WHy do some say KJV is better than NIV?

[Tenken07]

Some people say that you should read the KJV over the NIV. I dont understand why. Both are translations from the original greek and hebrew so I dont see why one is better than the other.

 

[DeaconDean]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein, are not representative of Baptists as a whole, nor CF, they are mine and mine alone.

Having said that, let me say first off that I do not use the NIV. I prefer the KJV. But if you are more confortable with the NIV, then by all means use it. I do not like the way the NIV changes the meaning of some scriptures. And it does change the meaning, or intent if you prefer. For example:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." -1 Cor. 7:1 KJV

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." -1 Cor, 7:1 NIV

Notice the particular wording of the text. We know that God instituted marriage between man and woman in the garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. Hebrews says this concerning the marriage bed of a husband and wife:

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:" -Heb. 13:4

As to the meaning of 1 Cor. 7:1, Paul was trying to teach those "carnal" people of Corinth the proper values concerning sex and marriage for Christians. We know that you are supposed to wait until after marriage to have sex. Sex between married couples is blessed by God, there is nothing wrong with that. And that is what Paul was trying to infer in this passage. Look further down in the scriptures:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband...But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Cor. 7:2,9

Paul says to avoid fornication, let each man and woman have their individual marriage partnres, for it is better to marry than to burn in lust.

Paul also says:

"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

What Paul is infering to here is that while you are a virgin and unmarried, you have the desire to please the Lord and tend to His matters before all else. So it is indeed more blessed to remain a virgin and unmarried. But by the same token, the married person has the tendency to put his or her husband/wife first and the Lord second.

But looking at the 1 Cor. 7:1 in the NIV, it changes the whole context of what Paul was trying to get across. In the NIV, it specificly talks about not marrying at all. In fact, it goes out of the way to say:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry."

It changes the whole context of what Paul was trying to say. And that is wrong. Especially in this day and age where sexual promiscuity is so wide spread, to preach against marrige from the NIV is wrong. (IMHO)

When I went to school, English Literature was taught every other year in school. So as a result, I have a good understanding of Shakespere. The kings English. Some say this type of language is no longer in use so what use is the KJV? The KJV is not that hard to understand. If you read a passage and it isn't altogether clear, read a little further, it will clairify itself in later passages. When I prepare a sermon, I use at least five different versions of the Bible. Simply because one version may say something in a little clearer light. And I do use the NIV as one of my five versions. But I would never preach from it because I simply don't like the way it changes the message or intent of the scriptures. So what it really boils down to is this, which version of the Bible is the correct one? Simple, the version which you pick up and read daily. I will not put you down for using the NIV, I just say it's not for me.

God Bless.

 

[Marks19]

my bible is NIV.. its just what ive always had plus the KJV is really confusing to me... i dont know its like i see the words but they just dont register

 

[Seeker of the Truth]

my bible is NIV.. its just what ive always had plus the KJV is really confusing to me... i dont know its like i see the words but they just dont register

the KJV stays true to the original words and expressions... i prefer it and i'm only 18... most people my age are reading "The Message"

o and there are alot of errors in the NIV

 

[arunma]

Why is the debate always between the King James and the NIV? Both, in my opinion, are decent Bible translations, but there are many fine modern translations available today. I personally prefer the ESV, because it is easily readable, and literal in its translation. The NASB is another good literal translation. I've also found that the NRSV New Testament translation is fairly good (though their translation of the Old Testament isn't).

We need not behave as though there are only two English translations from which to choose.

 

[arunma]

the KJV stays true to the original words and expressions... i prefer it and i'm only 18... most people my age are reading "The Message"

o and there are alot of errors in the NIV

For the most part, the King James is a good Bible translation, but it contains a few errors too. Here's a good example that someone on this forum once explained to me.

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. (St. Matthew 23:24)
​

The problem here is the phrase "strain at a gnat." It should read "strain out a gnat." The idea Christ means to convey, here, is that the Jews make every effort to remove the smallest unclean animal, but abide the larger unclean animal. In a sense they are "stepping over dollars to pick up pennies." Here's how my ESV renders the verse.

