NIV vs. KJV

Latreia · Dec 29, 2005

Most of this thread really has been informative and given us the opportunities to consider others' points of view.

When posts begin taunting and judging another member personally, instead of merely explaining one's own positions and why, we can start expecting a thread closure.

Enough said.

Polycarp1 · Dec 29, 2005

Jebediah said:
So...you just deny the existence of source materials other than the Textus Receptus? That's great, really logical. Of course, like most self-centered and self-involved ideas, why should we let it get messed with by something silly like documentable facts? Ruins all the fun of using a religion based on love and truth as just yet another thing to say "I'm right, you're wrong, hahah" about.

There is simply no reason to assume the KJV is somehow more valid. Other source materials have good arguments for their use and the scholarship and academic work of people on the modern versions is more accurate and more informed. I'm sorry if that assaults your little world-view of "older = better" and "anything new is of the Debil!", but it is factual. Personally, I use multiple versions including the KJV...you know, just like I would if doing serious academic research about any other ancient document. Of course, I care more about understanding the Word than being right, but that's just me, I'm a nutcase for all this God stuff. Silly of me, I know.

Life, and God, does not conform to your prejudices.

Directed at a member type post, but I hope justifiable: Cut Garleigh a little slack, Jeb. Her profile indicates she's a 13-year-old girl. That doesn't excuse her dumping on others' opinions, but it does call for teaching and guiding, rather than argumentation. IMO at least. Challenge her statements, demand she argue on an even level with others if she wants to "get in the fun" in GT. But don't presuppose her as being prejudiced and self-centered. Let's see what she has to say in defense of her assertions. (As a matter of fact, that might be a fun New Years Resolution for all of us towards all of us. )

greeker57married · Dec 29, 2005

Theophorus said:
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.

You evidently do not have much knowledge of the ASV for most conservative evangelical scholars of the last 50 years have preferred it over the King James as for as accuracy is concerned. One of the reasons for its accuracy is that it is not just based on the Textus Receptus, but on the earlier manuscripts also. It varies in many places from the KJV which is based on the Textus Receptus. The KJV Only Crowd do not accept any of the earlier manuscripts. It is easy to see why they would not accept them, because if they did that would mean that their philosophy of the inerrancy of the KJV would not stand. They have to deny all manuscriptural finds from the turn of the 20th Century. They attack good conservative scholars who hold to the critical text. They deny the facts of the development of the Textus Receptus and the manuscripts that Erasmus had to compile his Greek New Testament.

Protestante · Dec 29, 2005

Now I found a site saying what I was trying to say earlier. I hope this helps, it is very easy-to-read and correct. The most relevant part is udnerneath the heading The 'Best' English Translation.

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/meaning_vs_translation.htm

Please read - this may settle some of the dispute.

Theophorus · Dec 29, 2005

greeker57married said:
You evidently do not have much knowledge of the ASV for most conservative evangelical scholars of the last 50 years have preferred it over the King James as for as accuracy is concerned. One of the reasons for its accuracy is that it is not just based on the Textus Receptus, but on the earlier manuscripts also. It varies in many places from the KJV which is based on the Textus Receptus. The KJV Only Crowd do not accept any of the earlier manuscripts. It is easy to see why they would not accept them, because if they did that would mean that their philosophy of the inerrancy of the KJV would not stand. They have to deny all manuscriptural finds from the turn of the 20th Century. They attack good conservative scholars who hold to the critical text. They deny the facts of the development of the Textus Receptus and the manuscripts that Erasmus had to compile his Greek New Testament.

On the contrary. I am aware of the differences and the reasons the ASV, is prefered. I am also familiar where it differs. I am also aware of the erasmus controversy as well as the arguements against the critical text, or alexandrain text. I am familiar with the work of Wescott and Hort.

I do not believe the KJV is inerrant. I hold to the fact that the received text is the closest text to the one in constantinople. That most Orthodox literature quotes the KJV or the NKJV.

The other reasons I like the KJV is its simplicity. It is easy to memorize. It sounds nice. From a literary standpoint, there is much going on that is not obvious until one suffers through something not as well written. As I said before, there are many purposes and use for scripture, edification being one of them, in the many forms that may be accomplished.

greeker57married · Dec 29, 2005

Theophorus said:
On the contrary. I am aware of the differences and the reasons the ASV, is prefered. I am also familiar where it differs. I am also aware of the eramaus controversy as well as the arguements against the critical text, or alexandrain text. I am familiar with the work of Wescott and Hort.

