niv or kjv- which is right

[Iryssa]

Really? Well, send me some peer reviewed articles you've written and we'll see.

[apothanein kerdos]

Lawyer for God -

If you were a scholar then you wouldn't make the novice mistake of saying, "The Jews don't accept the new versions." That is because they don't read the Old Testament as we have it. It is a different structure and primarily written in Hebrew because most jews who take the time to study the Torah know Hebrew. Of course they reject the New Versions AND old versions.

Regardless, Iryssa, I am not a scholar but am studying to become one. The NASB is wonderful but be careful with the NIV. It is more of a paraphrase than an actual translation...thus it's harder when trying to write a paper because you aren't getting the direct meaning. The KJV, however, is full of inadequacies. The most glaring is the contradictory accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. In the Greek they don't contradict at all, in fact, they support each other. In the King James, however, they are a blatant contradiction.

[deershot]

To any one who would care to look, check out www.psalm118.org. click on bible issues. It has

some interesting things.

[Iryssa]

Lawyer for God -

If you were a scholar then you wouldn't make the novice mistake of saying, "The Jews don't accept the new versions." That is because they don't read the Old Testament as we have it. It is a different structure and primarily written in Hebrew because most jews who take the time to study the Torah know Hebrew. Of course they reject the New Versions AND old versions.

Regardless, Iryssa, I am not a scholar but am studying to become one. The NASB is wonderful but be careful with the NIV. It is more of a paraphrase than an actual translation...thus it's harder when trying to write a paper because you aren't getting the direct meaning. The KJV, however, is full of inadequacies. The most glaring is the contradictory accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. In the Greek they don't contradict at all, in fact, they support each other. In the King James, however, they are a blatant contradiction.

It's not exactly a paraphrase, either...the thing with the NIV is that it does often make an attempt to get the sense of the words, rather than the direct translation (but not always). For instance, in Ecclesiastes, where it says "Utterly meaningless!" It may be more technically accurate to say "Futility of futilities!" given the unique form of Hebrew which is used in Ecclesiastes. However, in modern english, it is almost (but not quite) as well to say "meaningless!" *shrug* You get the idea. I am aware of these things. As I said, I do NOT sleep through Bible College.

[Iryssa]

Lawyer for God -

If you were a scholar then you wouldn't make the novice mistake of saying, "The Jews don't accept the new versions." That is because they don't read the Old Testament as we have it. It is a different structure and primarily written in Hebrew because most jews who take the time to study the Torah know Hebrew. Of course they reject the New Versions AND old versions.

Regardless, Iryssa, I am not a scholar but am studying to become one. The NASB is wonderful but be careful with the NIV. It is more of a paraphrase than an actual translation...thus it's harder when trying to write a paper because you aren't getting the direct meaning. The KJV, however, is full of inadequacies. The most glaring is the contradictory accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. In the Greek they don't contradict at all, in fact, they support each other. In the King James, however, they are a blatant contradiction.

Alright AK, I am probably going to be sorry I bit this hook, but would you care to show the blatant contradiction concerning Paul's conversion in the KJV Bible? I have read this story many times over in the only Bible I use, the KJV, and see nothing wrong in this story.

I agree with you that most Jews likely read Hebrew, but what I got from Lawyer for God, was that the Jewish people don't recognize the manuscripts from which new versions of the Bible have been written. In other words, they hold to the TR. I could be wrong, and look forward to hearing his defense of this matter.

He also made a valid point in that there is no copywrite on the KJV, so when the words were translated to English, the translators used the best English word available. With the new versions, however, the second, third, or fourth best word was used in order to justify a copywrite, creating a much less reliable translation.

The Jewish people don't exactly recognize the KJV either, that was the material point. Also, in the english language it's a little more complex than that...it's not always easy to tell exactly what is the "best" word...sometimes there is more than one "best" word to communicate an idea.

[vitality22004]

Both the NIV and the KJV are just translations of the Bible. We need to understand that the letter killeth but the Spirit gives life. Whatever translation we are sitting with, it is the word that is given life by the Spirit of God that changes us. The translators looked at the original Hebrew or Greek and tried their best to communicate a concept from God or a story and the word or phrase that was picked had reference to the cultural connotations and linguistic tones of the time that it was translated. The Word of God, however, is eternal, infallible and became flesh and dwelt amongst us -Jesus.

