niv or kjv- which is right

[Rania]

Pointless debate is right.

Besides.....the answer came at post #12.

[DaniJ87]

The Message is horrible and new age

The Message is not a literal translation.. and as such, cannot be taken as being literal and good for in-depth bible-study.

However, I have recieved much edification from reading the Message Bible that I bought a couple of weeks ago.

It has a refreshing way of putting things... and I like it. I don't tear apart all of its wording.. but I do know that the man who translated it was not necessarily accurate in what thoughts were being presented.. however, I haven't seen an unbiblical part to the translation, so far...

I love my NIV bible.

For my senior project in high school, (last spring) I did a research project on Bible versions... and what I found was, there are really only two camps, (if you stick to literal translations) which are: the NIV camp, and the KJV camp.

NKJV is pathetic, because all they did was change a few words... but they wouldn't have corrected errors if they had found them... because they were afraid to lose the support of the "KJV only" people.

NASB was based off of a version based on another version based on another version based on the KJV. I don't like it much, for that reason. Not enough looking at the original texts... and too much reliance on the KJV.

NIV looked at all of the manuscripts, chose the ones they thought were the most reliable, and translated into modern english.

KJV is old. It was great when it was translated. At that time, it was a real breakthrough. The part that made me realize how silly it is to stick to it now though, is when I found out that the NT was written in the business/layman's greek... not the fancy greek. Even then, they put things in the COMMON form of the language... the other kind was still Greek...the fancy kind would have worked... but they used the working-man's words. Why should we not do the same thing today? Why do we worship the Bible rather than God who created it? Why can we not trust God to preserve His words when we translate them with a right spirit and intent? (and with diligence and a proper method?)

The people who translated the KJV were not any different than the people who translated the NIV. All are human. All are fallible. All can receive God's grace in the same way.

The Bible-camp I went to for eight years had us memorize things only from the KJV. We had a load of Pensacola college students telling us how it was the best....

I like how the psalms and things sound, in KJV.... But that doesn't make it more accurate. Just more rhythmic. Something with errors can be rhythmic at the same time.

When you say that "KJV onlyism is not a cult".... have you searched for "KJV only" on the web? Almost everything that I found while researching for my project was crazed and fanatical. None of it was scriptural; none of it had any impact on me. I was open-minded at that time. If I had found that the KJV was really "better"... I would have chosen to use it. However, I didn't. I was just turned off by the pathetic way that the KJVO handled themselves. "This is evil"... some even said "You can't be saved except by reading the KJV Bible from 1611"...

I am not catholic... but www.catholicapologetics.com has some interesting facts about the KJV... (a few articles about the NIV, too... most of what they have to say about it is it taking out parts of verses... (but in MY bible, anyway, ALL of them are cited in the margins as being in certain manuscripts.)

Here is a list of some early revisions of the KJV... just to show it has had its share of mistakes, too....

The "Denial Bible", 1792 The name Philip is substituted for Peter as the apostle who would deny Jesus. (Luke 22:34)

The "Discharge Bible", 1806 "I discharge theee... that thou observe these things", instead of "I charge thee"

The "Ears to Ear Bible", 1810 "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" (Matt 13:43)

The "Fool Bible" 1763 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God" [instead of no God]. The printers wher fined 3,000 pounds and all copies were supressed. (Psalm 14:1)

The "Idle Shepherd Bible", 1809 "idol shepherd" printed as "the idle shephard" (Zechariah 11:17)

The "Large Family Bible", 1820

[DaniJ87]

Excellent points.The KJV was done for the same reasons as all other modern translations: to put the Bible into the hands of the common peoople. There's nothing perfect or more God-sanctioned about it than about any other.

I use the NIV primarily, but lately I've been using the NET. Both are fresh translations directly from the original languages, and both plainly state their respect for the Word of God and its inerrancy. Both clearly (moreso than the KJV) present Jesus as the divine Son of God who took "away the sins of the world" by dying for us, then rose again and will "return in the same way as you saw him go". Neither, not even the TNIV, portray God as "it" or "she" or any other such heresy. I think many more people can be saved and blessed by these two translations than any others.

