WHy do some say KJV is better than NIV?

[JPPT1974]

I think that it all depends on
How comfortable you feel about
What you read IMO!

 

[arunma]

First and formost.
I personally find it an abomination to profit from the word of God.

This is a problem for a lot of people. May I ask (not just to you, but to everyone who holds to this opinion) why it is wrong to profit from the ministry? Now let me qualify what I mean by "profit." I do believe that it is wrong to attempt to become rich from the word of God, since the Bible portrays the pursuit of riches as evil. I also repudiate the deeds of charlatans such as Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, and the rest of the TBN crowd, who become wealthy from their ministry.

With that qualification, it seems perfectly Biblical for a person to earn his (modest) living from ministry. We are all familiar with the words of Christ, "the laborer deserves his wages," quoted twice in the Bible, in St. Luke 10:7 and 1 Timothy 5:18. I don't know how much money Bible translators make. But it doesn't seem to me as if it is wrong to use one's skill as a Bible translator to put food on the table.

 

[Easystreet]

the niv is basically a paraphrase
the kjv is...well the kjv

to me the kjv is a difficult read due to the langauage
i do enjoy the nkjv though

i tend to shy away from paraphrases
i prefer the literal translations
and my research has lead me to the NASB and the ESV

The KJV, NKJV, AS, NAS and some others are translations OK

The NIV is a translation too but it is one that we term Dynamic Equivalent.

In simple terms what Dynamic Equivalency does is give the reader the expanded meaning of the word of phrase. This in and of itself is better. It is a translation. A Dynamic Equivalent Translation.

Some are closer to “Literal Translations” Some are “Dynamic Equivalent Translations” .


What does this mean?

If you read a word for word literal translation you would be confused to say the least. Why? Because of word order and the words in Greek, because much of the time one Greek word takes two or more words to be express in English.

The more these Greek words are expressed in several terms, or expanded as we call it - it them conveys a clearer meaning and understanding. We can say that it is a more reader friendly TRANSLATION. Now it makes sense and we understand better.

So to say the NIV is not a translation is not correct. ​

It is Dynamic Equivalent Translation of the Greek words.


I want everyone pro and con to slow down and think about the terms Dynamic Equivalent just for a moment.

Dynamic = Powerful, greater, energetic are a few synonyms and Equivalent or Equivalent translation = means - look it up. The Same, Alike, etc.

We must pay attention to details and cast aside all these reasoning that all of us have embraced from well meaning, but false arguments about the NIV.

Please understand that the NKJV is a very good translation. The Old versions of the KJV are translations of only a “FEW” manuscripts with in a large body of manuscripts and to top that off the manuscripts of the KJV come from the 10 century. Where as the NKJV employs ALL both majority text and minority text (here majority does not mean better or proven).


I don’t know about you but I had rather have my translation based upon the complete body of manuscripts vs. isolated 10th century copies.


But to the defense of the KJV. Even the 10th century copies that are only a very small portion of the text body they come from is still in high agreement with the rest of the manuscripts. If all we had was the 10th century copies it would be OK. No one is going to miss opportunity to hear about Jesus, now they are sinners and need salvation.


For all of you gents and ladies that are KJV only don’t get hung up on pitting this again that. That is only an issue that diverts from the greater good. I am convinced that if you consider yourself a reasonable person and you honestly study the transmission of the text and read all the books from reasonable scholars and read some on the hyper ends too you will appreciate the miracle of the Bible.

We have a very reliable translation or reproduction of the original text which does not exist to anyone’s knowledge.

When documents copied in a wide land mass by different peoples and cultures and languages are brought together and compared and then found to be 97 percent plus in agreement. Now that is a miracle. No other original document that has been copied has every come CLOSE to this.

FOCUS: The Bible covers some 1500 years of history and all the books are written by some 40 plus authors. And concerning the NT books copied and re-copied and re-copied all over Asia and Europe and Guess What. They, when discovered and dug up and found agreement to be 97 percent plus. Disagreement in text are reasonable and explainable for the most part.

Give me a NKJV or NIV or NAS or Key Taylor’s (real paraphrased bible) and I can’t go wrong. Oh! you won't be miss guided with a KJV either, so why the big fuss.

Did you know that the NIV compared tot he KJV has the word Blood more times in it? That is true but what does it prove. NOTHING.