I do not believe the KJV is inerrant. I hold to the fact that the received text is the closest text to the one in constantinople. That most Orthodox literature quotes the KJV or the NKJV.

The other reasons I like the KJV is its simplicity. It is easy to memorize. It sounds nice. From a literary standpoint, there is much going on that is not obvious until one suffers through something not as well written. As I said before, there are many purposes and use for scripture, edification being one of them, in the many forms that may be accomplished.

I respect your view point, yes the KJV is a literary masterpiece and a beautiful translation. The ASV is not as beautiful, but it was not meant to be. I Still believe that the ASV is somewhat more accurate than the KJV. It is a good study Bible. All of the manuscripts both the Byzantine and the Alexanderian text are good text. The KJV is a good strict translation, but the ASV is more accurate. I do not believe that the Textus Receptus is the best text. Those who translated the ASV compared all the text both Byzantine and Alexanderian. I believe to get back to what the original words of Scripture says more accurately one must go back to the earlier manuscripts.

God Bless
Greeker

Theophorus · Dec 29, 2005

greeker57married said:
I respect your view point, yes the KJV is a literary masterpiece and a beautiful translation. The ASV is not as beautiful, but it was not meant to be. I Still believe that the ASV is somewhat more accurate than the KJV. It is a good study Bible. All of the manuscripts both the Byzantine and the Alexanderian text are good text. The KJV is a good strict translation, but the ASV is more accurate. I do not believe that the Textus Receptus is the best text. Those who translated the ASV compared all the text both Byzantine and Alexanderian. I believe to get back to what the original words of Scripture says more accurately one must go back to the earlier manuscripts.

God Bless
Greeker

Yes, the ASV is my 1st choice of study along side the KJV. I respect your position on the received text, though I disagree that the earlier text is the best. We probably both are familiar with the arguements on each side. Like I said, the TR is the closest to the Orthodox texts and that is a different discussion altogether.

But it is encouraging to see someone else using the ASV. I find it superior to most of the modern versions, and it is the first I turn to for comparison. The second is the Jerusalem Bible. This is the best dynamic equivalence out there in my opinion.

Now when more start to use an LXX for the OT, I would be ecstatic.

JimfromOhio · Dec 29, 2005

In my opinion, God's Word should be in the "language of the people" which means the everyday language, and not the English of 500 A.D. or 1000 A.D. or 1611 A.D. or 1800 A.D. or 1900 A.D. We are living in the 2005 A.D language. People to say that we should stay with an Old English Bible or KJV or whatever, when we need to focus on the "language of the people," in today's time. By putting pressure on people to focus on KJV or whatever would do a disservice to the TRUE message of the Bible. We need to communicate God's Word in the clearest possible manner.

Each of us have our OWN preference of any translations without feeling guilty nor feeling pressure to read that we are not comfortable with. The only perfect Bible was those original manuscripts which are not currently available. God has preserved the translation of His truths over the years and we can trust our Bibles by relying on the Holy Spirit.

Theophorus · Dec 29, 2005

JimfromOhio said:
In my opinion, God's Word should be in the "language of the people" which means the everyday language, and not the English of 500 A.D. or 1000 A.D. or 1611 A.D. or 1800 A.D. or 1900 A.D. We are living in the 2005 A.D language. People to say that we should stay with an Old English Bible or KJV or whatever, when we need to focus on the "language of the people," in today's time. By putting pressure on people to focus on KJV or whatever would do a disservice to the TRUE message of the Bible. We need to communicate God's Word in the clearest possible manner.

Each of us have our OWN preference of any translations without feeling guilty nor feeling pressure to read that we are not comfortable with. The only perfect Bible was those original manuscripts which are not currently available. God has preserved the translation of His truths over the years and we can trust our Bibles by relying on the Holy Spirit.

I can appreciate this. Even when I was a protestant though, I felt a need to preserve some of the traditions of that movement. To at least give a sense of history and an anchor to the people, sacrafices, theological battles fought for truth. It always seemed to me tha tthe church was comprised of people of the truth, and to just dismiss some of their accomplishments as antiquated or no longer relevant made some of the doctrine superficial.

Tyndale's biography made a profound impact on me, in particular. He martyred for his translation. The process and people that culminated in the KJV is a remarkable heratige for the protestant believers. Tradition is important for many reasons.

EchelonForm · Dec 29, 2005

In my opinion, God's Word should be in the "language of the people" which means the everyday language, and not the English of 500 A.D. or 1000 A.D. or 1611 A.D. or 1800 A.D. or 1900 A.D. We are living in the 2005 A.D language. People to say that we should stay with an Old English Bible or KJV or whatever, when we need to focus on the "language of the people," in today's time. By putting pressure on people to focus on KJV or whatever would do a disservice to the TRUE message of the Bible. We need to communicate God's Word in the clearest possible manner.

Each of us have our OWN preference of any translations without feeling guilty nor feeling pressure to read that we are not comfortable with. The only perfect Bible was those original manuscripts which are not currently available. God has preserved the translation of His truths over the years and we can trust our Bibles by relying on the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for witing this.

and to just dismiss some of their accomplishments as antiquated or no longer relevant made some of the doctrine superficial.

The accomplishments aren't antiquated the language is.

Theophorus · Dec 30, 2005

EchelonForm said:
The accomplishments aren't antiquated the language is.

Well, not according to all of the KJV bashers. The translators are in error, the text is unreadable, worthless. King James is a heretical gay man who changed the bible to suit his political ambitions.The source text is useless.

FYI, the language of the KJV was never a spoken language, it is the mixture of several styles of english that were in transition. One could say that the only time this "type" of English was ever spoken was in church.

Protestante · Dec 30, 2005

Please stop with the bickering! It has not and will not change any body's mind.

Theophorus · Dec 30, 2005

Protestante said:
Please stop with the bickering! It has not and will not change any body's mind.

It changed mine. I am now using a coloring book version of the NT. (It's color by number) I figure I should take the verse, "unless you become as a little child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven", more seriously, though being serious is hard for a child, I guess it's a start in the right direction.

Aloha Joe · Dec 30, 2005

Theophorus said:
It changed mine. I am now using a coloring book version of the NT. (It's color by number) I figure I should take the verse, "unless you become as a little child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven", more seriously, though being serious is hard for a child, I guess it's a start in the right direction.

Oh, the mysterious paradoxes of faith!

mark53 · Dec 31, 2005

garleigh said:
I think that the NIV and all the other versions just changed the meaning of the KJV to fit what people choose to believe, not what God intends for us to follow.

If you would have read the posts here and in other places and / or read books about the making of the KJV you would know that this is a false staement!
To say that for 1500 years we had no authorised Word of God, then we suddenly did and that this is the only translation of the early manuscripts that is from God. That is a bit far fetched.

Learn these languages Greek and Hebrew and work it out yourself. Ask Martin Luther! (if one could) he strongly recommends learning these languages for ALL Christians.

Sun2 · Dec 31, 2005

kjve

Paleoconservatarian said:
I think the KJV is superior to the NIV, but I also have (and use) the NIV.

Do you know the meanings of "avouch", "bruit", "collop", "durst", and "emerods"? The King James Bible can be difficult to understand for many people who are not accustomed to its vocabulary. Using the King James Dictionary you can now learn the meaning of all those obsolete, extinct Bible words, like "concupiscence," "greaves" and "wist"...

Question is . KJV was translated to make bible available to the common man, the language today is much different than 1611, why make it difficult for us when much easier translations are available? Just because KJV has thee, thou does not mean that thats the way to rever God. NIV is ok so is KJV

Polycarp1 · Dec 31, 2005

And in particular it might be worth noting that using "thee" and "thou" is not "showing reverence" for God, it's using the familiar terms. If the intent was to treat God with a proper show of reverence, the KJV translators were quite capable of using "you" and "ye," the plural forms used in 1611 to show respect. Instead, they followed Jesus's example of speaking to God in the familiar forms one uses with close family.

Espada · Dec 31, 2005

Caissie said:
I will let these verses speak for me:

Below is from http://www.biblestuff.freerovin.com/favorite_links.html
(KJV) an angel (NIV) an eagle (Rev 8:13)
(KJV) the Spirit (NIV) the light (Eph 5:9)
(KJV) his house (NIV) her house (Col 4:15)
(KJV) the synagogues of Galilee (NIV) the synagogues of Judea (Luke 4:44)
(KJV) I [John] stood upon the sand of the sea (NIV) the dragon [Satan]
stood on the shore of the sea (Rev 13:1)
(KJV) Good things to come (NIV) good things that are already here (Heb.
9:11)
(KJV) do his commandments(NIV) wash their robes (Rev 22:14)

The following are just SOME of the many verses that are omitted from the NIV: [Some versions might put it in brackets, or put a footnote at the bottom of the page, or just totally skip that verse entirely!]
Mark 9:44
Acts 8:37
Acts 28:29
Matt 18:11
Mark 15:28
Rom 16:24
Matt 17:21
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7

Is it hard to be saved? Jesus says no, "For my yoke is easy.." Matt 11:30,
but the NIV says yes.
Mark 10:24
..."Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! (NIV)
...Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!(KJV)

Did Lucifer fall from heaven, or did Jesus fall from heaven?
Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,...(KJV)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star,...(NIV)

Jesus is the morning star. "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto
you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David,
and the bright and morning star." Rev 22:16

Let us see what the NIV did to John 3:16
When we ask Jesus into our
lives we become the "sons of God", he adopts you into his family. (1 John
3:1 and 2).
Now, everyone knows John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...(KJV)
Lets see what the NIV did to confuse the Word of God:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son... (NIV)

Now, wait a minute, I thought we are also his sons?
The NIV also removed "begotten" from John 1:14 and John 1:18.

What does the NIV have against fasting?
Acts 10:30
...I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed...(KJV)
...I was in my house praying...(NIV)

1 Corinthians 7:5
...give yourselves to fasting and prayer;(KJV)
...devote yourselves to prayer. (NIV)

Mark 9:29
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.(KJV)
He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer.(NIV)

Matthew 17:21
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.(KJV)
(The NIV OMITTED the WHOLE VERSE!) I guess they didn't think that verse was important even though our Lord Jesus said it.

Lets see what the NIV did to The Lord's Prayer.

Luke 11:2-4
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. (KJV)

Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation
(NIV)

Oh dear oh dear, this really is getting boring. Go back to the Greek texts and see which is closer to it. I can assure you before you start it will be the NIV, I have been through most if not all of the posted verses and found it to be the NIV that is closer to being accurate.
Why is this, the translators of the KJV ended up using the TR, itself a corrupt text and the vulgate. As a result the KJV ends up being a translation of a translation (at best).

Most of the people who put these lists together have absolutely no qualifications in biblical translation

greeker57married · Dec 31, 2005

Theophorus said:
Yes, the ASV is my 1st choice of study along side the KJV. I respect your position on the received text, though I disagree that the earlier text is the best. We probably both are familiar with the arguements on each side. Like I said, the TR is the closest to the Orthodox texts and that is a different discussion altogether.

But it is encouraging to see someone else using the ASV. I find it superior to most of the modern versions, and it is the first I turn to for comparison. The second is the Jerusalem Bible. This is the best dynamic equivalence out there in my opinion.

Now when more start to use an LXX for the OT, I would be ecstatic.

I am Southern Baptist so I am not sure of what you mean by orthodox texts. I have a good working knowledge of New Testament Greek and have also studied about the manuscripts. What kind of manuscripts are the orthodox text and what is their date? I think I have an idea.

God bless
Greeker

oldsage · Dec 31, 2005

greeker57married said:
I am Southern Baptist so I am not sure of what you mean by orthodox texts. I have a good working knowledge of New Testament Greek and have also studied about the manuscripts. What kind of manuscripts are the orthodox text and what is their date? I think I have an idea.

God bless
Greeker

Since he is Orthodox Catholic he would more than likely follow the Byzantine text-type, so, if you have a copy of R-P Majority Text you may have it right, since the TR follows the Byz text-type he would like that more. The TR differs in about 2000 places from the MT as compared to the 6000 some differences from the Critical text to the MT. Plus they use the LXX as their old testament since it is shown it was quoted from in many of the Apostolic scriptures.

Chris

NIV vs. KJV

Gone

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Regular Member

Active Member

...

Regular Member

...

Life of Trials :)

...

Senior Member

...

Active Member

...

Aloha Joe

Guest

Veteran

Regular Member

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Iēsous Christos Theou Huios Sōtēr

Regular Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency