One Way Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 728 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2004 About these comparisons between KJV and NIV: Looks to me like a circular argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmwhalen Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 997 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2004 Stevehut writes:"About these comparisons between KJV and NIV: Looks to me like a circular argument. Shouldn't we judge any scripture against the original language?" Shiloh357 writes:"I would second that. Comparing two translations in nonsense. Only the original manuscripts can be used as a plumline, and we do not have those to go by. You judge copies, not by other copies, but by the orginals." ________________________________________________________ This is the last time I will comment on this "originals" argument(and you are saying good!). THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST, and have not existed for thousands of years! The Lord God had NO USE for the originals, and neither should we. Those who say this "originals" argument truly are speaking NONSENSE. The "original manuscripts" do not exist, and have not for thousands of years(repetition for learning).. Saying "we do not have those(the original manuscripts) to go by", and then saying "you judge copies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2004 Don't know how I did the double post, but this one is history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2004 The NIV and NLT (especially) are so watery as to dilute the message. Not to mention the well known problems of the NIV. How is the message of the NIV different? Steve, my first noted problem with the NIV was that they changed the word "should" to "shall" in John 3:16. John 3:16 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. NIV John 3:16 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. NASB Some friends use the NIV to stress all you have to do to be saved is believe. They always use this scripture. I think there is a bit more to it than that. It is true that if a person beleived in Him he/her might not perish depending on wether or not they confess the Lordship of Jesus. Without the believing in Him the person is lost from the start. This verse is my first test of a translation as to wether or not I use it. Just my two cents and personal thoughts that you may agree with or not SE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted July 14, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Only the original manuscripts can be used as a plumline, and we do not have those to go by. You judge copies, not by other copies, but by the orginals. Well, there are plenty of old scrolls around, and I'd be content to compare the various Bible versions against them. But to assume that the modern versions are wrong, just because they might conflict with the KJV? That's simply a dishonest argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted July 14, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Some friends use the NIV to stress all you have to do to be saved is believe. They always use this scripture. I think there is a bit more to it than that. Actually, that "just believe" theory (based on John 3:16) has been going around for many years, long before the advent of the modern versions. My Sunday School teacher taught this to us in the early 1960's, and the only text we had was KJV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 But to assume that the modern versions are wrong, just because they might conflict with the KJV? That's simply a dishonest argument. There you go!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted July 14, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted July 14, 2004 (edited) About these comparisons between KJV and NIV: Looks to me like a circular argument. Shouldn't we judge any scripture against the original language?  Good point Steve. I would second that. Comparing two translations in nonsense. Only the original manuscripts can be used as a plumline, and we do not have those to go by. You judge copies, not by other copies, but by the orginals. I would conjecture that, when most of the people on these boards do not speak.read greek and/or hebrew, we must go with the closest proven english translation for comparison. The KJV compares at 99% accuracy with the originals, no other translation can claim this. In Christ Truseek Edited July 14, 2004 by truseek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LCPGUY Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 I would conjecture that, when most of the people on these boards do not speak.read greek and/or hebrew, we must go with the closest proven english translation for comparison. The KJV compares at 99% accuracy with the originals, no other translation can claim this. Excuse me, but in my opinion the NASB does too. Since these comments are all about opinions, just thought I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobTriez Posted July 14, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 84 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,478 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/23/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1972 Share Posted July 14, 2004 This thread isn't going South is it ? Seems like the question's been answered ? This is not a KJV only invite....thought that was made clear from the beginning ? Please....let's not go there folks. Last time we discussed Bible versions ( what, last week ? ) it ended poorly. We know where the KJV only folks stand, they know where the not-KJV-only people stand....that's clear between everyone ? Just doing a little preemptive interference so we don't have to lock this thread & then get pummeled for doing so when folks start calling each other names, dishonouring Jesus, etc. Y'all know what I'm talking about Serving Him, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts