Bible version

[enoob57]

Try the English Standard Version (ESV).

It's trusted by many people and is a faithful translation.

 

I enjoy its deliverance of thought...

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, TSDBB. 

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

There’s no such thing as a perfect English translation. Every translation was produced by human beings and is therefore susceptible to the errors that human beings introduce. The KJV (King James Version) or the AV (the Authorized Version) really should be called the “King James Authorized Version.” It was not called the “Authorized Version” because God authorized it. It was called that because the king who commissioned the work was both the patron of those who did the translating and was the final authority whether they had done their job adequately. As the Supreme Governor of the Anglican Church, King James I was the final say for what was an acceptable translation.

HOWEVER, the translators were a group of godly men who were extremely humble and prayed that God could use their work in spite of their human weaknesses (including the king’s interference). For a bunch of different reasons, they could not translate many words and opted to transliterate the words instead. The Greek word “baptizo” was transliterated to “baptize,” instead of translated to “immerse.” For whatever reason, the Greek word “aggelos” was transliterated to “angel” instead of translated to “messenger."

Furthermore, the KJV, being initially “finished” in 1611 A.D., was closer to the “king’s English” than modern British English or American English are today. Thus, the REASON for the “thee’s” and “thou’s” and “thy’s” and “thine’s” was to distinguish between singular and plural. The second person in English used to be like this:

subjective singular = thou

objective singular = thee

possessive noun singular = thine

possessive adjective singular = thy

subjective plural = ye

objective plural = you

possessive noun plural = yours

possessive adjective plural = your

Today, we only have the last three in modern usage, and we have LOST valuable information in our modern translations. (I had to discover this on my own as I was NEVER taught this in my Baptist churches! I don’t even think they KNEW why there were “thee’s” and “thou’s” in Scripture! I was implicitly taught that the “thee’s” and “thou’s” were holy words, referring to God OR were God’s words to us, as in “Thou shalt not kill.")

Also, the KJV was an honest attempt to translate the Bible WORD-FOR-WORD, from Hebrew and Greek to English, and that’s a very good way to translate the Hebrew and Greek into English. It may require the reader to learn a little more about why certain words and phrases were used in the original languages, but it keeps most of the original phraseology intact.

The NIV, other modern English translations, and even the NKJV attempt to translate more by thought than by word. They will intentionally change the sentence structure, the words used for translation, and the cultural phrases to something that makes more sense in today’s English rather than stick to the original wording (translated, of course). That methodology can have certain benefits, but it also opens those translations to the predispositions of the translator. Rather than keeping the translation process objective, it makes the translations susceptible to the theological bias of the translator.

More later if you desire.

[WilliamL]

... Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

From the preface of my (heavily self-edited) NKJV: "...some scholars have grounds for doubtling the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission."

Every translation has its own problems, however; it's just that translations based upon the above texts have the most problems.

[Hawkins]

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

 

They are not significant differences, especially from a theological point of view.

KJV and NIV are two streams of Bible translation from two independent sources. The consistency of these two independent sources actually shows that the Bible is consistently conveying the same messages today and 2000 years ago, in comparison to other human history books written 2000 years ago. Most human history books don't have the original manuscripts to reference, they don't have two independent sources for comparison either to ensure their consistency.

Ever since the invention of paper, it is not unexpected we lost all the original manuscripts. Once transplanted to its paper form, it will become the legitimate copy and people no longer keeping the cumbersome manuscripts in other formats. Moreover, human languages advance with time, say, today's English is not the same as the English 2000 years ago. Whenever a legitimate copy in paper form getting old and decaying, people need to re-transplant it using new papers. If the wording used in the old copy becomes linguistically not understandable to the ones who do the transplant, they will adjust such that at least a sentence will be understandable to average humans at that time. This can even be by God's will, as even God doesn't want His Bible written in ancient Greek with its contents not understandable by modern humans. That is to say, each updating of a legitimate copy, it is possible that certain wordings may be updated using up-to-date linguistic usage for the sake that they can be understood by average humans at that time. That's why the KJV may use different wordings from those from NIV, however both are theologically the same.

That said, KJV is a translation preserved by a church in Greece, while NIV is from 2 artifacts of manuscripts dated back in the 4th century. KJV may be a result of translation subject to linguistic moderation mentioned above, while NIV is a translation from copies of copies found in Egypt. They both can be legitimate. They are theologically the same anyway.

Humans are incapable of keeping things "original" however God makes the Bible perfect disregarding the imperfection of humans. This is a typical example.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Hawkins

[Retrobyter]

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

Do not forget Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 and I John 5:7 modern version leave thee out or question if they are inspired.  Remember the devil ask Eve:  Yea, hath God said?   Genesis 3:1  

Yes one can come to Çhrist with the NIV, but IMO it makes it rather difficult to taste and see that the Lord is gracious, see.           I Peter 2:2-3.

I didn't expect so many comments on this one! I suppose nothing is simple in life and we will all have different opinions.

I still find it difficult to read a translation when most of the words or structure seem alien to me - Yea, hath God said?

I would prefer to read the bible in a translation that I can read easily, not because I'm not intelligent enough but if I'm going to read the Bible then I want to understand what I'm reading without having to look up what old fashion words mean.

I understand just what you mean. I feel the same way. It would be nice to read the words we use, like “stand out” (or “brightness” or “fame”) and “brag,” instead of “glory” and “praise,” respectively. It would be nice to read “messenger” instead of “angel.” It would be nice to read “convocation” or “assembly" instead of “church.” It would be nice to read “happy” instead of “blessed.” It would be nice to read “wind” or “breath” or “attitude” instead of “spirit.” It would be nice to read “disgust” instead of “abomination.” It would be nice to read “rescue” instead of “salvation.” It would be nice to read “the right” or “the rights” or “the privilege” instead of “name” or “authority” or “power.” It would be nice to read “look” instead of “behold.” ....

And, instead of “Yea, hath God said,” we would read “Really? Has God said that?” or “Has God said that, really?” or “Has God really said that?"

Someday, if the Lord Jesus tarries, that is, if the Master Yeshua` stays later than He intended to stay in the New Jerusalem (where He is preparing a place for each one of us), perhaps someone will invent a Bible that first tests the reader for his or her vocabulary and some samples of his or her speech patterns and then produces an instantaneous translation into his or her own pattern of speech, but until that day arrives, we will just have to look things up as to what the authors were intending to say, no matter what English version we are using.

There’s just no substitute for Bible study and taking every English version we read with a “grain of salt.” Translators, being human beings, are fallible and have their own opinions and errors to contend with when translating the Scriptures. However, in the mean time, since there are so many versions out there, find one that is close to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew and that you find comfortable to read. The version that is most comfortable for you to read is the one version that you are more likely to read. 

P.S. - I just thought I should add that, knowing what I know about the Greek word “ouranos” and its various forms, like “mesouraneema” and “epouranios,” I chose Matthew 16:1-4 as my test passage for a new translation. It’s important to me to see if that new translation recognizes that “heaven” in verse one is the SAME GREEK WORD as “sky” in verses 2 and 3. So far, I haven’t found ANY version that understands this. Consequently, I haven’t found ONE translator that is honest, IMO.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Retrobyter
An extra thought

[saved34]

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

Do not forget Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 and I John 5:7 modern version leave thee out or question if they are inspired.  Remember the devil ask Eve:  Yea, hath God said?   Genesis 3:1  

Yes one can come to Çhrist with the NIV, but IMO it makes it rather difficult to taste and see that the Lord is gracious, see.           I Peter 2:2-3.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

I didn't expect so many comments on this one! I suppose nothing is simple in life and we will all have different opinions.

I still find it difficult to read a translation when most of the words or structure seem alien to me - Yea, hath God said?

I would prefer to read the bible in a translation that I can read easily, not because I'm not intelligent enough but if I'm going to read the Bible then I want to understand what I'm reading without having to look up what old fashion words mean.

God would prefer you read with uunderstanding as well. The NIV is a fantastic translation and has been the instrument used in many souls coming to Christ. 

[missmuffet]

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

Do not forget Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 and I John 5:7 modern version leave thee out or question if they are inspired.  Remember the devil ask Eve:  Yea, hath God said?   Genesis 3:1  

Yes one can come to Çhrist with the NIV, but IMO it makes it rather difficult to taste and see that the Lord is gracious, see.           I Peter 2:2-3.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

I didn't expect so many comments on this one! I suppose nothing is simple in life and we will all have different opinions.

I still find it difficult to read a translation when most of the words or structure seem alien to me - Yea, hath God said?

I would prefer to read the bible in a translation that I can read easily, not because I'm not intelligent enough but if I'm going to read the Bible then I want to understand what I'm reading without having to look up what old fashion words mean.

God would prefer you read with uunderstanding as well. The NIV is a fantastic translation and has been the instrument used in many souls coming to Christ. 

I am not crazy about the NIV because of the gender neutral stance.

[saved34]

High Bopeep, are you talking about the NIV using brothers and sisters in place of brethren? I find that it clearly defined gender. Including the so called infamous verses where women are told to learn in silence , and that man is the head of his wife. There is no doctrine missing from the niv. You may be talking about one of the newer versions of the NIV that has been rejected by most respected shcolars.That versionis a clear money grab aimed at women.

[other one]

Dan 3:25

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
KJV

Dan 3:25

25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
NIV

 

so which do you like...

[Deborah_]

"Have you read the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible? One day I read to my church a number of verses. I asked them if they sounded right. None agreed. They agreed to a one that something was wrong. Then I showed them the camouflaged Bible I read from was a JW's New World Translation. Everyone was relieved. Then I told them: "Every verse you heard is essentially the same in the NIV." Mouths were stopped. People gasped. It was a great effect! I had made a point."

As it happens, I have read parts of the New World Translation (the JW's Bible).

Is it "essentially the same as the NIV"?

NOT AT ALL! They are poles apart doctrinally, and the NWT is terrible as a translation anyway.

Yes, the person quoted was indeed "making a point" - but the point made was a gross distortion of the truth.