WHy do some say KJV is better than NIV?

[Easystreet]

An example of the false attacks on other translations is seen in the following Chart.

We all accept Jesus as deity

This illustration is one that points out that the NIV Honors correctness of all other translations.

Notice this example:

Verses calling Jesus God correctly"

KJV John 1:1 yes
NIV John 1:1 yes

KJV John 1:18 No
NIV John 1:18 Yes

KJV Acts 20:28 Yes
NIV Acts 20:28 Yes

KJV Romans 9:5 Yes
NIV Romans 9:5 Yes

KJV II Thess. 1:12 No
NIV II Thess. 1:12 NO but foot note says yes.

KJV Titus 2:13 No
NIV Titus 2:13 Yes

KJV Heb. 1:8 Yes
NIV Heb. 1:8 Yes

KJV II Peter 1:1 No
NIV II Peter 1:1 Yes

What does this prove two things. That claims of corruption in the NIV vs. the KJV is bogus.

Also, KJV advocates that are very adamant say that the NIV takes the word "blood" out.

The word Blood occurs more times in the NIV than the KJV.

Now before anyone jumps to great conclusions and long lengthy dissertations on why you believe this or that. Look at the text represented above very carefully. Don't stick your foot in your intellectual mouth. The subtleties of difference are there and are real for the trained mind and patience student.

 

[FallingWaters]

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.

The KJV was the "standard" Bible for so many years. And so every time a new translation came out, people always compared it to the KJV, the standard.

The KJV is a literal word-for-word translation. The NIV is more of a thought-for-thought translation. Generally speaking, for study, you should use a more literal translation, but for devotional enjoyment, perhaps a paraphrase or idiomatic translation would be easier.

I found a website that might help you understand the subtle differences between all the translations.
English Bible Translations


Even when you say, "Both are translations from the original Greek and Hebrew," the different manuscripts have a different amount of respect in different schools of thought.

As an example, one version of the Bible might trust the NU manusript, and another might not, but they might mention in the footnote what the NU says. My NKJV does that.

 

[FallingWaters]

One thing I love about the older versions like the KJV and RSV is the beautifully poetic flow of the language.
"The Lord is my sheperd. I shall not want."

When memorizing scripture for the purpose of meditating on it, it's just so beautiful. The "every day language" versions kind of lose that lofty feel and beauty of the words.

 

[Easystreet]

The KJV was the "standard" Bible for so many years. And so every time a new translation came out, people always compared it to the KJV, the standard.

The KJV is a literal word-for-word translation. The NIV is more of a thought-for-thought translation. Generally speaking, for study, you should use a more literal translation, but for devotional enjoyment, perhaps a paraphrase or idiomatic translation would be easier.

I found a website that might help you understand the subtle differences between all the translations.
English Bible Translations


Even when you say, "Both are translations from the original Greek and Hebrew," the different manuscripts have a different amount of respect in different schools of thought.

As an example, one version of the Bible might trust the NU manusript, and another might not, but they might mention in the footnote what the NU says. My NKJV does that.

The correct term that conveys the purpose of the NIV translation is

Dynamic Equivalent

This is done to make the text more readable and easier to understands. Less interpretation for the reader.

The more literal the translation the harder it is to understands. Example.

Here is a word for word REAL literal translation OK

I Philippians 4:1 From wars and from fight in you not from out of the pleasures of you the soldiering in the members of you? Desire and not have murder and jealous and no able obtain fight and war.

Next we smooth it out "From wars and from fight in you, not from out of the pleasure of you, the soldiering in the members of you? Desire and have not, Murder and jealous and not able to obtain, fight and war.

Not lets smooth it out more - From where comes wars and fighting in you? Is it not form the pleasure of you and the drive in your members, yes in your members. You desire yet you don't have, you murder and are jealous and still you can not obtain, you are always fighting and at war within yourself.

The last is my dynamic equivalent.

Now you tell me which version you like? Which is clear?

 

[Easystreet]

One thing I love about the older versions like the KJV and RSV is the beautifully poetic flow of the language.
"The Lord is my sheperd. I shall not want."

When memorizing scripture for the purpose of meditating on it, it's just so beautiful. The "every day language" versions kind of lose that lofty feel and beauty of the words.

There are a lot of great thing about the KJV English. I too like the flow. That is what I was raised on.

Take Ecclesiastes for example. Do it on yourself. Take a portion of Ecclesiastes, read it and then see how hard it is to understands as it exist.

Now get out a copy of Key Taylor's Paraphrased Bible. Now notice how easy it is to understand. I personally trust Key Taylor's understanding to the text, some may not.

Now we go to church and the Pastor using only the KJV stands in the pulpit and expounds the word.. Lets say he knows Hebrew and Greek. He now takes all the hard to understand passages in the KJV and explains them to everyone.

What is he doing. He is taking his knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew and other tools and re-translating the text into acceptable language for the congregation. If he did not do that there would be a BUNCH of confusion. The person in the pew is encouraged to have Bible dictionaries what take these KJV passages and explain them in more understandable words and in essence re-translates them.

What we all need to do is get real in that any preacher, teacher Goods ones not bad ones are simply re-translating the text to make it easier to understand.

If the KJV language is the "BEST" why don't we speak that way all the time? Please don't take this as being disrespectful, only real.

All preachers, teachers worth their salt use commentaries and helps written in todays language and read the same passages in re-translated different words. We all do word studies to explain a given text. I can't tell you how often I have set in the presence of Godly men who defended the KJV and explained the passage they were preaching on in every day language. Some while defending the KJV excusing the language as they define a given word or phrase in different words.

What was he doing. Trying to teach and communicate UNDERSTNDING

 

[JPPT1974]

One thing I love about the older versions like the KJV and RSV is the beautifully poetic flow of the language.
"The Lord is my sheperd. I shall not want."

When memorizing scripture for the purpose of meditating on it, it's just so beautiful. The "every day language" versions kind of lose that lofty feel and beauty of the words.

I do too as it does have poetic verses
But also I read the NIV in order to better
Understand what they are saying
So I have both NIV and KJV versions!

 

[Easystreet]

Philippians 4:13 and 19 are two verses that are very well known. I dare say that they have comforted 1000 upon 1000s.

Pastor preached on chapter 4 last several weeks. He points out that vs. 17 is the main idea in these verses. Had not given it much thought but I would have to agree it is the main thought in the context that Paul is trying to convey and teach.

Gordon

 

[Ringo84]

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.

Literal? I don't think I'd read a Bible that was literal in its interp. Absolute literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is, in my opinion at least, misguided.
Ringo

 

[CooL_Genesis]

Literal? I don't think I'd read a Bible that was literal in its interp. Absolute literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is, in my opinion at least, misguided.
Ringo

Why misguided?

 

[Easystreet]

Literal? I don't think I'd read a Bible that was literal in its interp. Absolute literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is, in my opinion at least, misguided.
Ringo

Hi Ringo,

The normal way to approach Literature, and the Bible is Literature grammer. The difference between any literature and Bible literature is that the Bible is from God.

God spoke to us in Language which He created and language has structure (nouns, verbs, conjunctions etc. as well as "color" or "genre" or "form" such as poetry, history, prophecy etc.).

The term "literal" used in the art of linguistics means that the student understands a particular portion of the scripture according to its genre / form. Take for instance any portion of Ecclesiantes. Notice all the metaphors and similes and more. How is it that Ecclesiastes is literal? It is literal in that it conveys a principle by using figures of speech to convey the principle. If we take each verse at face value literal then we have a very large set of contradiction ,and confusion. Conclusions would be drawn to extremes, whereas the extremes Solomon employs, genre, are hyperbole, for the purpose of teaching principles in life.

I like the term "normal literal sense" meaning we simply understand language in it genre, in context, using all the tools to understands language that we learned in school. Who is the author, the main characters, the geography, the main points and sub points. Where does an argument start and end and what is said in between. Are illustrations use to explain statements and doctrinal teaching. Who is the audience in that time in history? What are the customs of that time in history? What was the culture like during the time of writing?

One of the most contested sections of scripture is I Cor. 12-14. Chapter 14 clearly tells us tongues are for the unbelieving Jewish people as a sign. The gift was abused and Paul gently deals with its misuse and call their practice to the test. Following his gentle re-buff he states the totally clear reason for Tongues in Chapter 14. It is important to keep everything in context and let the meaning of the context be the interpretation. The reason there is so much confusion over this part of the Bible is simply because we blind ourselves to truth. Many fear being irreverent toward God to say Tongues don't exist today because the Charismatic movement as wrongly convinced and interpreted the text and made gibberish a point of contention and confusion that has no basis in Scripture.

It is one thing to study correctly and another to claim we do. Discipline in accepting the teaching of Scripture is hard especially when we are set in our feelings, beliefs, and attitudes.

Gordon.

 

[FallingWaters]

The correct term that conveys the purpose of the NIV translation is

Dynamic Equivalent

This is done to make the text more readable and easier to understands. Less interpretation for the reader.

The more literal the translation the harder it is to understands. Example.

Here is a word for word REAL literal translation OK

I Philippians 4:1 From wars and from fight in you not from out of the pleasures of you the soldiering in the members of you? Desire and not have murder and jealous and no able obtain fight and war.

Next we smooth it out "From wars and from fight in you, not from out of the pleasure of you, the soldiering in the members of you? Desire and have not, Murder and jealous and not able to obtain, fight and war.

Not lets smooth it out more - From where comes wars and fighting in you? Is it not form the pleasure of you and the drive in your members, yes in your members. You desire yet you don't have, you murder and are jealous and still you can not obtain, you are always fighting and at war within yourself.

The last is my dynamic equivalent.

Now you tell me which version you like? Which is clear?

Isn't that from the book of James?

 

[Easystreet]

Isn't that from the book of James?

Janes 4:1 sorry - Thanks for sometimes things can get turned around or intered incorrectly.

Thanks Gordon.

 

[FallingWaters]

It happens to everyone.

 

[RajunCajun86]

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.

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

 

[arunma]

Literal? I don't think I'd read a Bible that was literal in its interp. Absolute literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is, in my opinion at least, misguided.

I think you may be misunderstanding the usage of the word "literal" here. In this case it refers to translation. A literal translation simply translates the Greek words into English words, and renders the text in proper English grammar. A translation like the NIV, however, interpret's the author's meaning, and renders that meaning. If you're wary of fundamentalism, then be careful what you wish for. Many liberals prefer literal translations because they allow the reader to make his own interpretations. A translation like the NIV, on the other hand, makes the interpretation for you.

I don't have any problems with the NIV, for the simple reason that all of its interpretations happen to be correct when checked against literal translations. Still, I personally prefer a more literal translation like the ESV.

 

[Ringo84]

I think you may be misunderstanding the usage of the word "literal" here. In this case it refers to translation. A literal translation simply translates the Greek words into English words, and renders the text in proper English grammar. A translation like the NIV, however, interpret's the author's meaning, and renders that meaning. If you're wary of fundamentalism, then be careful what you wish for. Many liberals prefer literal translations because they allow the reader to make his own interpretations. A translation like the NIV, on the other hand, makes the interpretation for you.

I don't have any problems with the NIV, for the simple reason that all of its interpretations happen to be correct when checked against literal translations. Still, I personally prefer a more literal translation like the ESV.

Oh, OK. I see what you're saying. Thanks Arunma. I didn't know what I was talking about.
Ringo

 

[Pepperoni]

the niv is basically a paraphrase . . .

This is my understanding too.

From what I've heard, the KJV is a very bad translation. I never knew it. Apparently, translating Hebrew and Greek to English is virtually impossible. Many words in these languages have no equivalent in English. Or they have several meanings. Sounds like the only way around it is to learn the original language and read it that way!!

That said, I do prefer the KJV over any of the other translations out there--since, in my opinion, the other translations do change the meaning a bit. I have an NIV, but a lot of times I will end up pulling out my KJV anyway for clarification, like this poster said:

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.

 

[chris777]

this thread has had some of the better discussions I have seen on translations.

However their are still some Issues I have with most modern translations.

First and formost.
I personally find it an abomination to profit from the word of God.
And I don't think anyone can argue that, one of the driving forces of current translations , is to produce , another "vehicle " that the publisher might profit from.

The same can't be said about the KJV
(from wikipedia)
The King James Version was translated by 54 scholars (although only 51 are known) working in six committees, two based in each of Oxford University, Cambridge University, and Westminster. They worked on certain parts separately; then the drafts produced by each committee were compared and revised for harmony with each other. The scholars were not paid for their translation work, but were required to support themselves as best they could. Many were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge.

the sad thing is many of the publisher originated fro mthe colleges.

Another is the treatment of scripture as muteable, and mercurial. Yes the language of the KJV is archaic, BUT for the most part, it is still understandable. some 395 years later.
Sure their are things that are no longer done (in our part of the world IE industrialized) their are still plenty of people all over the world using horses and carrage. THere is nothing new under the sun. Many people dont think to look at the functions and purposes of things, they just quickly assume its irrelevant if it doesn't immediately stand out as possible relating to them personally. IE Horses , and cars, serve mostly the same functions Transportation. Just as their were charriot races thousands of years ago, the EXACT same thing still occurs (NASCAR anyone?) the name has changed but the purpose is the same.
The niv has been Retranslated 3 times in in just 28 years.
This mercurial view is irresponcible, "GEnder inclusive" issues aside. The assumption that every time some kid starts a new fad word, meaning we need a whole new "evolved" translation is flawed. PArticularly the notions of dynamic equivalency, that because of its own method of translation poses a dangerous thread to doctrine, particurlarly if it is extended out several revisions. Much like a photocopy getting distorted after many copies. By NOT using direct translation , they are in effect Creatin ga Distortion in scripture, which at first might apear benign , but follow it out a bit to the conclusion that the publisher, and many of the liberal proponents push and a clear distortion of the truth is inevitable.
They just Don't have the respect for the scriptures that many in the past held. Sue freedom is GReat, but too much freedom can sometimes be worse than opression and controll.
You do not allow children to roam freeley wherever they please.

I Don't want to say I am King James only, but again I do feel It has many unique atributes to it, that no other version has.

 

[JacobHall86]

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

 

[Jason19]

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.