niv or kjv- which is right

[Maestroh]

you will also notice how the niv completely leaves out many verses. Watch the numbering, it will somtimes say go from 34 to 39 with nothing inbetween. Alot of this is due to the writers of the NIV holding certain views.

One big one is they do not beleive in Christs divinity. They changed most every verse they could about this except for the ones that were so painfully obvious they couldnt do anything about it.

Which ones?

For anyone who has not seen the following series and/or read the transcript, I wholeheartedly recommend doing so.

http://www.johnankerberg.org/catalog/bible.html

I got the above link by clicking on their Search feature and requested "which translation"[w/o the quote marks], then selected/copied/ and pasted it below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which English Translation of the Bible is Best for Christians to Use Today?

Guests: Dr. Kenneth Barker, Dr. Don Wilkins, Dr. Dan Wallace, Dr. James White, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Dr. Thomas Strouse, Dr. Joseph Chambers

Are today

[Maestroh]

Maestroh, I have a question for you. Why are you so interested in this one particular topic? Why did you choose a debate over Bible versions as the one you wanted to engage in first here at Worthy Chat? I have never really understood why those that like and use new translations keep bringing this topic up since they claim the KJV is just fine but archaic in language. If it is just fine, why try to get those that use it to accept other versions? Why not simply use what you want, as modern translations are readily available?

The reason I get involved in these threads is that I believe the new translations are deceptions of the devil. I have never started a thread on this topic, only defended my position favoring the KJV only when that position was attacked. I do not consider those that use modern translations non-believers for doing so. I am just concerned that they will be deceived by such things as are found in the New International Version questioning the validity of certain verses of scripture, the creation of a gender neutral abomination, and what ever other deceptions are yet to come.

I guess my question is, did you begin this debate anew for debate's sake, or do you seriously believe you can persuade people like myself that I am wrong? In my case, I assure you that it is a waste of time as I am fully persuaded in my own mind where I stand on this issue. You say you have seen some change sides through debate? So what if someone does? What have you accomplished? They have gone from one adequate translation (the KJV) to using another tranlation you consider equal to it. According to the position of most on your side of the isle, we should use the version we feel comfortable with. In my case I love my 1611 King James Bible, along with the Old English spelling, footnotes and Apocrypha included.

Butero,

For starters, I have been on the board for over a year, but I am extremely busy. I actually brought it here because the KJVO advocate who wanted to debate was banned from another site and ALREADY HAS AN ACCOUNT here. But since you introduced the subject, I'm rather interested: on what basis have you come to the decision that new versions are 'deceptions of the devil?' In the nest sentence, you state that those who do not use the KJV you DO NOT refer to as non-belivers (good for you, sir - sincerely) - yet how can they not be?

Are you not then led to have to modify your position? If they're deceptions of the devil, how can somebody be saved reading one of them? Granted, it seems from reading your posts that you do not hold the exclusivist position on the KJV and such is good. Yet if they're deceptions of the devil (your phrase), I'd be very interested in why you think someone could possibly be saved by reading what you deem to be such a deception?

I realize that this particular post deals with the NIV-KJV notion - a mistaken notion on its face. I find somewhat amusing your points regarding being misled by the NIV and questioning certain verses. But are these not fair discussions? If a verse was ADDED later, are we not just as obligated to point it out as we do when one is deleted?

A KJV-NIV comparison fails at the base level. It is the wrong comparison on numerous points since:

a) they do not use the same text

b) they do not even use the same translation philosophy

c) the KJV was translated by members of ONE denomination while the NIV had over 100 scholars of over 30 denominations represented

The TRUE disagreement, debate, and discussion centers around whether or not the Textus Receptus is the better or worse of two texts. But I suspect, brother, that you have gotten the argument backward - I suspect that you lean toward the TR BECAUSE it supports the KJV, and not vice versa. Perhaps you have not - only you know, sir - but this is what I usually find when inquiring along these lines. If I am wrong (regarding how you came to your position), you have my sincerest apology in advance.

I think what must be remembered is how truly misguided this is even on the level of the English language. I can understand a KJV person going after the RSV, NRSV, CEV, and other Bibles. I often wonder why much of their disgruntlement is held for conservative versions complied by inerrantists including the NIV, NASB, NET, and even NKJV.

God bless you for your interaction, O sir.

Maestroh

[RGR]

I actually brought it here because the KJVO advocate who wanted to debate was banned from another site and ALREADY HAS AN ACCOUNT here.