You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (St. Matthew 23:24)
​

It might also be helpful to read Adam Clarke's commentary on the verse (Adam Clarke used the King James):

Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain At a gnat, conveys no sense. Indeed, it is likely to have been at first an error of the press, At for Out, which, on examination, I find escaped in the edition of 1611, and has been regularly continued since. There is now before me, "The Newe Testament, (both in Englyshe and in Laten), of Mayster Erasmus translacion, imprynted by Wyllyam Powell, dwellynge in Flete strete: the yere of our Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edwd. VI). moste gracious reygne." in which the verse stands thus: "Ye blinde gides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammel." It is the same also in Edmund Becke’s Bible, printed in London 1549, and in several others. - Clensynge a gnatte. - MS. Eng. Bib. So Wickliff. Similar to this is the following Arabic proverb: He eats an elephant and is choked by a gnat.
​

So it appears that the King James contains a misprint here. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that even such a fine translation as King James also has its fair share of errors. We must recognize that all translations are the works of man, and are thus susceptible to the errors of man.

 

[Seeker of the Truth]

We must recognize that all translations are the works of man, and are thus susceptible to the errors of man.

indeed

 

[Easystreet]

Here is a good time to use inductive reasoning. Also, to use or let the Greek speak for itself.

(1) The greek word spelled out in english letters OK gunaikos

 

[Easystreet]

Here is a good time to use inductive reasoning. Also, to use or let the Greek speak for itself.

(1) The greek word spelled out in english letters OK

gunaikos sounds something like gue - naa - coss This word is similar in use as the word used for Husband which is anar sounds someting like ah-nair

Now, gunaikos by itself means either woman or wife.

Also anar means man or husband

So how do we determine what is correct for the context it is found in?

Notice that in this passage the subject is "Wife"

Now here is the KJV of verse one and two

1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

I have underlined woman and wife

(A.) The red woman underlined is the word gunaikos
(B.) The red wife underlined is the word gunaika

NOTE - The only reason the spelling is different is posiiton in sentanse. They are the same word.

(C.) The black larger "Woman" is hekasta -

Now, focus in on what I say - In context the NIV correctly translates it. Why? First because the "gunaikos or ka is the same word and the context is marriage and wife.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman if he is not married. We men all know the issue here with out taking this discussion to a point that is distracting.

Can the verse be translated as the KJV has it. Yes, but the NIV conveys the meaning and the KJV leaves the context.

If Paul had used "hekasta" and not "gunaikos" I would agree with the KJV.

 

[rainbowpromise]

my bible is NIV.. its just what ive always had plus the KJV is really confusing to me... i dont know its like i see the words but they just dont register

I have exactly the opposite situation.

My Bible is KJV. I have always used KJV and the NIV is really confusing to me. I have a NIV and NKJV. I often find myself picking up the KJV to clarify what I read in those.

Even my granddaughter aged 10 has a preference to the KJV because it is what she is used to.

 

[DeaconDean]

I agree with my brother arunma. Why does this always come up? Nevertheless, as I said before, I use the KJV mainly because I was raised on it, and I can understand it. And when preparing sermons, I use as many versions as possible. The RSV is a good version. And let me say this also, a study in Koine Greek would help too. I took Greek 1 when I was in seminary, and let me say, it is not for the weak when it comes to English grammer. English grammer plays a big part in Greek translations. I like my English/Greek interlinear bible (NT). When reading some other version other than the RSV or KJV, a paraphrase for example, compare it to a good recognized standard version such as the KJV or the RSV to see how close it comes to what the old standards say. If they are far different, then I suggest you switch versions.

God Bless

 

[tulc]

I think what matters is that you read it, not what translation it is.
tulc(who reads KJV, but doesn't mind other translations)

 

[DeaconDean]

I think what matters is that you read it, not what translation it is.
tulc(who reads KJV, but doesn't mind other translations)

Friend we think very much alike.

