KJV vs. NIV

[imperfectchristian]

Unashamedofhim posted basically the same thing I am asking here but made it no debate.

I would like to hear people who know more about Bible translations than I do debate on the differences between the King James version and the New Internation Version bibles.

Please source information whenever possible because I would like to read up on it.

Thanks

 

[Amadeo65]

The King James version is simply far more beautiful, and I do find it more accurate than the NIV in certain translations.

 

[Svt4Him]

When I was in Thaiboxing, we always debated which martial arts was the best. Check out www.axkickboxing.com and you'll probably find some of those debates. Is Thaiboxing the best? Sure is...for me. Loved it, can show you videos of why it has a more powerful kick, which it does, why it is a balance of both stand-up and take down fighting, hands, legs, knees and elbows. Amazing sport. But if you like tai-kwon-do, and are good at it, is it less? Less than doing nothing?

Now I know some martial arts are bad, but don't get hung up on that. To say one is the best is not accurate, as doing one over the other is always better than doing nothing. If you are going to read a bible, I care less what you read, read it. You search for God, you will find Him with the NASV, NKJB, KJV, NIV, or even the Message. God cares more about your heart, as He resists the proud, gives grace to the humble. Read the Bible, read the NIV, or the KJV, just read it.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Unashamedofhim posted basically the same thing I am asking here but made it no debate.

I would like to hear people who know more about Bible translations than I do debate on the differences between the King James version and the New Internation Version bibles.

Please source information whenever possible because I would like to read up on it.

Thanks

The biggest difference is that they are not written in the same language . I know and understand English - so I use the NIV and not Jimmy's interpretation .

 

[JimB]

When I was in Thaiboxing, we always debated which martial arts was the best.
*****

Don’t thai-boxers wear ballerina shoes?

~Jim

The older I get the more I listen to people who don’t talk much.​

 

[ARBITER01]

I use the traditional text, or what is called the received text. The only translations that have it are the KJV and the NKJV.

GOD spent some time with me on the issue of the critical text. I understand that they base the text on manuscript evidence alone, but a good majority of the missing sections from the critical text are found quoted by people that were alive earlier than the manuscripts we have. So to me, those sections were pruned out by people instead of the missing sections added in like they state older manuscripts were.

That is one of the main reasons I use the KJV and NKJV.

 

[LeadWorship]

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content/129496710?page=73521&sp=1003http://www.christianbook.com/Christian?Books/cms_content/129496710?page=73521&sp=1003

 

[Alpine]

I prefer my bible not to be in 17th century english. That's why I don't use the KJV. If I were an Englishman 400 years ago I'd love it.

 

[Simon Peter]

Hi T1WGL,

Whenever you translate the Bible into English you face a decision:

1. Translate 'literally' word for word as best you can; but this means sacrificing some meaning, and will result in some misleading translations.

2. Translate into the best English meaning, without getting to hung up on the literal, so English readers will understand the original intended meaning; but this will result in some translations that are not exactly as the original author intended.

Every English translation of the Bible is a mixture of both of the above, but most make a conscious decision to lean more towards one or the other.

The KJV is a more literal translation.
The NIV is more meaning oriented translation.

This is why whenever you seriously study the scripture, you should compare several translations (from both camps) alongside each other.

For my every day reading, I much prefer the NIV.
But I think they're both excellent translations in their own way.

Hope this helps.
Simon

 

[LeadWorship]

There's many translations - but only one interpretations: God's. Let Him help you rightly divide truth and you'll not go astray.

 

[Faulty]

Perhaps we should all just learn Greek and Hebrew and read it in its original language.

That'll end the version debate real quick.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

The difference between these two words in the Hebrew is one letter but the NIV makes more sense with the flow:

1 Samuel 8:16 (KJV)
And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. bachuwr=young men (see Strongs 970)

1 Samuel 8:16 (NIV)
Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
baqar=cow (see Strongs 1241)

The KJV manuscript is filled with hundreds of these kinds of copying errors. It took about 1,000 years to make all of the copying errors in the KJV manuscripts.

 

[Jonteel]

opps. This wasn't meant for this thread. STrange.

 

[MrSnow]

Just for the record, the KJV and the NIV are both written in the same language: Modern English (as opposed to Middle English and Old English). The KJV happens to be written in "Early Modern English".

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Just for the record, the KJV and the NIV are both written in the same language: Modern English (as opposed to Middle English and Old English). The KJV happens to be written in "Early Modern English".

...and most people don't comprehend the KJV English and misinterpret it.

 

[ARBITER01]

The difference between these two words in the Hebrew is one letter but the NIV makes more sense with the flow:

1 Samuel 8:16 (KJV)
And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. bachuwr=young men (see Strongs 970)

1 Samuel 8:16 (NIV)
Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
baqar=cow (see Strongs 1241)

The KJV manuscript is filled with hundreds of these kinds of copying errors. It took about 1,000 years to make all of the copying errors in the KJV manuscripts.

This opinion here is quite misleading.

First of all, there is so such thing as a KJV manuscript, never was. That is misleading the audience into thinking that there actually were manuscripts that somehow were made by the translators of the KJV just for the KJV.

Second of all, if a manuscript has been found that updates this particular section of scripture, that is cool, but there was no conspiracy here on the part of the KJV translators to make it say different somehow. I can post quite a few translations that made it say that way also.

 

[MrSnow]

...and most people don't comprehend the KJV English and misinterpret it.

I agree. Which is why I never recommend it to anyone, and rarely use it myself. Although they're technically in the same language, they are different dialects. And between different dialects of the same language, there are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) differences in nuance that make for difficulty in interpretation.

 

[Simon Peter]

I can post quite a few translations that made it say that way also.

That's interesting.

Young men

KJV
ASV
ESV
RV

Cattle

NIV
GNB
NET

 

[ARBITER01]

That's interesting.

Young men

KJV
ASV
ESV
RV

Cattle

NIV
GNB
NET

Yep, and there is even more than that over the years.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

This opinion here is quite misleading.

First of all, there is so such thing as a KJV manuscript, never was. That is misleading the audience into thinking that there actually were manuscripts that somehow were made by the translators of the KJV just for the KJV.

.

When I said "the KJV manuscripts" I meant the manuscripts the KJV translators used. I think anyone using common sense understood that.