Shiloh62 Posted September 20, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Revelation 22:19 KJV And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy , God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city , and from the things which are written in this book. Until yesterday, I always prefered the NIV because it was so much easier to understand than the KJV. Then I saw this website, and all that changed: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm This website lists verses that were deleted out of the NIV ,even Mark 16:9-20 was deleted,as well as many other verses mainly from the gospels that I never realized we're gone. Why were these taken out? When I checked my NIV, it had this note: The earlier manuscripts did not have these verses. That to me is a lie, since the KJV has them, how could KJV have them if they weren't in the earlier manuscripts? Its the NIV that doesn't have them. KJV has always been difficult for me to understand with all the ancient language, the obsolete words, and the changes in the meaning of words, for instance, KJV uses the word "suffer" which I finally figured out means "allow". Is there any modern translation that is safe to trust as far as knowing that I am reading the true word of God? Or is KJV the only accurate translation, and we just have to wrack our brains trying to figure out what the author is saying? I need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nChrist Posted September 20, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 438 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,947 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 300 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/28/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1949 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The KJV is not the most accurate English Translation of the Holy Bible. The NASB is the most accurate word for word English Translation of the Holy Bible. The portion of Scripture you mention in Mark is enclosed with brackets in the NASB, indicating it is questionable that it should be included. My copy of the NIV contains the portion in Mark that you're talking about, but it's in a lighter color and in italics - indicating that it is questionable that it should be included. My copy of the ESV also marks the same portion questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted September 20, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Revelation 22:19 KJV And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy , God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city , and from the things which are written in this book. Until yesterday, I always prefered the NIV because it was so much easier to understand than the KJV. Then I saw this website, and all that changed: http://www.jesus-is-...om/nivdelet.htm This website lists verses that were deleted out of the NIV ,even Mark 16:9-20 was deleted,as well as many other verses mainly from the gospels that I never realized we're gone. Why were these taken out? When I checked my NIV, it had this note: The earlier manuscripts did not have these verses. That to me is a lie, since the KJV has them, how could KJV have them if they weren't in the earlier manuscripts? Its the NIV that doesn't have them. KJV has always been difficult for me to understand with all the ancient language, the obsolete words, and the changes in the meaning of words, for instance, KJV uses the word "suffer" which I finally figured out means "allow". Is there any modern translation that is safe to trust as far as knowing that I am reading the true word of God? Or is KJV the only accurate translation, and we just have to wrack our brains trying to figure out what the author is saying? I need to know. By Manuscript, it means the original manuscripts that even the KJV was Translated from. The NIV and other Translations are translations from the Greek/Hebrew texts. Those are the manuscripts they are referencing, not the actual KJV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 20, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,250 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,981 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 20, 2011 The KJV is not the most accurate English Translation of the Holy Bible. The NASB is the most accurate word for word English Translation of the Holy Bible. The portion of Scripture you mention in Mark is enclosed with brackets in the NASB, indicating it is questionable that it should be included. My copy of the NIV contains the portion in Mark that you're talking about, but it's in a lighter color and in italics - indicating that it is questionable that it should be included. My copy of the ESV also marks the same portion questionable. I would say that the 1977 version of the NASB is the most accurate...... Not the enhanced version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFP Posted September 21, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 25 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 732 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 91 Days Won: 2 Joined: 08/31/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/24/1969 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The KJV is not the most accurate English Translation of the Holy Bible. The NASB is the most accurate word for word English Translation of the Holy Bible. The portion of Scripture you mention in Mark is enclosed with brackets in the NASB, indicating it is questionable that it should be included. My copy of the NIV contains the portion in Mark that you're talking about, but it's in a lighter color and in italics - indicating that it is questionable that it should be included. My copy of the ESV also marks the same portion questionable. I would say that the 1977 version of the NASB is the most accurate...... Not the enhanced version. Yup, funny how many tmes the bible has been changed. I went to an antique dealer and bought an old Oxford Bible that was gifted to a grandchild in 1847...and even it says it was "diligently compared and revised from the origional tongues. It also has all the missing books that the protestants took out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kasey777 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I use the "New Oxford Annotated Bible - NRSV " 1977 with the Apocrypha... along with "The Complete Jewish Bible". Between these two Bibles, nothing has been changed or deleted....can say that for anything in print after 1977. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted September 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 21, 2011 Research what texts each translator used when translating their version. There are, in a nutshell, two basic text's used, the critical text and the majority text. The critical text does not include some verses, not that they removed them, but they are not found in every writing. The majority text uses all they find, meaning that if verses are found in one writing, but not in others, they still included it. This is way we have differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 21, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,250 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,981 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 21, 2011 Personally I look at John 3:16. there is one word there that makes a big difference. John 3:16-17 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 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 There is a major difference in Should not perish, and shall not perish. Matt 7:20-21 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord ,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. NASB It appears to me that these people believe but will not be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted September 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Share Posted September 21, 2011 okay a full response, that I have saved on file as this comes up about once every 6 months or so... A brief history of my Bible and me. I started off with an NIV growing up. As a child and young adult this was easy for me to grasp, and understand the most important basics of Gods word. Later in life I attempted to follow the KJV and I was able to, but with much headaches and trouble figuring out old English terms. I have lately settled into the NKJV I like its ease of reading and its retention of poetic style and flow. I keep seeing in these posts and others that the NIV leaves out things that the KJV does not. This bugs me, to no end as I have a habit of seeing both sides of any equation or argument. Could it not be argued that since the KJV used newer texts that were copies of older texts, that it perhaps, added to the Bible, to as some people accuse the NIV of? Thereby putting a slant to its meaning? Perhaps that it is in reality that the KJV is the inaccurate one and not the other way around. Maybe I watch way to much CSI, but one thing is this. You form the theory around the facts. You do not twist the facts to fit your theory. Here are the facts I'll let you make your decision. By the way I am not saying that the KJV is inaccurate or not. I have seen one thing though I have seen people seeking HIM decide against it by trying to interpret the old English and give up as the English in the book can be very confusing and God is not the author of confusion. Fact: All translations, are exactly that. Translations of ancient texts, not the actual texts themselves. If you want to be the most accurate you need to go read those texts in the original language Fact: These ancient texts are actually copies of ancient texts, as far as I know, there are no original letters left written by Paul. We have no books written by the actual hand of Moses, Isaiah, Or the others. Yes they were copied down word for word intensely and with as much integrity as possible. But copies none the less. Fact: Humans are not infallible. The sad truth is this. Every copy, and every translation = a human behind it therefore it gets filtered through them no matter how hard they try not to. Fact: The ancients texts delete and add things. They themselves are different. I have seen in notations things like "This text adds this, this text omits that" Fact: The KJV is a translation of "newer" ancient texts that are copies of copies of copies. This means by definition the ancient texts that were used were not as accurate as the older ones. Its like a copy of a copy of a key. Each time you copy a door key not from the original one you lose something. Eventually a copy of a copy of a copy of a key will not work anymore. Fact: Punctuation changes things. Some of the the main differences may simply be in punctuation. Punctuation can change the whole meaning of a paragraph or even a sentence. Fact: Language changes. Many, many words do not mean the same thing as written as they do now. For instance the word gay. It now means homosexual man. It used to mean happy. Fact: There are other translations in other languages. Norway has its Norwegian translation, there is a Spanish translation, Gaelic, French, German etc. Fact: There are people in countries where having any form of the Bible is illegal and as long as they can read it, even one page is food for them in a starving church. Here is my thoughts as summation. Just because the KJV is an older translation, does not mean it is more accurate. Just because the NIV or the NKJV is a newer translation does not mean it is more, or less accurate. Man is the translator there will be differences. I am not saying at all that we should disregard the KJV as old and unreliable, However I am defending the NIV as most of the arguments against this and other translations ring hollow to me. Like the one stating that since you have to pay for a NIV that its not the word of God. Please, really? I have paid for and seen for sale Authorized Versions. Are we not to pay for the work or material's cost? The Bible does say that the laborer is worthy of his wages. The NIV has a copyright on the book that's very open, but that is paying for the cost of translation etc. The KJV has old words, their meanings are no longer relevant. This changes the meaning of the book to those who do not know the meaning of the words used. Also the omissions or additions are listed in my Bible. So because one translation uses one word from one text, and not the same word from a different text is it any more or less accurate then the text it was translated from? I am not not anti-KJV I am anti KJV only crowd. This is because I have seen a lack of good fruit. From what I have seen the differences between the translations are minor. If these knock you off your christian walk then you have other bigger issues at hand. I actually have seen the opposite on this one. I have seen more people who are KJV only people lose sight of what is really important, being the cross and salvation and leading souls to the Lord. Like I said, I had one who said that if you did not read the KJV when you came to know the Lord you are not really saved!? Is this profitable? Do you have to learn English if you speak another language and live in another country to be truly saved or have true religion? Of course not but yet this is what has often been put forth. I feel that you should pick the one that you understand best for daily reading. For when you do major study I use many translations to try to understand what the Lord is really trying to say. I also know that when Jesus quoted scripture to Satin in the wilderness he did not say "The King James Said" or "The New International Version Said" he said "It is written". I will say that none of the modern translations are 100% accurate. We will know all the truth in heaven. Now there are obvious translations that have been messed with and tweaked so they do lead people down the wrong paths. Be wise in what translations you do use. Read it, look to see if its a simple different translation from the text or a direct misleading of the truth. For instance the Mormon Bible has been purposely edited to prove there cult. The direct misleading is obvious when you read through it. -Isaiah- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzdy Posted September 21, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 173 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,911 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 10 Joined: 03/21/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted September 21, 2011 The NKJV is easy to read Shiloh it leaves out all the thees and thous and fancy language. I use the NKJ as a study bible and the CJB for reading and for some clarity also, I also have a variety of bibles, NIV though is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts