The KJV of the Bible

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Qnts2

    God bless you Sis,seems we haven't interacted in awhile but just to let you know...I do read your posts and as always I think you are a blessing to us all Very  well said,I agree totally....I so did want to learn Hebrew but went off into studying the Koine and it wasn't easy-lol...I have slacked off quite a bit but I will get back into it (been lazy)  I still have much to learn but what knowledge I do have in the language has helped but not really changed a whole lot.... I find many versions such as KJV,NKJV,NLT,-pre Zondervan NIV all good,it is the Holy Spirit that does the true teaching....but I hate to even get into it,I shared a wonderful revelation I was given many years ago(actually when I began studying Biblical Greek)and I truly don't mean to be offensive but my only intention was to just glorify God because I think just as you do that you don't even need to have any kind of formal education to gain Wisdom & Understanding....and then I'm "under fire"

    Perhaps I would do well not to post today as I am literally suffering near exhaustion,so it's probably just me.Seems to me all the versions(that I posted)are the God inspired Words written & by no prophets interpretation....praying the heart & mind of my Lord and Savior......I believe every Word to be true & accurate & see no discepancies(whether the word is"cancer" or "rotting" or "disease" does not change anything for me)

                                                                                                                                       With love,in Christ

[The_Patriot21]

I was lucky enough to get 1 of the very first NIV Bibles published, before Zondervan got a hold of it. It's the Bible I read cover to cover, and I checked it against the KJV and NKJV enough times to trust it. But I also agree that if a person has the Holy Spirit within oneself, it's the Spirit giving us the exact meanings.

You didn't check it close enough, then if your comparing to the KJV. Compare mark 16 in both your pre-zondervan NIV and a KJV and see what you find.

[pg4Him]

I do remember Mark being a sticking point someone in my family was telling me about.

[One With Him]

The NIV was translated from different sources-that guy was telling the truth. They also had several translators from different denominations and some things were unnecessarily watered down so as not to offend anyone. In the originally left out small portions of scripture (last part of mark 16 and parts of acts 2 were the big ones) which I took issue with. They've since fixed that, but I still don't like that they did it in the first place. Their hearts were in the right place I have no doubt about it-i just feel they did a sub par job.

Based on my reading of the NIV i can see your points. It does seem to be a little to pleasing in some areas.

[One With Him]

 

 

It pretty much comes down to what you put your faith in?  A lot of people like to claim there are errors in all translations, and I don't find this useful because it causes people to doubt how trustworthy the Bible is?  I don't trust historians when they make claims about how the Bible was put together, because many of them have an agenda.  You made a statement that historians have shown the KJV was created in a certain way, but gave no sources.  How do I know this is true, and that your sources are legitimate?  How about telling us where you got your information? 

 

I use only the KJV Bible.  I have already given reasons why I don't trust the NIV.  The NIV writers had an agenda, and it wasn't just to get it right.  They were working towards a gender neutral translation.  The finished product was the TNIV, but it was so distrusted, they took it from the shelves, and gave us another NIV.  There was even a lesbian among the translators.   I just don't trust it.  The NIV relegates verses to footnotes, and discredits others. 

 

Whether or not the word fornication was used in English before a certain year is irrelevant.  They translated the Greek word porneo (this is from memory, so if I spelled it wrong, I apologize) to the best English word, fornication.  Even you are admitting fornication was used after 1611, so who cares?  BTW, what is your source for that piece of information? 

At the Local State University we have one of the Professors who is a Christian and he has a Phd in the history of the English Language. He gave a free class and I took it. Studying the Bible and it's history is kind of one of his hobbies. Besides all that, That wasn't really my point. I don't expect you to see my side of things. I have been on worthy before and some people will never see someone else's point of view. And what you said about the NIV. I saw an interview with one of the guys involved in the making of the NIV. He said it was an attempt to translate directly from the sources. I didn't write the thing so if the guy who did translate it says that he did it for what ever reason. I believe him till I see proof other wise. My point is that if everyone is an expert as so many think they are, who is right? Some say the KJV is God Breathed. Some say the NIV is. Some say none of them are. Just asking a question.

 

Their spin was that they were just trying to make it more understandable for today's reader, but even people like James Dobson, who is hardly KJV only, came out against the TNIV because it was going away from the original meaning to create a gender neutral Bible.  The NIV writers had an agenda, and if you really want to know more about it, you can find information on it on-line.  I saw the interview too when they were peddling the TNIV.  What do you expect he would say?  "We are trying to make the Bible more appealing to radical feminists?"  Of course not.  He will come up with a defense for why they went away from the original meaning.  The NIV is by far one of the worst translations out there.  I will stick with the KJV Bible, but if I was dealing with someone that just couldn't handle the old English, I would suggest the New King James Bible as the next best translation. 

 

As for the TNIV, there was so much criticism about it, they dropped the TNIV and just call it the NIV, but it appears they kept some of the changes in tact?  You can't trust it. 

 

Thank you for you help.

[One With Him]

NASB is my personal book of choice.

 

I think it benefits a person to understand the basics of language and how translation happens. Depend on the Spirit to open your eyes as to spiritual truth, first and foremost, but the more you know about what you are reading, the faster and deeper you can catch a revelation. And yes, we must trust that God has preserved His truth through the years. Legalism comes in when you look through a translation to search for mistakes or to get a "special" revelation no one has had before. 

 

God will never tell you that 2 + 2 suddenly = 5 to explain away a supposed contradiction, and if you think you hear a revelation telling you 2 + 2 = 5 then that is the time to use a little logic/education and test what you heard. He doesn't expect much from us but He expects common sense. As you do your due diligence to understand the basics, and you reach out to those talented in that area of study for follow up, you will stay on the right track.

Thank you

[One With Him]

I would like to thank everyone for your imput. You all have helped me more than you know.

[KC02]

The NIV is considered more accurate than the KJV becuse it is based upon newer texts found in the 1960's. It is also more readable. No matter which version you use, the word "fornication" is going to be debateable.

[The_Patriot21]

The NIV is considered more accurate than the KJV becuse it is based upon newer texts found in the 1960's. It is also more readable. No matter which version you use, the word "fornication" is going to be debateable.

In some circles. Like I said its watered down (I have actually looked at the Greek) and I have a hard time calling any translation more accurate then the KJV or NIV when it leaves out verses.

[KC02]

It is unfair to say the NIV "leaves out verses." Like I said, it was based upon older manuscripts found in the 60's. Older manuscripts should be more accurate than newer ones (less chance for copy errors).

 

What we find is that these manuscripts have a SOME verses that simply are not in the original text. Nobody decided to leave out certain verses; the verses are simply not there.

 

All in all there are not a lot of differences like you mentioned. The Biblical sources are amazingly similar. There are theories of how the KJV got the extra verses, for example perhaps some verses were written in the margin and eventually got copied into the text. These verses I believe to be inspired as well.

 

I have nothing against the KJV... I read it myself. But the NIV is a great translation that shouldn't be so easily dismissed by disinformation (watered down, leaves out verses, more accurate)... ... In fact, I challenge you to find one scholar that will agree the KJV is "more accurate." Looking at the Greek and being fluent in Greek is two different things. I look at the Greek too; it just looks like Greek to me

 

God bless you.