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

[GordonSlocum]

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

[GordonSlocum]

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.

[GordonSlocum]

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.

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

[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.

[GordonSlocum]

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.

[GordonSlocum]

This post can go.

[GordonSlocum]

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 (http://bible.ovc.edu/terry/interpretation/translat.htm)


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.

[GordonSlocum]

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 (http://bible.ovc.edu/terry/interpretation/translat.htm)


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?

[GordonSlocum]

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!

[GordonSlocum]

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?

[GordonSlocum]

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?

[GordonSlocum]

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.

[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.

[GordonSlocum]

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.

[GordonSlocum]

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 ?

[GordonSlocum]

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.

[GordonSlocum]

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.

[GordonSlocum]

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.