King James vs niv

[Nick01]

He understands mine just fine,

Do you mean here that God understands your language just fine? That's great! I could also say that God understands the language of people who read the NIV just as much. What's your point?

Good job ,if you can't win change the subject.

I didn't change the subject. I responded directly to the argument of your previous point. You were questioning why people who read the NIV do so when there are books that can help you read the English of KJV. I said why not go all the way, and read the original source languages, as there are books that can help you do so. You've already said to me why I bother with the NIV when I can read the Bible in the original languages - I ask you the same question! My 19 year old brother can read the Greek well enough to get by - it's perfectly possible to at least find your way around the Greek NT with a moderate amount of study.

Obviously, if you still read the KJV, you must believe there is an acceptable trade off between accuracy and intelligibility (ie it is reasonable to forgo reading in the original texts, ensuring accuracy, in order to make it easier to read the Bible in your own language) but you haven't justified why your balance is more acceptable than other people's, except to say they should read the KJV because it's older/more difficult to read. Hence my argument. Have a think about why you read an English translation at all, and then think about why people today might prefer the English of contemporary translations compared to the English of the 1600s.

So why don't you read those instead of an idiots version. Whats the point. If you can read Hebrew then why argue and greek, my goodness you of all people should Know how the NIV has butchered the bible. It is the new idiots version.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, I do not typically use the NIV in my own study (although it is used in my church). But by golly I will defend its use, as it is a fundamentally sound translation, not just in how it renders terms in English, but in the manuscript tradition it relies on. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence of how the text of the NIV has been 'butchered', although others have provided data questioning that conclusion. And you have continued to assert that the NIV is the Bible for idiots. I appreciate what you said in your more recent post:

If you need the NIV then God bless you and I hope you find peace and happiness.

... And I hope that means you have changed your mind about the mental abilities of people who think use of the NIV is acceptable. But it is possible to not be an idiot and endorse use of the NIV, and it is possible to be 'concerned with your walk with God' and endorse its use, as well.

 

[Kerry]

Do you mean here that God understands your language just fine? That's great! I could also say that God understands the language of people who read the NIV just as much. What's your point?


I didn't change the subject. I responded directly to the argument of your previous point. You were questioning why people who read the NIV do so when there are books that can help you read the English of KJV. I said why not go all the way, and read the original source languages, as there are books that can help you do so. You've already said to me why I bother with the NIV when I can read the Bible in the original languages - I ask you the same question! My 19 year old brother can read the Greek well enough to get by - it's perfectly possible to at least find your way around the Greek NT with a moderate amount of study.

Obviously, if you still read the KJV, you must believe there is an acceptable trade off between accuracy and intelligibility (ie it is reasonable to forgo reading in the original texts, ensuring accuracy, in order to make it easier to read the Bible in your own language) but you haven't justified why your balance is more acceptable than other people's, except to say they should read the KJV because it's older/more difficult to read. Hence my argument. Have a think about why you read an English translation at all, and then think about why people today might prefer the English of contemporary translations compared to the English of the 1600s.



Again, at the risk of repeating myself, I do not typically use the NIV in my own study (although it is used in my church). But by golly I will defend its use, as it is a fundamentally sound translation, not just in how it renders terms in English, but in the manuscript tradition it relies on. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence of how the text of the NIV has been 'butchered', although others have provided data questioning that conclusion. And you have continued to assert that the NIV is the Bible for idiots. I appreciate what you said in your more recent post:


[/COLOR]
... And I hope that means you have changed your mind about the mental abilities of people who think use of the NIV is acceptable. But it is possible to not be an idiot and endorse use of the NIV, and it is possible to be 'concerned with your walk with God' and endorse its use, as well.

Look at the verse omitted by the new idiot version. Read what you want to read and find a church that preaches what you want to hear. guess you already have. its between you and God. For me I stick to the KJ and the strongs whats wrong with that?

 

[Kerry]

Its been good for 300 years and it will be good for 300 more. Just like the old hymns. Sing about me if you want to but the hymns are about Jesus.

 

[Praus]

Its been good for 300 years and it will be good for 300 more. Just like the old hymns. Sing about me if you want to but the hymns are about Jesus.

2013 - 1611 = 402 years, not 300.

 

[Tintin]

Can you please stop calling the NIV the New Idiots Version? We know your stance on modern translations. You've made yourself very clear.

 

[Reformedjason]

2013 - 1611 = 402 years, not 300.

Hahaha. That is awesome.

 

[Nick01]

Look at the verse omitted by the new idiot version. Read what you want to read and find a church that preaches what you want to hear. guess you already have. its between you and God. For me I stick to the KJ and the strongs whats wrong with that?

You know nothing about me, Kerry, so please don't pretend to know what my church preaches.

If you want to read the KJ, fine. Not a problem. I have minor problems with the KJ (particularly what was added into the KJV and the manuscripts the KJ used that were not there in the earliest writings), but not enough for me to reject it as an acceptable Bible translation. You can read the KJV, hear the Gospel, and be a disciple of Christ. Please do not misunderstand me - I am not going to debate whether or not people should read the KJV. That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether people should only read the KJV, or whether they can read modern translations. If you want to use the KJV and Strong's, all power to you. I'd encourage you to not stop there, but I'm not going to tell you not to read the KJV.

If you want discuss verses 'omissions' (rather, verse 'additions' in the KJV), please, cite one, and we can chat about it. I'd prefer having an evidence-based discussion on the merits of the various translations rather than simple ad hominem anyway.

 

[Kerry]

1 Matthew 17:21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting
2 Matthew 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost
3 Matthew 23:14Woe 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.)
Note: this is when Her’od wanted to release Jesus because nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
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 Je’sus 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 1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. NIV only says For there are three that Testify, ( this could be any three, which three ? )

These are omitted any questions. Read what you want. It only bothers me that people would read such crap. and pad the pockets of those who wrote it. Most of yall are against tithes. but have no problem spending your hard earned dollar on this crap.

 

[Nick01]

These are omitted any questions. Read what you want. It only bothers me that people would read such crap. and pad the pockets of those who wrote it. Most of yall are against tithes. but have no problem spending your hard earned dollar on this crap.

Let's just pick one of those verses as a case study in why most of those verses are omitted. The reality is, they were not omitted, but they were added. In the case of 1 John 5:7, it does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century, it does not appear in any manuscript at all until the 7th century. The church Fathers did not quote it when expositing or quoting from 1 John 5, Jerome did not include it in the Latin Vulgate, it is not in the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, and even Erasmus did not include it in the first two editions of the TR. While it would prove convenient as a clear proof for the trinity, in all likelihood it is not part of what John wrote.

This holds true for the other verses you copied and pasted above - they were not included because they were additions not a part of the original text.

I do not want to read what I want. I want to read the words that God inspired His prophets and apostles to speak and write.

 

[Tintin]

I don't see why those who translate the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (in reference to modern translations), shouldn't be given money for their work. Also, the money from the KJV Bibles doesn't exactly just fly up to Heaven and stay there. The people behind the KJV Bibles make plenty of money (wait, I thought King James and the translators were long dead) - so the money goes to people who do jack-all in translating the Bible.

 

[Kerry]

I don't see why those who translate the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (in reference to modern translations), shouldn't be given money for their work. Also, the money from the KJV Bibles doesn't exactly just fly up to Heaven and stay there. The people behind the KJV Bibles make plenty of money (wait, I thought King James and the translators were long dead) - so the money goes to people who do jack-all in translating the Bible.

You do the mean the people that have added notes and not changed the scripture. ( as they new idiot version has) Such as dakes and the expositors.

 

[Nick01]

You do the mean the people that have added notes and not changed the scripture. ( as they new idiot version has) Such as dakes and the expositors.

Oh come now. If you're referring the the Expositor's Bible, that does not contain the same text as the KJV. The archaic thees and thous are mostly removed, and there are a few other changes to modernise the text. As for Dakes, well, the less said about him the better - his notes are more a description of his own personal theology and comments on the text rather than an attempt to exegete the text or give biblo-historical background to the text, and they have no place in what purports to be a Bible. I'd rather give someone my money for trying to translate the Bible accurately and into contemporary language than pay someone for writing whatever it is they happen to believe, and then shoving it in with the biblical text. He certainly isn't earning any money for translation work - he's simply profiting from the work of others 400 years prior.

Of course, you still have yet to prove the point that the NIV, or other modern translations for that matter, have changed the biblical text. I refer you to my previous post, which you have yet to answer.

 

[Kerry]

Nick, the King James id the King James. People add notes, in an attempt to give the reader a better explanation. Because you cannot change the meaning of the text or the flow of the passages and call it the KJV. To that, and obtain a copy rite YOU MUST CHANGE THE MEANING AND THE FLOW OF A PASSAGE. Why didn't they call it the new and improved KJV in modern English. Because of laws and the lucrative copy rite. If you want to read the NIV, then do it. I have one and after I got to Isaiah, I haven't read it since and don't plan too. Probably wouldn't listen to any preacher that used it as text. The KJV has been good enough hundreds of years and I see no need to change it.

 

[Nick01]

Nick, the King James id the King James. People add notes, in an attempt to give the reader a better explanation. Because you cannot change the meaning of the text or the flow of the passages and call it the KJV. To that, and obtain a copy rite YOU MUST CHANGE THE MEANING AND THE FLOW OF A PASSAGE. Why didn't they call it the new and improved KJV in modern English. Because of laws and the lucrative copy rite. If you want to read the NIV, then do it. I have one and after I got to Isaiah, I haven't read it since and don't plan too. Probably wouldn't listen to any preacher that used it as text. The KJV has been good enough hundreds of years and I see no need to change it.

I think you'll find the Expositor's Study Bible, for instance. is copyrighted by Jimmy Swaggart, even though it is advertised as using the KJV text. It is certainly not public domain.

As to whether the KJV is the KJV, that's all in the eye of the beholder. I take it by your argument that you would say that a KJV without thees and thous is still the KJV, even if it is not the same text that King James put his royal assent to? So at what point is a change to the KJV such a change that it is no longer the KJV, because you seem to be saying that you can change the KJV and it still be the KJV.

As for any other perceived changes in meaning and flow,, presumably in relation to the KJV vs NIV, please cite some. You cited a list above of perceived omissions in the NIV text, and I have already provided a case study on one of those verses you provided to show that it was not an omission by the NIV, but an addition to the KJV. I still await your feedback on that, which was the substantive point of my last post.

 

[Reformedjason]

No king james onlyist want to put the Kjv to the same test as the other versions. They say in mark the NIV lies when the Kjv says " in the prophets" the NIV says in Isaiah. It quotes the major prophet. The Kjv does the same thing in Matthew when it says in Jeremiah. It is ok for the king jimmy but not the NIV. They say the NIV changes things. Changes things from what? They did not use the TR , the Kjv is not the standard. Kjv onlyist want it to be.

 

[Kerry]

I think you'll find the Expositor's Study Bible, for instance. is copyrighted by Jimmy Swaggart, even though it is advertised as using the KJV text. It is certainly not public domain.

As to whether the KJV is the KJV, that's all in the eye of the beholder. I take it by your argument that you would say that a KJV without thees and thous is still the KJV, even if it is not the same text that King James put his royal assent to? So at what point is a change to the KJV such a change that it is no longer the KJV, because you seem to be saying that you can change the KJV and it still be the KJV.

As for any other perceived changes in meaning and flow,, presumably in relation to the KJV vs NIV, please cite some. You cited a list above of perceived omissions in the NIV text, and I have already provided a case study on one of those verses you provided to show that it was not an omission by the NIV, but an addition to the KJV. I still await your feedback on that, which was the substantive point of my last post.

Its copyrighted because of his notes and good ones I must say. Not because the text was changed. You can pick up a Dakes or Zondervan or full life study and the text is the same. The notes are different. The NIV went a step further and changed the text. Yes the KJ has been updated since 1611 but it still the KJ. The KJV mentions corn when it should have been barley. But grain is grain. I really don't about the NIV, I just know from my own reading and then reading the KJ. That the NIV is off. I haven't read it in years and I know that it has been updated and changed a few times. I have never took the time to do an in depth study, its not that meaningful to me. I have read it don't like it and voice my opinion and that's all. I have know problem reading the KJ nor does my 16 year old and nor do the 8 year old's at church.

 

[Nick01]

Its copyrighted because of his notes and good ones I must say. Not because the text was changed. You can pick up a Dakes or Zondervan or full life study and the text is the same. The notes are different.

Sure. But again, then, you are buying the Expositor's not because of the translation, but because of the notes. As for KJVs without notes, you can still buy those. Does that make the translation suspect because people still charge for print copies? Heck, in the UK the KJV is still copyrighted by the Crown, and anyone the Crown grants a license to can sell copies for whatever they like. Do those make the KJV suspect? Do you see what I'm driving at here?

The NIV went a step further and changed the text. Yes the KJ has been updated since 1611 but it still the KJ. The KJV mentions corn when it should have been barley. But grain is grain.

I again refer you to my previous post about the alleged omissions in the NIV (rather, additions to the KJV). You can't accuse the NIV of changing the text without first acknowledging that the KJV itself 'changed the text' from the Greek, and even the Latin manuscripts. Even Erasmus, who was behind the Textus Receptus, was not sold on parts of the text that made it into the KJV. There are parts of the text that are a little more significant than simply confusing grains.

You have asserted that the NIV has been changed time and time again, and I have responded to what evidence you could muster to support the assertion. Even if you don't agree, I think it should be obvious to others reading that this is the case, and that your assertion still holds very little water.

Again, however, I want to say that I don't have significant problems with the KJV. Many of the differences in core content and doctrine (ignoring time-bound language) are incredibly minor between the NIV, KJV and original languages, and you're certainly entitled to use the KJV if you wish. It is a stunning translation for its time. However, you can't use it as a weapon against current translations, without acknowledging its own defects for precisely the same reasons.

I really don't about the NIV, I just know from my own reading and then reading the KJ. That the NIV is off. I haven't read it in years and I know that it has been updated and changed a few times. I have never took the time to do an in depth study, its not that meaningful to me. I have read it don't like it and voice my opinion and that's all. I have know problem reading the KJ nor does my 16 year old and nor do the 8 year old's at church.

I honestly find it difficult to understand why you are so strident in your opposition to the NIV, when you admit that you have never studied it in any depth. Gut feels are not a good basis for argument, as I could just as easily say my 'gut feels' are that the NIV is fine. Who has the better feeling guts?

No one is making you read it, no one is asking you to abandon the KJV. We are simply arguing that there is no good reason for you to impose the text on others, for all the reasons given previously, and more besides. There is nothing to be lost in using a modern translation, except for perhaps some good old school prose.

Can we perhaps agree to disagree about whether we think the KJV is the best translation, but perhaps agree that the NIV, like the KJV, is God's word, and is suited for the edification and instruction of his people? It would give me great joy to be able to agree to that

 

[Kerry]

Sure. But again, then, you are buying the Expositor's not because of the translation, but because of the notes. As for KJVs without notes, you can still buy those. Does that make the translation suspect because people still charge for print copies? Heck, in the UK the KJV is still copyrighted by the Crown, and anyone the Crown grants a license to can sell copies for whatever they like. Do those make the KJV suspect? Do you see what I'm driving at here?



I again refer you to my previous post about the alleged omissions in the NIV (rather, additions to the KJV). You can't accuse the NIV of changing the text without first acknowledging that the KJV itself 'changed the text' from the Greek, and even the Latin manuscripts. Even Erasmus, who was behind the Textus Receptus, was not sold on parts of the text that made it into the KJV. There are parts of the text that are a little more significant than simply confusing grains.

You have asserted that the NIV has been changed time and time again, and I have responded to what evidence you could muster to support the assertion. Even if you don't agree, I think it should be obvious to others reading that this is the case, and that your assertion still holds very little water.

Again, however, I want to say that I don't have significant problems with the KJV. Many of the differences in core content and doctrine (ignoring time-bound language) are incredibly minor between the NIV, KJV and original languages, and you're certainly entitled to use the KJV if you wish. It is a stunning translation for its time. However, you can't use it as a weapon against current translations, without acknowledging its own defects for precisely the same reasons.



I honestly find it difficult to understand why you are so strident in your opposition to the NIV, when you admit that you have never studied it in any depth. Gut feels are not a good basis for argument, as I could just as easily say my 'gut feels' are that the NIV is fine. Who has the better feeling guts?

No one is making you read it, no one is asking you to abandon the KJV. We are simply arguing that there is no good reason for you to impose the text on others, for all the reasons given previously, and more besides. There is nothing to be lost in using a modern translation, except for perhaps some good old school prose.

Can we perhaps agree to disagree about whether we think the KJV is the best translation, but perhaps agree that the NIV, like the KJV, is God's word, and is suited for the edification and instruction of his people? It would give me great joy to be able to agree to that

This where we are going to but heads and you are going to think I am crazy. I am a former alcoholic. I struggled for two years to get off alcohol. I was saved, a church goer, I loved God. But I was bound by liquor. I drank a half gallon every two days, straight. I was praying and the Lord in that still small voice said " son you are living in fear". I said Lord what do you mean, He in that voice said " every time you get that feeling you run to the liquor, you need to run to me". I said how do I do that. He said " trust me". Then when I got the uncontrollable urge to drink, instead of drinking I prayed. Every since then I have listened to that voice and it has never steered me wrong and it has pointed me to the bible. We I read the NIV I knew it was not for me. I know people now day don't believe that God speaks to them, But, I do. The NIV is not what He wants me to read. It may different for you. But I know in my heart what He is telling me.

Write me off as a lunatic, I don't care. I don't work for you. But, I know what God has done for me and I still listen to that small voice.

 

[Nick01]

This where we are going to but heads and you are going to think I am crazy. I am a former alcoholic. I struggled for two years to get off alcohol. I was saved, a church goer, I loved God. But I was bound by liquor. I drank a half gallon every two days, straight. I was praying and the Lord in that still small voice said " son you are living in fear". I said Lord what do you mean, He in that voice said " every time you get that feeling you run to the liquor, you need to run to me". I said how do I do that. He said " trust me". Then when I got the uncontrollable urge to drink, instead of drinking I prayed. Every since then I have listened to that voice and it has never steered me wrong and it has pointed me to the bible. We I read the NIV I knew it was not for me. I know people now day don't believe that God speaks to them, But, I do. The NIV is not what He wants me to read. It may different for you. But I know in my heart what He is telling me.

Write me off as a lunatic, I don't care. I don't work for you. But, I know what God has done for me and I still listen to that small voice.

Brother, this is probably the post where I have felt least inclined to butt heads with you

I think I know a little about what you mean. I have on off issues with porn. I think it's a problem that many Christians, particularly men, face, but we don't talk a lot about it. But I have found aid in fighting against that in doing the work of God, serving in my local church, discussing the gospel with non-Christian friends, but also by studying the Bible. It is when I am most focused on God in his Word and in his Mission that the sinful nature slips away. I have never felt that I should read the KJV over any other translation, but I have felt compelled to drink more deeply of God's word, because it is God's word, whether it be the KJV translation, the NIV, the ESV the HCSB, NASB, the Geneva, that instructs it.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If you believe that the KJV has helped you, that God has used it to sanctify you by the power of his Spirit, then I can joyfully praise God and encourage you to continue to do so. But God has not given me that same instruction. Nor others. The only instruction in that area to is to read his word. And so I do. As do others who do not use the KJV, because while it is a translation of the word of God, it is not the only place to find God's word to man. Believe it or not, the NIV contains it as well

 

[wordhelpsme]

niv is easier. i don't feel like learning another language.