NIV vs. KJV

[grateful heart]

Theophorus you are a crack up lol

 

[danlutgen]

Handel was a KJV fanatic. , and The NIV is not really international now is it. I mean is it read in France, Spain, and Germany and Russia? I think not. How can one trust a translation that sports a lie on the cover?

King James was a heritic and used no Bible. Why is it then the King James Version?

 

[WAB]

I think you are an anti-KingJamesite. You are not very tolerant of this tiny minority of religious practice. Are you secretly a KingJamesaphobe? Where you abused by a KJV bible when younger.

You are making erroneous assumptions. I love and use the KJV all the time (well, to be accurate, daily). As posted elsewhere, I believe the language of the KJV to be far more majestic than any other English translation... BUT.... to claim infallibility for the KJV, or as many KJV Only adherants do, proclaim that it is inspired by God... is absolute idiocy.

Just for a small example... please give me your take on the use of the word "Easter" in the KJV rendition of Acts 12:4. I have been told, and have read long treatises on how that obviously incorrect translation is in fact correct!

 

[Theophorus]

King James was a heritic and used no Bible. Why is it then the King James Version?

.

 

[Theophorus]

You are making erroneous assumptions. I love and use the KJV all the time (well, to be accurate, daily). As posted elsewhere, I believe the language of the KJV to be far more majestic than any other English translation... BUT.... to claim infallibility for the KJV, or as many KJV Only adherants do, proclaim that it is inspired by God... is absolute idiocy.

Just for a small example... please give me your take on the use of the word "Easter" in the KJV rendition of Acts 12:4. I have been told, and have read long treatises on how that obviously incorrect translation is in fact correct!

I never said it was perfect, just better.

 

[Caissie]

Are you a KJV (or NKJV) only believer?

I read the KJV. I have recommended the NKJV to people before, but I would recommend the KJV over any others.

 

[Caissie]

'

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

Yes, I know. Only one of the translations are correct. It is my personal belief that the KJV is right on this one.

 

[oldsage]

I am recieved text guy, so KJV, NKJV, and my personal favorite Tyndale's NT all qualify.

I am more for the NA27 text rather than the TR, but I do have a facsimile of the 1st Edition 1611 KJV from Nelsons and I also have a hardback copy of Tyndale's NT 1526. I love them. I also have the Tyndalel in eletronic format in BibleWorks 6


Chris

 

[oldsage]

started with NIV then went to KJV... only use this... the NKJV is much different then the KJV... stick with KJV

I prefer the ESV or the NET over the KJV. I use the ESV and NET for apologetics
Chris

 

[oldsage]

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.

you know but the KJVonlyist don't ever mention these verses in the NIV which they say are deleted, they just pick verses that supports there arguments but don't show what they call omissions are stated elsewhere in the text.

NIV Matthew 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

 

[Theophorus]

I am more for the NA27 text rather than the TR, but I do have a facsimile of the 1st Edition 1611 KJV from Nelsons and I also have a hardback copy of Tyndale's NT 1526. I love them. I also have the Tyndalel in eletronic format in BibleWorks 6


Chris

My Tyndale is the 1534. I find it so easy to read. My 1611 is by hendrickson, it is in modern type but with the original spelling, almanac etc. It has the original intros and footnotes as well. Very interesting.

 

[greeker57married]

I would say the KJV is stronger in some areas than the NIV. especially in dealing with the atonement. The NIV would be stronger in some areas dealing with the translation of the action in the tenses of the verbs. but over all I would prefer the KJV to the NIV. But the KJV is not inerrant as no transation is. All translations have their strong and weak points. The American Standard Version of 1901 is more accurate than the KJV. I like the NASV which is based on the ASV.

God Bless
Greeker.

PS: I know the arguments concerning the Textus Receptus in relation to the earlier text. The Textus Receptus is not infallable and has variations that were not in the orginal text.

 

[Theophorus]

The American Standard Version of 1901 is more accurate than the KJV.

I have that one also , It loses me though. It is not written at the level of the KJV, meaning written for liturgical, meditative as well as scholarly purposes. When the KJV was being compiled, one person stood and read a passage and the suggested alternatives. Others listened and discussed the benefits of each rendering. The KJV was written by speaking it and listening. It shows when compared to even the ASV.

 

[oldsage]

Look at the word immorality, it doesn't appear once in the New Testament in the KJV. It appears over 20 times in the New Testament of the NIV

KJV Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

KJV 1 Timothy 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

KJV 2 Timothy 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:


Looks like the KJV has 5 occurrences of the word immortality in the NT

NIV Romans 2:7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.


NIV 1 Corinthians 15:54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

NIV 2 Timothy 1:10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Looks like the NIV only uses the word immortality 4 times

This is the type of arguments that come from the KJVonly camp most of the time, a lack of research.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

The NIV is copywrighted --it is the mere works of men. The KJV is public domain and has no copywright.

The NIV is based upon a Alexadrian text and Orgien may have influenced the Old Testament. Orgien taught that Jesus Christ was a created being.

But some will disagree with me and that is fine-- Not essential to salvation anyway.

But for me, I just like the good ole King James Version.

thanx,
Garry

The KJV of 1611 was copyrighted and the text is still copyrighted in England, the copyright expired here in the states for it.

Chris

 

[drummer4Him]

Many can blame me for starting this blog,and,if necessary,fight me to the very end.BUT...need I remind you that this blog would not even be essential IF the apostate church had left the King James Version completely alone.(there is absolutely no reason why a substitute Bible like the NIV was ever even printed.I have NEVER had a problem understanding the KJV and if anyone is so illiterate that they can't understand a "thee" from a "thou",they might possibly be able to use a paraphrased version such as the Living Bible)
Now...having said that I will answer a message sent to me stating that I would have trouble witnessing with just the KJV alone.Allow me to address that attack on the KJV.
The KJV never was a problem in witnessing or preaching before the time of modern translation and after the time of middle English,so why is it now?
And if we believe GOD to be the final authority in our individual witnessing there's no need to become scared of the reaction of the sinner and go running to a different version for reference.And using the wishy-washy translation of man's preference rather what is really the original and infallible teachings of the Word of GOD is like telling GOD,"LORD, I am not strong enough in what I believe as far as my faith and even my belief in You is concerned so I'll use the modernized Bible as a substitute because I'm scared the sinner won't understand."(the real issue with most witnessing people I've met has been that they understand it would scare the sinner!)
And I'm not for one minute denying that modernized versions HAVE helped win souls,BUT if you not only witness with one but use it as a daily spiritual roadmap than be prepared to eat nails whenever someone you won to the LORD notices a verse in the KJV that's contrast from a verse in your modern version and tries to get you to explain.

 

[drummer4Him]

most people can't deny it's not so much a technical debate of the Bible,but a spiritual debate

 

[oldsage]

Yes, I know. Only one of the translations are correct. It is my personal belief that the KJV is right on this one.

why?

 

[drummer4Him]

However it is the technical debate that will decide which has true origin and which doesn't.

 

[drummer4Him]

BUT the spiritual debate is a matter of seeing verses in the KJV that scare you or make you feel uncomfortable about where you stand with GOD.