- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,256
- 8,174
- 41
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I love you too sister in ChristLOL! Awwwww c'mon brother, i LOVE the KJV.
Where's the love, mon?
Upvote
0
I love you too sister in ChristLOL! Awwwww c'mon brother, i LOVE the KJV.
Where's the love, mon?
Love you brotherI love you too sam!!!!!!
Brinny , don't want to seem as a stalker but I gotta say it one more time........I luv ya. amen.
I love you too sister in Christ
IT took me a second glance but amen. THAT SORRY wicked interfaith coexist all roads lead religionYeah, people hate the truth.
My NRSV has all those verses that the KJV added to the original manuscripts in the footnotes. Some KJV translations put these verses in parentheses to show that they weren't found in the earliest manuscripts.
It's not that the verses are missing from the NIV, but that they were added to the KJV.
You are right in that you say not "necessarily" and that they use different manuscripts. In fact the NIV (84...the 2011 is corrupted with man's additions and gender neutral language) uses the oldest manuscripts...Alexandrian mss. But the NIV 84 is also eclectic in that it uses all available mss in determining a final rendering of the text.Not necessarily. The source material was different for the KJV than the modern translations. The KJV used the "Textus Receptus" which was a compilation of over 1000 ancient manuscripts. The modern translations only use the oldest manuscripts (which are quite few in number). No one has yet proved that older is necessarily better than a wide variety of manuscripts.
That having been said, there is not enough difference between any of the translations to warrant all the controversy. I use many, the New Living Translation for its narrative flow and easy-to-understand epistles (it is the best one for kids); the New American Standard for studying a passage in the N.T. (my Greek Cypriot friend, who reads the N.T. in the Koine Greek, says the NAS is the most like the Greek); the older NIV (1985, I think) for the Old Testament (my Jewish Christian friend read the Tanakh in Hebrew and she said that the NIV was the closest to the Hebrew--she hated the new NIV, by the way); we use the ESV in our church as something of a compromise on all the different criteria; and yes, I use the KJV for memorizing a passage because it is the easiest to memorize.
The Bible you will use daily is the best translation.
The Bible you will use daily is the best translation.
Only if it quite accurate or you are filling yourself up with corrupted text. It seems accuracy is quite important as Jesus said the following...AMEN!
A word-for-word is what a person should want for a 'dynamic' translation, as the NIV has biases added to it and therefore is NOT God's word.Your conclusion is false. NIV is a translation; it is not an interpretation...KJV, which is a good translation, goes further as an interpretation than does NIV.
The word for word translations "sound" great, but not so very. Language is not taken in that way so the renderings of one of those direct, word for word translations is easily misunderstood.
Which version of the NIV? not the 84...it is the KJV which when compared with the new (oldest) Alexandrian mss that has a lot of additions.A word-for-word is what a person should want for a 'dynamic' translation, as the NIV has biases added to it and therefore is NOT God's word.
I understand that word-for word translation from the Hebrew/Greek to English can leave the English reading choppy and cause some problems with idioms of the original language. These are, in my opinion, minor issues that can be overcome. My issue with the NIV is not about choppy language or not identifying an idiom but its blatant attempt to change doctrine.Which version of the NIV? not the 84...it is the KJV which when compared with the new (oldest) Alexandrian mss that has a lot of additions.
Word for word sounds good, but not so much when working with languages which do not translate sensibly that way.
Again, which year of the NIV? The NIV 1984 is a superb rendering in my view. The 2011 NIV brought major changes and I feel it is not an acceptible version to use...by anyone.I understand that word-for word translation from the Hebrew/Greek to English can leave the English reading choppy and cause some problems with idioms of the original language. These are, in my opinion, minor issues that can be overcome. My issue with the NIV is not about choppy language or not identifying an idiom but its blatant attempt to change doctrine.
Again, which year of the NIV? The NIV 1984 is a superb rendering in my view. The 2011 NIV brought major changes and I feel it is not an acceptible version to use...by anyone.
The word for word translations "sound" great, but not so very. Language is not taken in that way so the renderings of one of those direct, word for word translations is easily misunderstood.
I am on the run now and will get back with you further if you wish, but the KJV had many, many additions and interpretive language as it passed through versions and years. When the oldest...believed oldest...manuscripts were discovered in recent years which enabled a direct comparison and language appears to have been added.Does the 1984 version pervert John 3:16 this way "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."?
I am on the run now and will get back with you further if you wish, but the KJV had many, many additions and interpretive language as it passed through versions and years. When the oldest...believed oldest...manuscripts were discovered in recent years which enabled a direct comparison and language appears to have been added.
No "begotten" in John 3:16...we are not fooled though, or shouldn't be, if Jesus is God's son and we are also given the details of the conception, visit of angel messengers, etc. and the words "God With Us" ...meaning of His name.
The changes arise from using the Alexandrian mss for NIV; KJV uses the Textus Receptus mss...they differ. The idea behind using the Alexandrian is that they were newly discovered and are believed older than the Textus Receptus and the belief that they are less tainted with additions made for understandability for the reader...none the less, they are additions/interpretations and not pure Scripture. NIV is eclectic in that all mss groups were used to render the text...rendering them from the Alexandrian and in light of the Majority Text.Not having "begotten" is an affront to the deity of Christ.
monogenēs
mono = one/only
genes = begotten
No valid, sound reason for leaving it out.
Also changing "should" KJV (subjunctive mood) to "shall" NIV (indicative mood). Why this change?
The reason the NIV left out 'begotten' was because it used corrupted flaw text tampered with by Gnostics. If the NIV was willing to tamper with something as important as the deity of Christ, is possible they were loose with other things? Yes it is.The changes arise from using the Alexandrian mss for NIV; KJV uses the Textus Receptus mss...they differ. The idea behind using the Alexandrian is that they were newly discovered and are believed older than the Textus Receptus and the belief that they are less tainted with additions made for understandability for the reader...none the less, they are additions/interpretations and not pure Scripture. NIV is eclectic in that all mss groups were used to render the text...rendering them from the Alexandrian and in light of the Majority Text.
Also, differences between mss are noted via footnote.
Nothings is perfect.