Switching to the NIV

[silent water]

For quite a while now I have used the KJV; I have used it since I first started reading the Bible. The problem is, that was over a year ago, and I am only at Job. I am spending so much time looking up words in the dictionary and comparing difficult passages to modern translations that it is not worth it any more. I am making such slow progress that it is not enjoyable using the KJV anymore. I am spending so much time trying to understand what it says that I am not focusing enough on the true message it has to offer. When I sit down to read, the process is very "dry"; how can I feel inspired if I barely understand what is being said?

Anyone been through a similar experience? I am just so frustrated with archaic language and words that I can't take it anymore!

 

[Reader Nilus]

For quite a while now I have used the KJV; I have used it since I first started reading the Bible. The problem is, that was over a year ago, and I am only at Job. I am spending so much time looking up words in the dictionary and comparing difficult passages to modern translations that it is not worth it any more. I am making such slow progress that it is not enjoyable using the KJV anymore. I am spending so much time trying to understand what it says that I am not focusing enough on the true message it has to offer. When I sit down to read, the process is very "dry"; how can I feel inspired if I barely understand what is being said?

Anyone been through a similar experience? I am just so frustrated with archaic language and words that I can't take it anymore!

That is quite common. I had the same experience when I was in high school, and then my parents got me The New English Bible for Christmas back in 1970. It was then enjoyable to read the Bible, I did not have to consult a dictionary and therefore miss the point of the story.
That is the main reason for new translations. Language changes constantly, like it or not language is very fluid. As Bruce Metzger pointed out that when the verse said Stephen was stoned, today that meaning is not all that clear, so the translation needs to address that and make it clear in the language of today, what is meant. Metzger was talking about the RSV which is only 50 years old!
The NET Bible is very good, and so is the ESV.
Jeff the Finn

 

[PreacherFergy]

I'm not really for any new translation, but if you MUST switch from the KJV, at least go to the NASB. The NIV is too liberal and loose w/ its translation. I can give you some examples from 1 Cor. 7, and other passages if you would like. I can do so in here or you can email me at Editted out for security if you would like. God bless

Moderator's Note: Please do not post email addresses. Instead, email or PM the person you wish to contact or ask them to PM you.

 

[PreacherFergy]

Also, you're going to see several changes from the KJV to the NIV b/c the NIV comes from the Alexandrian text type Greek manuscripts (United Bible Society 4th edi, Nestle-Aland 27th edi, etc). If you would like a good, non-biased book on the subject, you may want to buy _New Testament Textual Criticism, a Concise Guide_ by David Alan Black. It's a short read (only 57 pages) and it quite full of useful information.

 

[Reader Nilus]

The best available introduction to Textual Criticism is The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger. Most modern translations follow an eclectic text and they are picked from the best available texts. The translations starting with the Revised Version and the American Standard Version of 1901 have behind them Greek witnesses not available to the KJV translators. The oldest known Greek Text dated 200 AD is of the Alexanderian Text type. Papyrus Bodmer II (p66) 200 C.E.
Jeff the Finn

 

[PreacherFergy]

I have some problems w/ Metzger, though I do have a lot of his books. Also, the late Dean John W. Burgon was an excellent lower critic. His books are filled w/ information, wit, charm, etc. I enjoy reading his works. Very thorough. Metzger, Aland, etc. haven't really been able to refute him. Rather, they just mock him b/c of his theological view of the matter.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Codex Sinaiticus found in St Catherine's Monastery, is about as Orthodox as one can get IMHO. Nor has Burgon carried the day. Nestle/Aland's text is the best available today. See the Text Critical Series by Daniel B. Wallace for another voice on the matter. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Garyapostle]

here is nothing liberal or loose or defective in the NIV. It follows the best Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence we have today. The KJV is a defective Bible for two main reasons: it used a defective Greek text (though it was the best they had in 1611), and English has changed.
The NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, and God's Word Translation are superior translations. The KJV needs to be retired.

Peace,
Gary

 

[silent water]

I wouldn't say I am going to "retire" my KJV. Even if it is inaccurate as far as translation goes, it is still a masterpiece of the English language, time honored, and a classic. I will definetely keep my KJV, and pray it will never be retired.

More or less, I am switching to the NIV for readability purposes. My main problem with reading the KJV is not archaic words or the "thees" and "thous", but the sentance structure. Quite often I will read a KJV sentance and can define every word in that sentance, yet I cannot tell you what it means.

