If I had to choose KJV or NIV as my only bible, I choose the NIV in a NY minute. Scripture is good for it's purpose, but if we were judged on how well we are equipped we would all be lost. Scripture is good for knowing about God, but if we were judged on how we obey what we know, we would all be lost.

Make no Idols from the works of man. Also make no scripture fit the work of bible translations, there is none.

Are there any denominational statements of beliefs that assert that a translation is without error? I sure hope not or perhaps the unrighteous will inherit the earth as was printed in one of the KJV bibles.

The Baptist believe that the inerrancy is with the original manuscripts. I think this is proper, how about you?

Keep your NIV and buy the KJV if you want it, but understand that it also has been edited many times, by men. We simply do not have an english bible without some mistakes. I am very glad the Spirit gives life, not the letter.

 

[JustinWindsor]

I agree 'eldermike'. Most Baptists regard the Scriptures to be inerrant and infallible in their original manuscripts. Which is why many Baptists seek a translation which uses what Bible scholars consider to be the earliest and best manuscripts. NASB is popular in the Atlantic Baptist Convention, the NIV is used too. I also see several folks using the KJV in our Church family.

 

[Radagast]

... When I started to read the bible I was told the easiest one to understand was the NIV.

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.​

Well, it is the easiest one to understand, which is why I read it. My NIV has a footnote:

Some late manuscripts: 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

In other words, similar translation, but pointing out that the oldest Greek versions don't have the verse. The NIV translators don't think it was in the original (i.e. someone added it so the story would make more sense), but you can make up your own mind on that.

Still, if your church uses the KJV, you might like the New King James Version.

-- Radagast

 

[Radagast]

LOL

Praise Him for the NASB and ESV as well

Praise Him for His manifold translations,
In all languages of his Dominion.
Praise the Lord, oh my soul.

... and support Wycliffe!

-- Radagast

 

[Andyman_1970]

Food for thought

2CO 3:4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Be very careful of making laws, the law never saved anyone.

 

[GoldenStorm]

I only read KJV. I don't have to worry about missing verses or differently worded verses.

 

[Jamme]

I don't know how accurate the information at this site is, but it makes for interesting and informative reading.

http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/kjv.htm