[apothanein kerdos]

Lawyer

[apothanein kerdos]

Tell me what you think of the Apocrypha during your read through....after all....if it is the 1611 version, it shoudl have it.

Does anyone else here see the irony in all of this? The KJV is from the Anglican church, an offshoot of the Roman Catholic church (with the English king as head instead of the Pope). It was meant to replace the Geneva Bible....the Protestant Bible. So....all of these people who always speak ill-will towards Catholics are essentially reading a Catholic Bible.

[samarelda]

Amen to all you fellow KJV users. I think all the modern translations are a tool straight from Satan. Some churches cannot even read Scripture together as a group any more because no one has the same Bible. It has caused mass confusion, which Satan is the author of. He is not above using Scripture. So glad to be in a KJV only church. If none of the translations (as some seem to believe) are reliable then apparantely God lied when He said His Word would never pass away.

[Guest Logos Believer]

I've been following the KJV vs Other versions discussion here with some interest and would like to add a few comments of my own. Firstly, it's pretty much a waste of time trying to 'convert' hardcore believers of anything from their "God Given" views, and time as a Christian is better spent studying the Word. However there are points that need commentary. HalifaxChristian torpedoes his own KJV only boat with MANY of his defenses of it, of which I will only touch on one or two, as there are more important points to consider

He states in one place that the original KJV is the ONLY RELIABLE translation, and in another place that it is "Perfectly clear and understandable" yet he then turns and admits to using "Other Translations" when CLARITY is needed. ??? I'm confused? WHY, if the KJV is SOOOOO CLEAR and SUPERIOR would you even BOTHER referring to an INFERIOR and UNRELIABLE other translation for CLARITY????? Seems like quite the contradiction to me!!! There are indeed MANY points one could contest his views, but, for now I will expose these;

It's irrelevant which erroneous base of translations is more reliable. ALL of them are not complete and accurate, AND that INCLUDES Textus Receptus. Further, Erasmus was ONE man (and one could bring up issues of his piety, devotion and character, but those would be devisive and inconclusive at best). So, on the one hand, we have ONE man, translating from incomplete, inaccurate copies of copies of copies (and also translations of translations of copies, ie Greek to Latin and back to Greek, which ANY student of languages could inform you of the inherent meaning losses there. Give a German speaking student of English a statement of English to translate into German, and have that student give that translated statement to an English speaking student studying German to translate and see how close to the orginal statement it is), anyway, back to the point. ON ONE hand you have ONE Man, translating from a Select FEW COPIES and TRANSLATIONS he has available vs TEAMS of DEDICATED SCHOLARS trying to compile ALL known older manuscripts to determine what the originals most likely said (and I will add, that we have THOUSANDS of manuscripts and parts of manuscripts now that Erasmus didn't have available). And you wish to believe (and sell) that ONE man's translation is more accurate than the efforts of Team's of Dedicated Bible Scholars? Or are we selling conspiracy theory? Are you, WITHOUT PROOF, Placing Judgement upon THEIR standing with God and Dedication to His Truth? Are YOU THAT SUPERIOR, that YOU can Judge what God reserves to Himself????

I, too, once believed in a stronger KJV only view as yourself, but thanks to God's Grace I have had my mind opened to a better, healthier outlook. To say that 4 or 500 year old language, where word meanings have changed, often drastically and sometimes even to opposite meanings completely is a purer study of God's Word is ludacriss and simplistic. To try and sell that the wordings are EXACTLY the same between the 1611 and the 1769 Authorized Version is also begging the point. The REASON for the revision was to bring the KJV up to "Modern language". Believe as you will, but your own statements prove the one sided approach to your own studies on the matter. IF you are truly of an open mind, read other views with a truly open mind and THEN decide. If you still choose KJV only, at least you have a balanced set of inputs to base that decision off of.

As James R. White observes in his insightful book "The King James Only Controversy": "KJV Only advocates, due to the nature of their beliefs, are often disruptive of the fellowship in churches, feeling that their message of 'God's one true Bible' needs to be heard by all. Anyone who does not 'know what they know' needs to be told quickly, and most often, forcefully."

I offer this quotation on the subject. The source is from the Plain Truth magazine, who also USED to have a strong bias towards the KJV, but has since come to understand why that was wrong.

"The King James translators had seven Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available to them," says Ken Barker. "Today, we have more than 5,000 manuscripts and papyri discovered since 1611."

According to Barker, these manuscripts differ in only 2 percent of their texts. The majority of these differences are minor. The spellings of names or the word order of sentences can differ.

Most of the Pro KJV only stuff is based on one person dogmatics, NOT on relevant and honest study of the Manuscripts. Most comes from ONE person quoting another ONE person, who got it from another single person source, who got it from??? NONE of it comes from Honest study of the 'original' manuscripts, including YOUR statements and views. Even the original Translators of the KJV shared the same view as modern translators, ie "to provide the best and most accurate translation from the sources readily and currently available", and I believe the original Translators of the KJV would eagerly accept the efforts of modern translators to provide an "accurate and READABLE version" of the Holy Word. I've checked out many of the KJV only sites and sources, only to find most of them misleading, misquoting and misrepresenting BOTH the KJV AND the other translations. Checking most of the Supposed omissions, differences and problems quoted against reliable Commentaries and Concordances AND actually comparing the Versions side by side AND IN CONTEXT is ALWAYS enough to refute the disparagers. However, most of the proponents of the KJV Only argument dont' bother bringing Commentaries with them, or if they do reference them, they resort to disparaging remarks about the "Heretics", like somehow THEIR version of Christianity is somehow Superior and THEY are the ONLY ones who "Properly Know God". Hogwash and Balderdash. I would question THEIR Christianity long before I would question the sincere supposed heretics, IF I was of that sort to think I was somehow qualified to Judge others standing with God.

Whether those in the KJV Only group wish to acknowledge it or not, there are Strengths and Weaknesses in ALL the major accepted translations AND THAT DOES INCLUDE THE KING JAMES!!! ALL Translations are done by PEOPLE, including the Translators of the King James and ONLY GOD IS PERFECT!!! The argument is irrelevant and distracts from teaching non believers about the Gospel, and distracts Believers from what is true and important. Even Paul said to quit fighting over unimportant Trivial points of doctrine and focus on the Core Important Points. I have QuickVerse, E-Sword and The Zondervan Version of the NIV ALL on my PC, and ALL running MULTIPLE Translations INCLUDING the KJV so that I can see what the TRUTH is. And YET have I to find ANY true variations between them on the CORE and IMPORTANT doctrines, despite the malignments and misdirections of KJV Only advocates. And, I challenge you to find any that you don't have to misquote or take out of context to prove. If you choose to believe I am ignorant, dumb, mislead, deceived or whatever to make you feel superior, by all means do so, I will pray for you anyway. IF you truly want the truth, give up the dogmatics and seek the truth with a pure heart and a mind toward God. As Paul puts it, if you eat meat, eat for Christ, if you don't eat meat, then do it to Christ, but don't get hung up on whether or not eating meat is the issue. ANY other course is Legalism, NOT Christianity!!!

I reiterate. Textus Receptus was translated by ONE man, from Copies and Translations, NOT originals, and who among you is GOD enough to claim WHICH of the many manuscripts is actually THE inspired one!!! I don't Recall seeing Erasmus name in the Trinity, I don't recall seeing The Father, Son, Holy Ghost AND ERASMUS ANYWHERE In Holy Scripture, though maybe it's buried in some part of the KJV I missed during my KJV Only days (Thank and Praise God for his Enlightenment that I now can have a More complete AND CLEAR view of his word). As for fringe translations? If they are PROVABLY inaccurate, they should be avoided, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses obvious mistranslations. As to the Accepted ones, I would heed God's warnings about feeling superior in judgement over others. The TEAMS of Translators were Dedicated Christians until GOD says otherwise or YOU HAVE PROFOUND PROOF of that, NOT just the word of KJV loyalists with agendas

There is much more that could be said, but I will refrain for now. Peace to you all, and Joy in Christ.