niv

[BeyondET]

27 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

Those who have trouble with reading the KJV, would also have trouble reading the writings of the Puritans, which in IMO, are some of the best written christian literature.  Also reading the KJV helps you to sharpen or expand your vocabulary and maybe engage in some parallel comparisons to get a broader view on some topics, verses and chapters ect.    Bible students would surely have a parallel online Bible software that can quickly compare.

Here is one.

http://www.biblecc.com/

The bible that can sharpen and expand ones vocabulary is the James Murdoch peshito, that man was highly intelligent and used some pretty big words. He had doctorate degrees in afew fields and was the head chair at afew colleges. He walked away from all that to complete his passion of translating the Syriac peshito to English. I have quite the respect for that gentleman I like what he did, and as well I like newly released bible 2017 called the new heart English bible very good translation.

[warrior12]

43 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

Just a something to think upon. Wouldn't a comment like this cause someone to feel that they are not saved if they are having trouble reading a KJV Bible?  Like I said, just something to think about.  

I think most people when referring to the KJV Bible, it is in reference to the 1611 version, which the language used can be difficult to grasp without a dictionary of those words of sort.  There are updated versions which I read and the online versions which are much simpler to comprehend.   Yes, we are not going back t o the 1611 day.   The KJV Bible advocates are those that trust only the 1611 version with the old grammar ect.   There are more experts here to shed light on this subject as it can get complicated and vast.   I am not picky with an updated version that replaces the old grammar.   

I think the gospel is preached adequately in those updated versions and one can get the message with the modern day english used.  

Edited March 26, 2018 by warrior12

[patrick jane]

I started with a NIV study Bible and after a few years, I tried the King James. I found the KJV came alive for me and God was speaking to me personally. I began to read in the spirit and pray for understanding and wisdom, and God provided. Recently I found out about the thousand or so word changes in the NIV, like the word "cornerstone" to "capstone". I rarely use the NIV anymore. King James is actually easier to understand and comprehend once you have a foundation of Bible study, IMO.

[KiwiChristian]

11 hours ago, Still Alive said:

The answer is below.

Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

Wrong.

 

"The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. "

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 

 

They are using DIFFERENT texts.

[KiwiChristian]

4 hours ago, patrick jane said:

I started with a NIV study Bible and after a few years, I tried the King James. I found the KJV came alive for me and God was speaking to me personally. I began to read in the spirit and pray for understanding and wisdom, and God provided. Recently I found out about the thousand or so word changes in the NIV, like the word "cornerstone" to "capstone". I rarely use the NIV anymore. King James is actually easier to understand and comprehend once you have a foundation of Bible study, IMO.

At last!

 

Yes, it IS easier to read and understand!

 

 

[KiwiChristian]

4 hours ago, warrior12 said:

I think most people when referring to the KJV Bible, it is in reference to the 1611 version, which the language used can be difficult to grasp without a dictionary of those words of sort.  There are updated versions which I read and the online versions which are much simpler to comprehend.   Yes, we are not going back t o the 1611 day.   The KJV Bible advocates are those that trust only the 1611 version with the old grammar ect.   There are more experts here to shed light on this subject as it can get complicated and vast.   I am not picky with an updated version that replaces the old grammar.   

I think the gospel is preached adequately in those updated versions and one can get the message with the modern day english used.  

"difficult to grasp without a dictionary of those words of sort."

 

WHICH words?

 

Does no-one know of a thing called "Google" ?

 

"updated versions" ?

 

Define "updated" ?

 

We are not talking about word-changes when the words mean the SAME thing, but word-changes that CHANGE the meaning, and words removed.

 

[KiwiChristian]

4 hours ago, BeyondET said:

The bible that can sharpen and expand ones vocabulary is the James Murdoch peshito, that man was highly intelligent and used some pretty big words. He had doctorate degrees in afew fields and was the head chair at afew colleges. He walked away from all that to complete his passion of translating the Syriac peshito to English. I have quite the respect for that gentleman I like what he did, and as well I like newly released bible 2017 called the new heart English bible very good translation.

Having a doctorate and being the "head chair" of a few colleges mean nothing.

What texts did he used?

[KiwiChristian]

I make use of http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-1.htm

[KiwiChristian]

10 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Kind of like the Newer. Newer. Newer covenant.?

 

BTW, the reason for "newer" translations is because we don't speak the english of the KJV and, of MUCH more importance, the "newer" translations are gleaned from older transcripts that were discovered after the KJV was compiled. 

All you know from the title is that newer versions are newer, and that is not always a bad thing. A Mustang is better than a Model T.

We are not talking about bringing words "up to date". But changing words so they mean different things.

 

Also, i find the language of the KJV beautiful. 

 

Can you show me a passage you dont understand in the KJV?

[KiwiChristian]

On 3/26/2018 at 3:39 AM, Joulre2abba said:

 

Does the niv have Mark 9:29? Yes it does. It's the same verse as Mat.17:21. Does the niv have Lk.19:10? It's the same verse as Mat.18:11. The same with Mat.23:14.. it's in Mk.12:40 and in Lk.20:47. And so on with the other verse references, to be found in the other gospel accounts if not in Matthew.

In the niv for John 5:4 is a footnote which has the full verse. And the same for Acts 8:37 it gives it in a footnote. And so on regarding the other verses in Acts.

So, it's not as if the verses can't be found in that version at all as you apparently are trying to imply.

doubt-laden footnotes. haha.

 

I would NEVER demote Gods Word to a mere footnote. how dare they!