I like the KJV for it's poetic style and also the NIV I've been using for a while now occasionally.
Last edited:
I've found no fault in the NIV.
Then you really should do more research.
All 17 of these verses are missing from the NIV
1 Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting
2 Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost
3 Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Parisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation
4 Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
5 Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched
6 Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
7 Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
8 Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, and he was numbered with the transgressors.
9 Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left
10 Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
11 John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
12 Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
13 Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
14 Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands.
15 Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
16 Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
17 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I like the NIV I've been using it for a while now and it's excellent and fun to read.
I've found no fault in the NIV. I personally don't like the King James series besides the KJV. I especially don't like the NASB.
That's a shame, because the NASB has a pretty high translation quality. It's closer to the literal/formal equivalence tradition of the KJV (which you find in the RSV, NRSV, and ESV) but also properly translates the Greek imperfect into an English past continuous (one of the advantages of the NIV).
The LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) uses the ESV in its worship materials and for its study Bible, but in seminary we used all manner of Bibles constantly comparing them to the original Hebrew and Greek. No translation is perfect, but I do think the ESV and NASB come about as close to "literal" as you can get. The NIV sounds better because its goal is readability in English, but it does contain a number of strange renderings unjustified by the Greek (1 Pet 1:6-7, Acts 3:21, Matthew 26:64).
I would highly- HIGHLY- recommend reading the following: http://www.cph.org/pdf/esv/011946analysis.pdf
It's a comparative analysis of biblical translations (NKJV, NIV, ESV, and NASB) based on various considerations, and only about six pages long. It helps explain why our denomination selected the ESV as our primary text for worship materials and other synodical publications, having abandoning the NIV is a "blind chicken" in the words of my Greek professor.
What bible do you guys like?
Our church preaches from the NIV but my personal choice is NKJV.
I'm divided on the NKJV. The whole idea behind it is that it uses the same word order as the original King James but with some of the archaic words updated (but still in the same order), so that when the original King James is being read out loud at the pulpit during the lectionary reading, people can follow along in their Bibles without being confused. And for that, it's a fantastic idea and a wonderful tool.
But that's really all it is. It's not really a new or original translation, and therefore doesn't take advantage of all the textual studies done on biblical manuscripts from that last four hundred years. And, if the King James Bible isn't your church's Bible that gets read from the pulpit, then it loses its whole reason for being.
I like it for what it's meant to be, and I think it's a great way for churches to hold on to the King James tradition (which is at its best when read aloud with Shakespearean gusto) without being archaic or confusing. But again, that's all it is, and as a study Bible or a personal Bible, it misses the mark.