NIV vs. KJV

[tall73]

No. I would recommend the NKJV if the person just can not stand the "thees and "thous". There are some major differences to be aware of like Rev 14:9 has the mark on the hand instead of in the hand. An error like this could be VERY costly for someone.

'

the word could translate either, and often does mean on or upon.

In all seriousness if you think that new translations are part of Satan's end-time deception, and that this is a crucial issue, then take the time to sign up for beginning Greek class and you will have a whole new appreciation for the sheer number of decisions that go into these things.

If it is that big of an issue you owe it to yourself to find out the truth. And the truth is that translation is tough. Versions will differ. And so do underlying manuscripts. No translation is perfect.

Now it is however fair to say that the NIV is not the most literal version. Or that the underlying text of one might be preferred over the other.

 

[higgs2]

Read the origin of ANY different version of the Bible you use.There are terrible things happening and happening FAST behind many of the modernized Bible versions.Ultimately a One-world Bible will be formed from the continuous versions of today.Study the history of the modern versions and ask GOD to help you make the decision.The Bible is very important and to trust in the interpretations of men is not always wise.

my goodness you seem very upset about this issue. So should non english speakers learn english so that they can read the KJV?

 

[higgs2]

is the NIV a true Bible to follow or is there much more behind than what most people think?Should modern Christians trash the infallible KJV for a watered-down version of the Bible?

Please do tell me what modern non-English speaking Christians should read?

 

[Theophorus]

Your position is simply self-involved self-righteousness where somehow you are on better ground with God because you use a particular version of the message.

Talk about faulty conclusions and logic. I have yet to read that someone is a superior Christian because they use the KJV.

Everyone before coming to Christ is on the exact same ground with God...beloved and in sin and therefore judged. Everyone after coming to Christ is also on the exact same ground with God...beloved and forgiven of sin and therefore freed. That's the point, remember?

This deals with soteriological issues, not what makes a good translation, which apparently cannot be discussed here. Anyone who does is immediately slandered or labled, or assumed to be a bad Christian.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Please do tell me what modern non-English speaking Christians should read?

I was involved in the Deaf Ministry. They don't read KJV. In fact, there's a Bible Version came out just for Deaf readers who uses ASL. Their official language is ASL.

 

[higgs2]

Imagine, the Lord's Prayer, nearly omitted, in my opinion. That is enough for me, my United Methodist church uses NIV. No wonder I felt very deeply that some kind of spirit was missing there. For the life of me, I cannot see why it is necessary to omit reverence and piety from the Holy Bible.

Which version is closer to the original Greek? Do you think that matters?

 

[Theophorus]

Which version is closer to the original Greek? Do you think that matters?

Yes, it does, but which text? Also if closeness to the original is important, would not a more literal translation be better, such as the ASV, or the NASB?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Which version is closer to the original Greek? Do you think that matters?

I have a good friend who belongs to Greek Orthodox and he was born and raised in Greece. I often ask him about his Greek Bible. I told him, I need to learn Greek so I won't have to fight over English Translations. He mentioned "Jim, I don't know Hebrew language" (referring to the Old Testament) LOL

 

[grateful heart]

So why did the NIV not put in certain verses that previous posts showed it deleted? does anyone have an answer for this or is this gonna be ignored?

 

[Theophorus]

So why did the NIV not put in certain verses that previous posts showed it deleted? does anyone have an answer for this or is this gonna be ignored?

They are going by a different greek text, commonly refered to as the Alexandrian text. It stems from the work of Wescott and Hort in the 19th century. Many believe this text is superior.

 

[JimfromOhio]

So why did the NIV not put in certain verses that previous posts showed it deleted? does anyone have an answer for this or is this gonna be ignored?

KJV is basically Word for Word

While NIV is in balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought. I believe the translators were looking at the sentences rather than the word alone itself.

You can read more about it here: Background of the New International Version Bible

 

[Jebediah]

So why did the NIV not put in certain verses that previous posts showed it deleted? does anyone have an answer for this or is this gonna be ignored?