Maestroh,

I do not know what site your sparring partner was banned from, no do I care to know. I am troubled that you would bring a debate from another discussion board on Worthy, especially with a person who got banned from another site. As Butero has already stated, this subject has been repeated ad nauseum, over and over, and there are no winners! I respect Butero's position on what he believes and I applaud him for standing by what he believes in. We should leave the KJVO debate alone quite frankly; it is not going to lead to anything but arguing and hurt feelings at worst and will have to be closed down. If you are sincerely wanting to debate ONE PERSON, why not take it up with them via e-mail or IM? It's just not good business to bring a debate from another board AND annouce that the debating person was banned from another board, no matter the reason for the banning. I assure you, this is nothing personal; I do not side on the KJVO argument, but as someone who has been here for a while, and as a member of the Ministry, I see no good coming from this. God bless.

[Maestroh]

I actually brought it here because the KJVO advocate who wanted to debate was banned from another site and ALREADY HAS AN ACCOUNT here.

Maestroh,

I do not know what site your sparring partner was banned from, no do I care to know. I am troubled that you would bring a debate from another discussion board on Worthy, especially with a person who got banned from another site. As Butero has already stated, this subject has been repeated ad nauseum, over and over, and there are no winners! I respect Butero's position on what he believes and I applaud him for standing by what he believes in. We should leave the KJVO debate alone quite frankly; it is not going to lead to anything but arguing and hurt feelings at worst and will have to be closed down. If you are sincerely wanting to debate ONE PERSON, why not take it up with them via e-mail or IM? It's just not good business to bring a debate from another board AND annouce that the debating person was banned from another board, no matter the reason for the banning. I assure you, this is nothing personal; I do not side on the KJVO argument, but as someone who has been here for a while, and as a member of the Ministry, I see no good coming from this. God bless.

Dear Brother Ronald,

I find myself in agreement with much of what you write. So let's take it one by one. For starters, I made attempts to contact this person via email and AM MORE THAN WILLING to do what you described; he wanted a public debate. What I then desired - basically - was one on one interaction on the debate board. I made an effort to contact someone named George (I'm not trying to be informal, I do not know him personally, however). This desire stemmed from what is common on this topic - frequent interruption of whomever - and the hope to avoid it. There is not exactly a 'debate' board at said site.

Make no mistake, sir, I do not have attitude about it. I humbly submit to the authority of the board. I also think that over time, I will demonstrate a charitable tone and diplomacy without sacrficing truth. Again, both of us had had accounts here before is why I chose this particular board - along with the fact that verbal abuse is not tolerated here, something that cannot be said (unfortunately) for most boards.

I also made an effort to contact said person via email on this site as well as personal message. Perhaps I am inept, but I was unable to use the functions.

I disagree slightly with one point on the end regarding 'no good.' I have found that hearty and ISSUE-ORIENTED debate can sharpen my own mind and spirit and those of others - provided it is done with proper attitude and Christian service. Thus, I agree with part of that point and disagree slightly with part of it. I have not gone after Butero or anyone else on here, and I shall not do so. But can we not at the least focus this particular discussion on the issue and not 'Why come here?' I have accepted and heartily and humbly submit to the desire of board members to not open it up as an inflammatory discussion, which was never my intent in the first place.

No, I'm not taking what you said personal; quite frankly, I do not offend easily, and I appreciate your tone more than you can imagine. Yet I hope you do not mind honest interaction here on this particular issue from me. It will not be my only subject, but it is one that I have spent quite a deal of time on for years. I hope I said nothing offensive to you in this unfortunately wordy reply.

God bless,

Maestroh

[Maestroh]

Since you were not here when I was debating this with others, I will tell you how I became King James Only. First of all, my first Bible was a King James Version, so I became familiar with the language and never really took to new translations. I didn't need them. While that was the case, I didn't believe they were all necessarily wrong, I just didn't use them. After I got saved, I joined a church where the Pastor used a parallel Bible with the KJV and NIV side by side. He would read from the KJV and then compare it with the NIV. I got to looking at them side by side and noticed things like portions of scriptures being in the footnotes and in the book of Mark a line drawn with a comment stating the most reliable manuscripts don't include several verses from the last chapter. Right away, this causes the reader to doubt the reliablility of those scriptures. I do not believe that is of God. Over time I rejected the NIV entirely.