The so-called 'manuscript wars' are over a miniscule amount of text-- less than 1%, and these differences have not effect whatsoever on doctrine, as I've said before. Neither side has clear proof of superiority, so which one a translation is based on has little effect on its content. Both sets are worthy of the same amount of trust, as are the many fine English translations that come from them. We are very blessed to have so many. Instead of causing confusion, they cause enlightenment into the heart of God. We can (and should) use a Bible from at least 4 different 'angles' to do a serious study: literal, complete equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase. This gives us the advantage of determining with great assurance the intent and meaning of the original, even if we don't know Greek or Hebrew.

I have heard of the NET Bible.. but I couldn't access it except online... or ordering it... but I prefer to have one in my hands to look at before I buy it...

The problem I have with the TNIV, is that it got rid of a lot of gender-references. I don't have one here in front of me... but isn't it correct that verses talking about men or women specifically sort of got confused in there? (Once again... I don't have one... so this may be me relating the propoganda that I have heard...)

yes... 1%... I learned that somewhere, too.... it's funny, isn't it... how much controversy comes from less than 1%.... well... the devil really wants to make us fight rather than live in harmony....

I hardly see how the original Greek language Bible being in a form easy to read for the common man proves today's modern English Bibles are reliable. You can argue that God wanted his Word easily understood, but if the translations are full of ommissions or outright errors, being easily understood is a mute point.

I hardly see how the KJV is more reliable, considering that the "Textus receptus" was compiled of a few broken manuscripts, and also leaned heavily on the latin vulgate... The newer versions have had more manuscripts to study, (because we have found more of them) and so they take the side of those they believe to be older and more accurate... and I have to say, don't you think that a manuscript would tend to be more accurate if there is less time in between its writing and the actual events of the Bible? (and don't go telling me how the alexandrians were bad... that doesn't count as a suitable explanation.)

Before you judge the more recent translations as having so many errors.... what if you compared the KJV to the NIV the other way? How do you know that you don't have"omissions and errors" in it, too?

As long as word changes do not affect the Bible's message... what reason do we have to argue about them? (and they don't. Even when a verse is not present, or is in a changed form in the NIV.... it doesn't change the meaning of the Bible... and if you try to prove to me otherwise, you'll have a hard time if you take things in context... which is necessary to have any leg to stand on.)

(oh.... it's "moot point")

Edited February 26, 2006 by DaniJ87

[Elihu's Girl]

From the NIV study bible: (On 2 Samuel 21:19) Since it is clear from 1 Samuel 17 that David killed Goliath, it is possible that an early copyist misread the Hebrew for "Lahmi the brother of" (see 1 Chronicles 20:5) as "the Bethlehemite" (in Hebrew the word for "killed" stands first in the clause).

So there is a Hebrew text that reads killed Goliath of Goth. But no version of the bible teaches that David did not kill Goliath. I find that the NKJV, the KJV, The NIV, the NLV versions of the bible are all pretty much in tandem with one another and when there are verses omited or very noticable differences there is ALWAYS a footnote explaining why or including the other version of the verse. ALWAYS!

Lets not argue guys!

I personally prefer the New Living Translation of the bible over the NIV and the KJV. I think reading other versions of the bible is good because it keeps things fresh. The Message Bible is like talking to a good friend. It's a paraphrase. So I wouldn't have it as my only bible, but it's a good companion. I think you can even buy bibles that have multiple versions side by side. I love that! Let's not let the enemy seperate us by which bible we like to read! The point is to read the bible!

Edited February 26, 2006 by Elihu's Girl

[Rania]

Amen!

I like my NKJV but when I'm hungry for The Word, I'll grab whatever is close!!

[Aviator227]

Hey

I think all of you are going around the long way. I typically read from the NKJV (MacArthurs Study Bible) but read other versions also (including NIV and NET) and this is far more benficial for me in my study, as I can compare translations, get different view points on things, and most of the time find a truely fulfilling interpretation of a certain piece of scripture that I'm reading. I don't think its all that smart to take only one tool to pull apart a car engine, and the same goes with studying God's word. There are plenty of great resources and tools around that we all should use in our study. Things like Commentarys, Study Bibles and even different translations. Even the Apocrypha can be of benefit, mainly for historical background, although understand this, that the Apocrypha is not totally accurate, so don't depend on it for your doctrinal interpretations.

Aviator

[Iryssa]

Pointless debate is right.

Besides.....the answer came at post #12.

Actually it is not a pointless debate. Post 12 gives an opinion of why both versions are supposedly correct, but that is all it is, an opinion. The example given shows the confusion caused by new Bible versions like the NIV. While this debate may be pointless in that those convinced on either side of the issue will likely not change their mind, the debate may change the minds of undecided readers.

*sigh* It was an informed opinion...do you think I've slept through Bible college?? Thanks very much. Oh, and by the way, the example given was just that, an EXAMPLE. I fail to see how that shows confusion...rather, it seems to me that it shows understanding. And yes, at this point, it is a pointless debate, because the arguments are just being repeated in different words. I'm sure the undecideds have gone from thinking "this is how I'll get an informed opinion" to "holy...better steer clear of this subject from now on."

[Marnie]

My Greek is a little shaky, but my Hebrew is excellent. I have found that the KJV, at least in the OT, is terrible as far as accuracy goes. I know that will get the ire up of all the KJV-only types, but it's a fact. Having said that, it must be acknowledged that, while accuracy is in question, doctine is not. There are no errors of doctrine, just errors of names and numbers, generally. So even the KJV can be considered as being a reliable version of the Bible, if that's all a person had. There is also the issue of older, more reliable manuscripts having been unearthed in the past century, that the KJV translators did not have access to. Knowledge of both original languages has also increased, so that fact alone should make the NIV a better choice for serious study. I guess what is important, though, is that we read the Bible and not just debate it. Whether it's the KJV or the NIV or even the RSV, in the end, does it really matter?

Edited February 26, 2006 by Marnie

[Iryssa]

My Greek is a little shaky, but my Hebrew is excellent. I have found that the KJV, at least in the OT, is terrible as far as accuracy goes. I know that will get the ire up of all the KJV-only types, but it's a fact. Having said that, it must be acknowledged that, while accuracy is in question, doctine is not. There are no errors of doctrine, just errors of names and numbers, generally. So even the KJV can be considered as being a reliable version of the Bible, if that's all a person had. There is also the issue of older, more reliable manuscripts having been unearthed in the past century, that the KJV translators did not have access to. Knowledge of both original languages has also increased, so that fact alone should make the NIV a better choice for serious study. I guess what is important, though, is that we read the Bible and not just debate it. Whether it's the KJV or the NIV or even the RSV, in the end, does it really matter?

Well said, Marnie...and I have been told by some professors (including two longtime Hebrew scholars) the same thing. In fact, the most commonly used translations in the college are NIV and NASB...this is, of course, keeping in mind that no in-depth study takes place without comparaisons with both Hebrew/Greek scriptures and several other translations.

[Iryssa]

My Greek is a little shaky, but my Hebrew is excellent. I have found that the KJV, at least in the OT, is terrible as far as accuracy goes. I know that will get the ire up of all the KJV-only types, but it's a fact. Having said that, it must be acknowledged that, while accuracy is in question, doctine is not. There are no errors of doctrine, just errors of names and numbers, generally. So even the KJV can be considered as being a reliable version of the Bible, if that's all a person had. There is also the issue of older, more reliable manuscripts having been unearthed in the past century, that the KJV translators did not have access to. Knowledge of both original languages has also increased, so that fact alone should make the NIV a better choice for serious study. I guess what is important, though, is that we read the Bible and not just debate it. Whether it's the KJV or the NIV or even the RSV, in the end, does it really matter?

Well said, Marnie...and I have been told by some professors (including two longtime Hebrew scholars) the same thing. In fact, the most commonly used translations in the college are NIV and NASB...this is, of course, keeping in mind that no in-depth study takes place without comparaisons with both Hebrew/Greek scriptures and several other translations.

I don't know about what most Bible schools use, but I started going through courses on-line and this school uses nothing but the King James Bible. I also know of a Bible school near by, where I know the man who started it personally. His professors were originally using new Bible versions, but had so many objections from students, even to the point where they were leaving, he had to go to an all King James policy. I personally wouldn't go to a Bible college that uses anything other than the King James Version Bible.

*shrug* When I meet a real (ie. studied, reviewed, sound) scholar of Hebrew that can tell me that the KJV is the only reliable translation, then I might use it more...but until then, I'm perfectly happy using the NIV and NASB as my sources...and again, I'll re-iterate that any major assignment I do has to show that I've checked out several translations, including checking out the original languages. I've never seen any problems so far.