Let me put in a HUGE PLUG for Ken Taylor’s Living Bible. You will have a much better grasp and correct understanding on difficult passages like Ecclesiastes if you read the Living Bible. Reading it in a literal sense is and can be confusing. People like Ken Taylor and other Scholars across the ages from different backgrounds have bless us with their talents and given to us “GREATER UNDERSTANDING” not shrouded in mystery and confusion.

 

[Easystreet]

The NIV is a faulty translation. I recommend the NASB, ESV, Holman or NKJ if you dont want to us the KJV.

Where and How and who said ?

 

[Easystreet]

I am also a ESV fan, I almost was sucked into the whole KJV only thing awhile ago, the books I read that made huge claims about the KJV... well the facts are every one can have an agenda, even well meaning christians.
I don't know greek or much about the translation process, but I do know from a little basic research, other translations can be just as "correct" as others by the allowances of tranlsation from hebrew or greek with style, context and word placement.
We are told to "pay much closer attention" to the Word of God "lest we fall away", but there is also the point where one can pay too much attention and attack the small things ...things that don't edify, but cause division.. not that anyone who posted has done that, but that is something I had to learn when I went through this whole thing.

Knowing the original language does not solve all the problems in translating a word to another language. However, we have to be grateful that God's has blessed great minds and thinkers with the tools to translate to our language.

I studied Greek and I can tell you that for all who seek to know it or Hebrew you will not solve all the problems. It is rewarding and fun and if you are intellectually honest you will not be out in the global market of Christians thinking beating this or that ban wagon.

All of our mainline translations are OK

Give me Ken Taylor’s Paraphrased Bible yes BIBLE. I guarantee you it will not miss lead me, corrupt me, send me to hell, cause me to miss heave, teach me to do bad things, and on and on.

We do however need to be vigilant in guarding the text. There are bad translations KJV, NKJV, AS, NAS, NIV, NLT, and others are OK. The New World JW's bible is a REAL BAD one NOW. All conservative bible scholars agree on this. Even professional non-Christian language scholars agree that the JW's bible is bogus.

 

[JacobHall86]

Where and How and who said ?

There are two types of Translations of Biblical Text.

Formal and Functional.

Formal translations are the word for word, THe KJV, NASB, ESV, Holman and other translations.

The Functional arethe Paraphrases like the Message or the Word on the Street Bible.

However the NIV is neither, at certain points its word for word, and at others its thought for thought, it is totally subjective as to how it is translated based on the translators desire to convey his thought of the Scripture.

The NASB and ESV are much better and accurate translation.

Dynamic Equivalent is useless, since we are not needed to expand on or convey scriptures, they do that themselves.

 

[Easystreet]

From those who translated the NIV. If you choose to not accept real scholarly work and their own definition then neither I or anyone else can not convince you.

I accept that these men did a great job in producing this translation for us, and here are their words. If you need to call anyone less than professional or say the NIV is not a translation then take it up with the 100 plus Hebrew and Greek Scholars who produced this Version of God's word.

"From the beginning of the project, the Committee on Bible Translation held to certain goals for the New International Version: That it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use. The Committee also sought to preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English."

"The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and it fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words."

You can debate, argue, differ, have an opinion and that won't change the good work these people did.

If you do not hold the credentials these scholarly people do then how is it you have the ability to contradict their work and ability? What are your credentials of scholarship and expertise to back up your opinion and view concerning this translation?

God Bless


Love Always Finds A Way

 

[RichardT]

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

II timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Where's your bible?

 

[JacobHall86]

II timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Where's your bible?

That applies to the original texts, not someones interpretation or translation.

The Hebrew and Greek are inspired, the others are translations of inspired works.

The NIV is not the best Bible to use. If yopu arent going to use the Original languages I would suggest the NASB or ESV or KJV. Stay away from the NIV. It simply is not as good.

 

[RichardT]

That applies to the original texts, not someones interpretation or translation.

The Hebrew and Greek are inspired, the others are translations of inspired works.

The NIV is not the best Bible to use. If yopu arent going to use the Original languages I would suggest the NASB or ESV or KJV. Stay away from the NIV. It simply is not as good.

Where's your bible? Where are the originals?

 

[JacobHall86]

Where's your bible? Where are the originals?

I use the NASB and the ESV, I am currently learning Hebrew and when I learn Hebrew I am going to learn Greek.

 

[arunma]

II timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Where's your bible?

Do you mean to ask, "where are your original manuscripts?" Richard, please be careful not to employ Muslim-style thought on this issue. I use that terminology because Muslims believe their Quran to be inspired in the original manuscripts, and they further believe that they have the original manuscripts. They will typically criticize Christians by claiming that our records of Christ and the Apostles are faulty, and attempt to poke holes in our doctrine. Their solution, of course, is the Quran. But they hide behind the claim of Quranic inspiration, and fail to apply the same standards of scrutiny to their scriptures that they do to ours. The same is true in some cases of KJV-only Christians who criticize the fact that we do not have the original autographs of the Apostles, and then offer the doctrine of special inspiration of the KJV as a valid alternative. After all, how do you argue with someone who says "God did it" and offers no further explanation?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your question "where's your Bible?" I have to admit, the thought crossed my mind that perhaps this was a one-liner that the pastor at your fundamentalist church taught you to say to non-KJV-onlyists (I don't mean that disrespectfully), and I'm writing based on that assumption. Forgive me if I assumed incorrectly (and perhaps you can send me an instant message about it later).

 

[JacobHall86]

I read it the same way arunma, it seems to have an angry tone with it.

 

[arunma]

I read it the same way arunma, it seems to have an angry tone with it.

Well, I'm glad to hear that it wasn't just me.

But there's one thing I should mention. Richard himself isn't an angry person, he's really a nice guy once you get to know him. But from what he's told me about the fundamentalist church he recently began to attend, they do seem to be angry people, who preach on nothing but the apostasy of other churches. I know this is normally the sort of thing that shouldn't be discussed in public, but it's no secret that I don't think this church is spiritually healthy (heck, there's a whole thread about it somewhere), so I figure it wouldn't hurt to say this out here. I just thought it would be important to note that the "angry" comments don't reflect Richard's personality, but rather the fundamentalists with whom he has fallen in.

 

[TwinCrier]

Where's your bible? Where are the originals?

No one knows what is or were "the originals." I have faith the God is smart enough to preserve his word without error for all generations in all languages of the Earth. In English, I have found that to be the KJV.

 

[RichardT]

No one knows what is or were "the originals." I have faith the God is smart enough to preserve his word without error for all generations in all languages of the Earth. In English, I have found that to be the KJV.

Well, ya this is the KJB belief... But I thought it was made obvious...

 

[arunma]

No one knows what is or were "the originals." I have faith the God is smart enough to preserve his word without error for all generations in all languages of the Earth. In English, I have found that to be the KJV.

As far as KJV-only beliefs go, this seems to be a rather reasonable one.

 

[Easystreet]

That applies to the original texts, not someones interpretation or translation.

The Hebrew and Greek are inspired, the others are translations of inspired works.

The NIV is not the best Bible to use. If yopu arent going to use the Original languages I would suggest the NASB or ESV or KJV. Stay away from the NIV. It simply is not as good.

Can you back that up? Read my post above. It is one thing to slam a "thing" whatever that is and another to back it up.

I call your hand on your statement. Are you a Greek and Hebrew scholar? What exactly is your specific reason/s for being against the NIV and comparing it to others as less? Please add specific meat to your position. Over 100 Scholars accomplished in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek worked on the NIV. Where you apart of them? What is the basis of your position?

Go to this post and read it http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26225996#post26225996

Thanks Gordon

 

[wmc1982]

well, tradition. But anyway, it's all God's word, just spoken in the best way we can understand it. The English language changes so much I bet there will be a few new versions coming out in the next decade.

 

[JacobHall86]

Can you back that up? Read my post above. It is one thing to slam a "thing" whatever that is and another to back it up.

I call your hand on your statement. Are you a Greek and Hebrew scholar? What exactly is your specific reason/s for being against the NIV and comparing it to others as less? Please add specific meat to your position. Over 100 Scholars accomplished in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek worked on the NIV. Where you apart of them? What is the basis of your position?

Go to this post and read it http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26225996#post26225996

Thanks Gordon

I am studying Hebrew and when I finish learning Hebrew I am going to start Greek.
Are you a Greek and Hebrew Scholar? If not than you have no idea what kind of scholars these men are or the translation.

The KJV and the NASB are the best literal word for word translations. I dont care about a "Dynamic Equivalent". I care about the literal translating of Gods word, not who can make it speak to me the best.