Because, in their analysis, those verses were spurious information. Errors are of three main types... transition of meaing (substitution or rearrangement of words that shifts meaning,even slightly), deletions of meaning, addition of spurious meaning. The NIV group came to the conclusion in the examination of their source material that those portions were spurious.

 

[Beoga]

So why did the NIV not put in certain verses that previous posts showed it deleted? does anyone have an answer for this or is this gonna be ignored?

Off the top of my head:
The manuscripts (which I believe were older than the ones the KJV used, not completely sure though) that the NIV used did not contain these things.

 

[higgs2]

Yes, it does, but which text? Also if closeness to the original is important, would not a more literal translation be better, such as the ASV, or the NASB?

I don't know which text, that's why I asked?

 

[Krystina661]

I honestly don't know much about the different translations.. but I only use the KJV because it's the only version I get a good feeling from..

Other versions never seem to "fully" satisfy me.. even though they can be easier to read..

 

[dholbrook]

I found this page pretty interesting.

http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/priddy/ibi_4_2.htm

As to my personal opinion, i think both the NIV and KJV are flawed. I've read that the Concordant Literal New Testament is about as close as you're gonna get to the real deal.

 

[longhair75]

i use the new oxford annotated nrsv version for study, and the king james version for illumination

 

[Latreia]

Which version is closer to the original Greek? Do you think that matters?

I am not Greek. I am only an American. Yet I consider myself literate enough and comprehending enough of the spirit which comes through in words, as in poetry, which I write, that convinces me of the beauty of the KJV.

Please note my signature quote and also the following:

"True worship is always spontaneous; the offering of delight, not duty. There is the feeling of so vast a rightness close at hand. One has to BE with more intelligence and faith in order to work off, in the happiest manner, the many-sided unhappiness in life and is a process that might go on in the quietest of ways.

Any life, however long - is too short if the mind is bereft of splendor, the passions underworked, the memories sparse, and the imagination unlit by radiant musings." ~ Henry James

 

[Theophorus]

I don't know which text, that's why I asked?

That's a controversial matter. I like the received text, because it is the closest to the greek text used by the Orthodox Church. There are other reasons as well, but that is a whole can of worms i do not wish to open.

 

[Protestante]

OK I am eventually (God willing) going to become a bible translator for wycliffe bible translators. If you don't know what they do, just type wycliffe into google and depending on your country there will probably be a wycliffe site for your country.

Hopefully I have learnt enough to say a little about this topic. All translations errors. All of them. I am yet to see an infallible version. The original Greek and Hebrew aren't even perfect because there is a dispute over which manuscripts are correct etc.

All translations have errors. There are two major ways of translating the bible, word-for-word, or idiomatic translations (or a mix of both).

Word-for-word is very obvious. It is a translation from Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic into English or whatever other language. Word-for-word translations at first seem like the obvious better option. We are getting a direct understanding of what the original authors intended. However, as somebody has said, many find the New King James version difficult because in the change of the style of language used. if the KJV was written 1611 (sorry if this date is wrong) and a change in language has occured, imagine how much has occured since the time of the NT or even the OT writers!

Idiomatic translations attempt to solve the problems caused by differences in language styles. For instance, somewhere in the OT (forgive me, I can't remember where) the original Hebrew says that two people were having a heart-to-heart conversation (I am pretty sure it was heart). Now most people in our society would assume that means an honest discussion, but to the people from the OT, this was an IDIOM, for a deceitful conversation, the exact opposite!

Word-for-word translations are helpful for the studier of the bible, when you have time to site and research the meaning and have a constant understanding that the meaning could very well be different to what it appears.
Idiomatic translations are good when you need to understand quickyl what is being said.

As I said before, both have faults. Wycliffe bible translators use a mix of both to translate the bible into other languages, and it an take up to 30 years or more to get the translation correct.

KJV is a word-for-word
NIV is a mix, but generally idiomatic.

I personally use NIV, many use NASB because it is the most literal word-for-word translation in English. I'm not here to make a decision for you, I just thought it might help if you understood a bit more about the translation process.