Then I got some tapes from Gail Riplinger and she showed how there are numerous errors in all the translations when they are compared with the King James Version. In addition, comes the fact that in order to get a copywrite, new translations had to have significant differences from others and therefore they had to change words to the second, third or even fourth best English word in translating from Greek and Hebrew. This brought about serious errors.

Another thing that got my attention was the gender neutral Bible written for the benefit of feminists where references to God as he was removed and the word God inserted. Then I had a Jehovah's Witness show me his New World Translation and compare it to other new translations. It was then I realized how easy it would be for any religious group to re-write scripture to make it favor their beliefs. For instance, you could have a Bible for Baptists that bring out unconditional eternal security. You could have a Wesleyan Bible that promotes santification as a second definite work of grace. You could have a Pentecostal Bible that puts more emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit. I consider that a serious threat to the integrity of the Bible, and the willingness to accept new versions will lead to deceptions.

Now, how can a person be a Christian and read tainted Bibles? Simple. When I got saved, I hadn't even read the Bible yet. I heard the message of salvation and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I read the Bible through after getting saved, so even if I had chosen a Bible with errors in it, I still was already saved. I am a stickler for accuracy and I don't want any changes from the original text. When the King James translators put their Bible together, I have confidence the intent was to use the best English word to represent the original Hebrew and Greek word originally used. I have no such confidence in the modern translators.

It is my view that the real purpose of new translations is to promote the idea that no English translation is fully right. In doing that, it breeds doubt and therefore we are not fully accountable to follow it's teachings. I have actually seen verses in new translations that were in direct opposition to that in the KJV. In the KJV, it shows where God had given a bill of divorcement to Israel, and a new translation words it in such a way as to say God didn't divorce Israel. The very fact two translations are in opposition tears away at the Bible's reliablility. As such, Satan is using new translations to eat away at our faith in scripture. Also, if someone doesn't like what one translation says, they have a good chance of finding one more to their liking. Have you ever noticed how a minister will say something like, the KJV says ..... but the NIV says it better. Then they will turn around in another scripture and say, the NIV says.... but I prefer the Phillips translation here which put it this way. In other words, a minister has the ability to manipulate things to his liking, while eating away at the innerency of scripture. After all, they are only translations and if you don't have the original Greek and Hebrew how can we fully trust it? In addition, even if we do have the original Greek and Hebrew, how can we decide which manuscripts are "the most reliable?" This means the NIV translators are saying that the TR is less reliable than their manuscripts.

Anyway, in general these are the reasons I dislike new versions. I personally use a 1611 Bible. In addition I know the translators wrote their opinion of other tranlations, but that is all that is, opinions. I also know there are Catholic holy days included and the Apocrypha, but this still doesn't have any bearing on the text of the 66 books of the cannon.

Dear Brother Butero,

There is much you said with which I find myself in complete agreement. I once attended a church where the the preacher quoted from seven different translations in the message in order to make what I thought was a stretched point to put it charitably. That said, I still point out that the comparison you make is misguided at its initial step - not in "I'm right, you're wrong," but simply making the comparison fair. I cannot personally abide Gail Riplinger - her out-of-context quotations, misleading charts, and inability to face cross examination on the issue are well documented. Yet I take it as an article of faith that you have researched the issue fairly and we come to diametrically opposite conclusions.

Nor am I trying to talk you out of use of the KJV, either!!!

I like the minister who said that the WORST Bible was the 'unread one.'

True, the NIV translators are saying that their manuscripts are more reliable - but they also chose from a much larger pool of manuscripts. Again, what makes the TR 'the' reliable ones? It seems to me that with such an abundance of textual evidence, why would we limit ourselves either to the two oldest (Aleph and B) or the five to ten used to make the TR?

And which TR is an even better question? Since no TR follows the KJV all the way throughout - there is variation - WHICH TR is the right one, Brother Butero?

I don't say that as if I know - I'm just wondering how you would answer such a query.

God bless you for your interaction, Butero.

M

[Guest Cephas]

It is my view that the real purpose of new translations is to promote the idea that no English translation is fully right. In doing that, it breeds doubt and therefore we are not fully accountable to follow it's teachings. I have actually seen verses in new translations that were in direct opposition to that in the KJV. In the KJV, it shows where God had given a bill of divorcement to Israel, and a new translation words it in such a way as to say God didn't divorce Israel. The very fact two translations are in opposition tears away at the Bible's reliablility. As such, Satan is using new translations to eat away at our faith in scripture. Also, if someone doesn't like what one translation says, they have a good chance of finding one more to their liking. Have you ever noticed how a minister will say something like, the KJV says ..... but the NIV says it better. Then they will turn around in another scripture and say, the NIV says.... but I prefer the Phillips translation here which put it this way. In other words, a minister has the ability to manipulate things to his liking, while eating away at the innerency of scripture. After all, they are only translations and if you don't have the original Greek and Hebrew how can we fully trust it? In addition, even if we do have the original Greek and Hebrew, how can we decide which manuscripts are "the most reliable?" This means the NIV translators are saying that the TR is less reliable than their manuscripts.

Anyway, in general these are the reasons I dislike new versions. I personally use a 1611 Bible. In addition I know the translators wrote their opinion of other tranlations, but that is all that is, opinions. I also know there are Catholic holy days included and the Apocrypha, but this still doesn't have any bearing on the text of the 66 books of the cannon.

Actually, since I was the one who posted that passage I would like to comment here.

In fact, I decided not to quarrel with your interpretation of that passage since I saw that your mind was made up and I figured there was little point. I don't wish to search for that thread, but I believe I used the KJV and the NSRV. Either way I read the KJV version to have the same meaning as the NSRV version. I listed the KJV in deference to you, and the NSRV because it was clearer in what was said. It is a perfect example of why 1600 and 1700 english should be replaced with modern english. A modern TR version would not be a problem to me, as it seems to be to so many of the 1611 only crowd. In fact I used the NKJV for a long time, and still refer back to it from time to time.

No matter how clearly you think you understand King James english, your mind naturally AND automatically reads the passages with 20th century meanings attached, No matter how carefully you try to do otherwise The only time you seek out the actual word or phrase meanings is when there is an obvious problem. By then it's already too late, you've picked up many skewed meanings that even influence what you're looking up. Since the meanings of words, idioms, phrases and usage has changed over the centuries, often quite significantly, the danger lies in getting a different meaning than the translators themselves had. And NO ONE in modern America is immune to that problem. There are significant differences between Modern American and Modern British English. And even more differences between Modern British and 1611 King James english. By nature your mind automatically assigns the meaning most current and common to you, thereby giving you quite possibly a poor or inaccurate understanding. You can claim you understand it all you wish, I used to do the same, and quite honestly believed I did. I now don't accept that or trust that to be true.

AND truthfully, I personally don't care what version you use, my chief issue, in this debate, is with the way too many KJV people tend to sell their position. There are way to many errors, misstatements, misdirection, misleading comments and even out and out lies about the new Translations. True enough, there are fallacious new translations, and there are errors in even the good new translations, BUT there are also errors in ALL versions of the King James.

You claim that the new versions are deceptions of the Devil, I would claim that the argument to keep 1611 bibles as the mainstay is a better tool for him. To have clear understandable Bibles in modern English is more threatening to him than having a version few actually understand correctly. It's far too easy for him to manipulate archaic words, phrases and usages to his purpose, and, when people actually do begin to see the truth, to use the tool "Oh you don't really understand, let ME clarify it for you, this is what the words really mean", to misdirect them away from it. Either position COULD have merit, and both are also have NO MERIT, since they fit only the interpretation of the user. It's one of those lame "I have no real proof, so 'My way or you're spawn of the Devil'" arguments. Used by far too many for far too many nepharious reasons.

Anyway, I've taken the liberty of compiling that verse (Isaiah 50:1) in multiple translations, which I attach below. to me, even the 1611 KJV says "where is the proof I divorced you? where is the evidence that I sold you? YOU sold yourself..." which is a far cry from "I divorced you" However, to be fair, I can also see where you can pick up the other meaning, and even some of the other translations COULD support the side you took. And the point of listing them here is not to continue that discussion, but to show that by properly using multiple translations, one can get a clearer view of what is intended.

Isaiah 50:1 (GWT) 1This is what the LORD says: Where are your mother

Edited May 23, 2006 by Cephas

[Maestroh]

Since I have already addressed all of these issues at length in differen't threads, I am not going to go around in circles again. I did want to address Maestroh's question about which TR. Even this issue is debatable. I have heard people claim there were 11 TR manuscripts and others claim only 3. This is one of those arguments that cannot be proven. I reject the entire notion that some TR manuscripts may have been used to the rejection of others when historians don't even agree on the number. To me, this is just another slanderous attack on the KJV Bible.

Also to Cephas, your argument again casts doubt on how trustworthy different' Bible translations are. In your argument you make the case no matter how good a tranlslation is, there are errors. My view is that the KJV can fully be trusted. My point here is the very argument over this verse being better in one translation than another or one translation being better than another, yet containing error, creates confusion and doubt over the Bible being something we can trust in.

Dear Brother Butero,

Actually, it is very easy to 'prove' the argument regarding Erasmus' manuscripts. He had the following manuscripts for certain:

Edward F. Hills is the ONLY textual critic (he graduated with a Ph.D. from Harvard Divinity School) who toes the KJV Only line; there are others who argue for the Majority Text that is contained among the KJV manuscripts, but Hills argues for the TR itself. Here is what he writes regarding the manuscripts Erasmus used:

1 (an 11th-century manuscript of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles), 2 (a 15th-century manuscript of the Gospels), 2ap (a 12th-14th-century manuscript of Acts and the Epistles), 4ap (a 15th-century manuscript of Acts and the Epistles), and 1r (a 12th-century manuscript of Revelation). Of these manuscripts Erasmus used 1 and 4ap only occasionally. In the Gospels Acts, and Epistles his main reliance was on 2 and 2ap.

This is found at this link: http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter8.htm

It is under 2d on that link.

But the point in your favor merely takes the discussion back one step and settles nothing, sir.

It really makes no difference whether it was three (I've never heard it that low before; the lowest I've ever heard was five) or eleven. Fact is that it was NOWHERE close to the 5,400 total manuscripts that many of the KJVOs want to claim for themselves.

But here's another one:

WHICH TEXTUS RECEPTUS is the inspired and inerrant one?

Erasmus made five editions; the first two DID NOT have I John 5:7 while the last three did.

Or is it Stephanus' texts?

Or Beza?

Or the Elzvir's?

Finally, how do you reconcile the following:

This is on the same page I cited earlier by Dr. Hills:

The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus.

So again, which TR is the infallible one?

One of the major problems the modern KJVO movement has is that they lose their bearings over the passage in Luke about 'her' or 'their purification.' Modern versions render it 'their,' and some of the KJVOs (particularly D.A. Waite) argue that this makes Jesus a sinner or is bad theology because Joseph didn't need to be purified. Yet the reading in the KJV is in a MINORITY of manuscripts and EVEN THE TR has THEIR purification in its early editions.

So what do you do with that?

I'm not trying to sound hostile and God (and you) forgive me if I do. But it seems to follow 'the TR' simply steps back to the question of WHICH TR.

[RGR]

Folks, did Jesus die for a Bible version? Butero has over and over shown where he is coming from and is not going to be moved; again, I am proud of him for holding his ground on what he believes. We are going to spend eternity together with no arguing and fussing-why don't we get a head start on that now?

[Guest Cephas]

Folks, did Jesus die for a Bible version? Butero has over and over shown where he is coming from and is not going to be moved; again, I am proud of him for holding his ground on what he believes. We are going to spend eternity together with no arguing and fussing-why don't we get a head start on that now?

No, He didn't, though He did make quite a scene with the legalists of his day. Besides, I don't consider that anyone here is arguing, I see discussion, presently with Mr Butero representing one side and currently two representing the other side. Maybe the other two involved here have heated feelings about this topic, but for me, I'm just trying to exchange viewpoints and have no emotional involvement.

I do appreciate your concern and well wishing though.

[Guest Cephas]

Also to Cephas, your argument again casts doubt on how trustworthy different' Bible translations are. In your argument you make the case no matter how good a tranlslation is, there are errors. My view is that the KJV can fully be trusted. My point here is the very argument over this verse being better in one translation than another or one translation being better than another, yet containing error, creates confusion and doubt over the Bible being something we can trust in.

I also addressed that the KJ has errors too. however, I would like to add one passage to illustrate my view again. You use the KJ to read Isa 50:1 as meaning God divorced Israel, and while I realize you will probably have a different view of this too, I offer Romans 11:1 and 2 to show that Paul says God never rejected Israel. therefore the version I quoted would more easily show the meaning of Isa 50:1 to show that Israel was not divorced by God, but brought her punishments on herself

Romans 11:1 - 2 (NASB) 1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

Romans 11:1 - 2 (KJV) 1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

However, I notice that Ronald is suggesting we end this, and if that is also your wish say so and I will respond to no more of your posts in this thread. I'm not here to antagonize, only to discuss.

Thank you

In Jesus Name and the Certain hope of the Resurrection into Life