Perhaps even some day, once I get the story of the Bible into good memory, I will be able to read the KJV with ease, since I will know what is going to be said, I will better be able to understand the tricky language.

 

[PreacherFergy]

here is nothing liberal or loose or defective in the NIV. It follows the best Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence we have today. The KJV is a defective Bible for two main reasons: it used a defective Greek text (though it was the best they had in 1611), and English has changed.
The NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, and God's Word Translation are superior translations. The KJV needs to be retired.

Peace,
Gary

I don't know who misguided you, but the KJV does not need to be "retired." That is about the most unlearned statement I've heard in quite sometime. Also, it sounds as if you are just parroting what someone told you about the "best Hebrew and Greek" manuscripts, for apparently you are ignoring such men as Dr. D. A. Waite, the late Dean John William Burgon, and several other learned men who use the "defective" Greek text you refered to. Please study this before posting such nonsense and defaming the marvelous KJV that is so charished by thousands of Christians worldwide.

 

[Peter]

I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Orthodox study Bible in OT and NT. (right now it's only in NT w/ Psalms.) This rendering is being put out by Conciliar Press.

This rendering is based, at least with regards to the OT, on the older Septuagint, not the newer Masoretic texts.

It will be the first, that I know of, translation into English from the Septuagint.

I have opinions of other translations, but will hold my tongue.

Peace.

Peter

 

[Reader Nilus]

Daniel Wallace of Dalles Theological Seminary is no liberal, and I would say the New English Translation that he is the general editor of is the best translation available today. And it uses the Nestle/Aland text. The text the KJV translators would have used if they had it! Read the KJV preface.

Dr. D. A. Waite, the late Dean John William Burgon

They are in the minority among New Testament scholars so to use the phase,

such nonsense and defaming

is not quite factual.
Jeff the Finn

 

[YouthPastor]

You also need to remember that the KJV was written in the language of the day - If the KJV were to be translated today - it would not read the same.

I have a friend that is a biblical Greek Scholar - He reads the oringinal language. which is all greek to me

he recommends the New Living Translation - He said it is the closest in meaning to the greek words that he has read.

 

[Knight]

You also need to remember that the KJV was written in the language of the day - If the KJV were to be translated today - it would not read the same.

I have a friend that is a biblical Greek Scholar - He reads the oringinal language. which is all greek to me

he recommends the New Living Translation - He said it is the closest in meaning to the greek words that he has read.

I thought the NLT was a paraphrase.

 

[YouthPastor]

I thought the NLT was a paraphrase.

No, the living Bible is a paraphrase

The way you can normally tell between a translation and a paraphrase is in it's name a translation will say translation or sometimes it has "version"

Paraphrases do not have the above but have "bible" int he title, ie.. the living Bible, the message Bible - the onyl exception is the Good News Bible - I think that is a translation - but might be wrong on that one.

 

[Jesusong]

I started out with the NIV (1978) then switched to KJV (1981) , became a KJV onlyist, then went back to the NIV (1999). I've come to realize that the Greek text behind the KJV (TR) has alot of added material. The NIV would be my number one recommendation.

 

[Knight]

No, the living Bible is a paraphrase

The way you can normally tell between a translation and a paraphrase is in it's name a translation will say translation or sometimes it has "version"

Paraphrases do not have the above but have "bible" int he title, ie.. the living Bible, the message Bible - the onyl exception is the Good News Bible - I think that is a translation - but might be wrong on that one.

My mistake.

 

[Peter]

The NIV, which uses the Masorectic texts for it's OT basis, was heavily influenced by Reformed doctrine. This can be clearly seen in the translation of Psalm 51:5.

In the NIV it reads:

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

The NASB reads:

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniguity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

To most, there doesn't seem to be any difference. However, the NIV reflects the Augistinian view of original sin. The later does not. The later, which is pretty close to the other versions I've read this verse in, gives the idea that David was born into a sin filled world. The NIV reflects the idea "I am a sinner, therfore I sin". The latter reflects the idea, "I sin, therefore I am a sinner."

This is just one of the reasons I shy away from the NIV.

Peace.

Peter

 

[Reader Nilus]

The LXX Brenton's translation reads for Psalm 50:5 "For, behold, I was conceived in inquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me." Which clearly shows how the Orthodox view original sin. That the LXX is the authorized version of the Old Testament and the Apostle's Bible is telling. Right now Brenton is the only English translation of the LXX in English.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Peter]

jeffthefinn,

Could you provide the entire translation of Psalm 50 (51)? This looks like the translation I memorized from my prayer book.

Peace.

Peter