So what it really boils down to is this, which version of the Bible is the correct one? Simple, the version which you pick up and read daily.

God Bless.

Till all are one.

 

[chris777]

When I first believed and started going back to church this translation issue became a large stumbling block to me, in that i was very confused and upset when the pastor would read from a different translation than I had, I thought I was doing something wrong At first till I learned of other translations, and then the quest to find the best.

I too have settled on KJV for a variety of reasons,
1) no copyright
2) can be purchaced for a dollar, where other "more profitable translations can be expensive)
3)most people are familiar with it
4) I do not feel it is useless, and outdated.
5) the translators had more at stake in 1611 where many would be killed if they translated incorrectly. Where modern ones are "fear less" in what they "feel" should be included


It is also a bit disturbing that adultry and fornication, have all been "secularized" with our modern base preoccupation with sexuality, by being called "sexual immorality" it takes away from the sins of adultry and fornication
Not to mention the other countless "liberties" taken with Gods word.

If I had access to othing else in a pinch I would use another translation, but their are a lot of interesting facts about the KJV that make it stand out from the crowd.

 

[TwinCrier]

I have exactly the opposite situation.

My Bible is KJV. I have always used KJV and the NIV is really confusing to me. I have a NIV and NKJV. I often find myself picking up the KJV to clarify what I read in those.

Even my granddaughter aged 10 has a preference to the KJV because it is what she is used to.

I agree with this completely. I was so confused when people would quote a bible verse such as 'thou shalt not kill' or 'Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death' then I would open my bible and see totally different words. Sometimes the meaning was the same, sometimes it seemed to have a different spin, but it was different. It's also frustrating when I go to my husband's church and they read out of a different translation each week. No one ever carries a bible to church and the congregation never reads verses together and the pastor doesn't utter the phrase "turn in your bibles to..." When I found out at least two of the translators for the NIV were homosexual I decided it was not a book I wanted to base my faith on.
My kids all use the KJV as does my church and I haven't heard any complaints.

 

[Easystreet]

When I first believed and started going back to church this translation issue became a large stumbling block to me, in that i was very confused and upset when the pastor would read from a different translation than I had, I thought I was doing something wrong At first till I learned of other translations, and then the quest to find the best.

I too have settled on KJV for a variety of reasons,
1) no copyright
2) can be purchaced for a dollar, where other "more profitable translations can be expensive)
3)most people are familiar with it
4) I do not feel it is useless, and outdated.
5) the translators had more at stake in 1611 where many would be killed if they translated incorrectly. Where modern ones are "fear less" in what they "feel" should be included


It is also a bit disturbing that adultry and fornication, have all been "secularized" with our modern base preoccupation with sexuality, by being called "sexual immorality" it takes away from the sins of adultry and fornication
Not to mention the other countless "liberties" taken with Gods word.

If I had access to othing else in a pinch I would use another translation, but their are a lot of interesting facts about the KJV that make it stand out from the crowd.

I respect your right to hold that view. I don't accept the premise you posit.

The words in the KJV that have lost their meaning in modern society as you claim is not the result of using different word that states the same thing using a different word. It is the results of far more variables.

Horseless Carriage,

Automobile

Car

Rod

Wheels

and the list goes on.

Some words with respect to the KJV fall into the category as would "horseless carriage". That does not make the translation bad - it makes it archaic, in that sense.

Now, as we grow up and get older and go to school we should learn that these terms are conveying the same meaning.

For me the different translations are good. If we can get past the Majority / Minority Text issue which does not change the message one iota, we can then focus on what is important. Instead of making an issue of the portions of scripture that exist in the Majority text vs. the Minority text and trying to blame it on some lame argument that those who copied the Minority text had ulterior motives as people like "Peter Rutman" would have us believe.

By the way so that any reader - reading this post I have read basically everything he wrote. With the exception a few thing like a comp of the Greek Textus Receptus I trashed his endless ranting and raving books and booklets some years back.

I personally thing the KJV is a outstanding translation. I also view the others the same. The scholar ship in translating all of them was to make the word of God easier for us to understand so that the Word of God is not a mystery.

Gone are the days of the Dark ages. Some in the KJV would have us reading 1611 English. If the KJV were sanctions as the only reliable Translation then we need to go to the original 1611 version. 90 plus percent of the people would not understands it period.

Up dating the KJV was the right thing to do weather it used a combination of the text or not because the differences don't change one iota of the message and has never miss led any believer I know of.

Actually the BIG deal is only with Believers, not un-saved. It is the save that make the bid deal of the to camps and thus spread the on going battle and confuse new believes with endless arguments of no worth.

I am not against the study of the manuscripts. I believe we need to continue to do that until the end. But all these bogus hate filled - personal attracts on Godly men and women that people like Peter Rutman goes after is wrong. Brother Rutman lashes out at some of the most solid Christian leaders that have graces our times.

My advice is forget about the extremes of any camp. If you like the KJV or NKJV or others go for it.

If the translation comes from a group that promotes false doctrine like the JWs of course that we need to out spoken over.

It is not wrong to be critical in the right way. It is not wrong to question a text or passage that leads to greater insight with research, and further investigation. If the motive is to accomplish truth, and not to condemn and to even fine tune the already 97 percent plus accuracy of the text then go for it.

I applaud all linguist involved in all the languages that have manuscripts. Keep studying and comparing and researching and considering. But do it in love and one ness not as Peter Rutman has.

God Bless

You don't have to Always be anti to be for something.

Gordon

 

[tulc]

You don't have to Always be anti to be for something.

Gordon!
tulc(and here's one more 'cause I liked that post so much!)

 

[mont974x4]

The original KJV didn't have some of the older manuscripts available. It doesn't make it bad just not as accurate. There are dangerous versions, like The Message and downright wrong versions like the one that places your name at the "you"s etc.

I am more concerned with biblical illiteracy in the Church than I am with what versions people use.

So pick a version, or a few, and dig in using word study dictionarys and a good concordance.

 

[Easystreet]

Here is a little history.

There is what is called the Byzantine Text Type of which there are several thousand manuscript witnesses.

This textwhich came to be known as the TR came from only a fraction of the Byzantine Text Type using less than one hundredth of the Byzantine Text.

The Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published the first Greek Text 1469-1536.

This beginning of publishing this Greek text is the text behind the KJV.

Erasmus’s second editions used the same FEW Greek manuscripts and his Latin translation, not the vulgate.

The manuscripts Erasmus used (the results being the TR which stands behind the KJV) consist of a half dozen manuscripts dated in the 10 century.

The fourth additions of this Greek text was completed by Robert Estienne or Stephanus.

Following Stephanus was Theodore Beza and he published 9 additions of the Greek text that is know as the TR.

While the KJV’s tradition is form Erasmus the actual translations was based upon Beza’s editions of 1588-1589 and 1590 which differed very little from the 4th addition of Stephanus.

The term Texus Receptus comes from a blurb in the Latin when the Elzevir brothers, published a compact Greek New Testament based on Beza text in 1633.

In the end the KJV was translated from the textual basis of the TR. The TR consist of only a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts.


All the translations in Europe up to 1181 are derived from the TR.

These are the facts. So to make an issue that the KJV is better is a very dangerous argument.

If we are honest and simply let the facts speak for itself the KJV rest on a small , very small, group of late manuscripts.

Whereas the modern versions rest upon all the manuscripts from the earliest to the latest.

Now, for me I had rather have a translation based on all the evidence and findings not just a few scrappy manuscripts from the 10th century.


I recommend the New King James Version over all the others. If you like the ring of the language use in the KJV there is nothing wrong with that. But is you want a translation that utilizes all the existing manuscripts use the NKJV or other translations Like the NIV or NASV - I recommend that everyone read the translations and then read Ken Taylor’s Paraphrased Bible.

 

[Easystreet]

This post can go.