Defending the NIV

[Massorite]

Who Authorized the "1611" King James Version?

what a person is reading these days (most people that claim they read only the "authorized" King James version) are not actually reading the true 1611 KJV. in fact, very few.

I am not speaking against the King James Version..... but was not King James, just a man?

by the way, Prince Charles and Princes Di are cousins...... something in the neighborhood of 12th cousins once removed (if I did the count right), and King James was the Great great great great great great great great great great grandpa (11 greats) of Prince Charles and the great great great great great great great great great grandpa (10 greats) of Princes Di.....

anyways, there are many discussions on bible preference and which ones are thought to be more accurate.....

something to think about, is King James (even though he was very well educated in languages) did not do the translation himself, he had others working on it, to include (possibly) Shakespeare.

have a wonderful ice filled day.....

mike

Yes that is correct Mike. The original KJV was done in old English which had different word with different meanings but also words that are no longer used. For example the word "retire" was used to speak of going some place instead of going to bed or resting.

I believe that King James got a bunch of the best of the best of Schalors together and they picked through Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and decided which books were spiritualy inspiring and which one were not. Those that they deemed had no real value they left out of the bible and I believe one reason this was done was because it was a in opposition to the Catholic bible which has a few more books in it then the KJV.

Then the KJV was once again revised in 1629.

[Massorite]

I was talking to my manager/preacher the other day, and he asked me to read a passage from Genesis about Adam needing a companion. I remember the NIV (which I always use) used the word "helper", and he asked me what translation I was using because his KJV used "help-meet". When I told him that I always use NIV, he told me that the NIV had over 3000 deletions from the KJV and that it was good only as a reference bible. Is there any truth to that or has anyone else ever heard anything similar? Shiloh62

My opinion is that the NIV is way off in its translation, dangerously so. I would agree with your Pastor.

Ok, fair enough, but the problem is, I can't read the KJV and make the sense out of it that was intended 400 years ago. Is there a modern translation that would be more accurate than NIV? I want to go through and re-read the bible again in its entirety, and I was planning on using NIV this time. I've read it through with KJV and the Living translation (I know) ,but want to reread it through again. Maybe NKJV would be good?

Yes it is called "The New King James" as you have suggested. It is as good as you are going to get.

[ayin jade]

Yes that is correct Mike. The original KJV was done in old English which had different word with different meanings but also words that are no longer used. For example the word "retire" was used to speak of going some place instead of going to bed or resting.

I believe that King James got a bunch of the best of the best of Schalors together and they picked through Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and decided which books were spiritualy inspiring and which one were not. Those that they deemed had no real value they left out of the bible and I believe one reason this was done was because it was a in opposition to the Catholic bible which has a few more books in it then the KJV.

Then the KJV was once again revised in 1629.

Not quite Massorite. Below is a part of an article on bible history, with citation and permission to post. It shows that the KJV included the apocrypha and that it was in fact translated in opposition to the Geneva protestant bible, not the catholic bible. The canon itself was decided centuries before the translation of the kjv.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

The Anglican Church

[Bryanfromiowa]

I'm a NIV fan I was always told that The Niv was translated from older greek text that hadn't been discovered yet in 1611. Added to the fact that its written in modern english and therefor easier to comrehend seems the better choice for me. I know people will say i could read the new king james version but isn't that a translation of a translation.

[Guest shiloh357]

There is a doctrinal teaching that says that God will never take back a promise but that is a false teaching. Because there is not one promise that God ever made that doesn't have conditions attached to the promise.

Well, that is not exactly true. God's Covenant to Abraham was unconditional. That is why Abraham did not walk between the halves in Genesis 15. When God alone walked between the halves, He was making the statement that the responsibility of the covenant rested on Him alone, and not on Abraham. All Abraham had to do was receive what God offered.

The Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish on the basis of that unconditional covenant and the unconditional promise made. What was conditional was the degree to which Israel would enjoy the land. The Abrahamic covenant is both unconditional and eternal.

God never goesa back on what He says. God makes both conditional and unconditional promises and He has never violated either.

[Guest shiloh357]

There is a doctrinal teaching that says that God will never take back a promise but that is a false teaching. Because there is not one promise that God ever made that doesn't have conditions attached to the promise.

Well, that is not exactly true. God's Covenant to Abraham was unconditional. That is why Abraham did walk between the halves in Genesis 15. When God alone walked between the halves, He was making the statement that the responsibility of the covenant rested on Him alone, and not on Abraham. All Abraham had to do was receive what God offered.

Seems to be a condition to me?

No, because the covenant was not conditional upon Abraham receiving it. There was nothing about Abraham upon which the covenant depended. The covenant was unconditional. The degree to which Abraham would enjoy the covenant is conditional, hence the need to accept it. However, God's promise to fulfill what He promised had nothing to do with Abraham. God, by nature, cannot lie or go back on what He promised in an eternal covenant.

[Guest yod]

I was talking to my manager/preacher the other day, and he asked me to read a passage from Genesis about Adam needing a companion. I remember the NIV (which I always use) used the word "helper", and he asked me what translation I was using because his KJV used "help-meet". When I told him that I always use NIV, he told me that the NIV had over 3000 deletions from the KJV and that it was good only as a reference bible. Is there any truth to that or has anyone else ever heard anything similar? Shiloh62

I think the NIV is the best rendering of the Old Testament (headed up by Louis Goldberg of Moody Bible college) but I agree that the NEW Testament section is flawed as are all the other translations.

My favorite is the NASB but I read all the translations when studying.

It would be better to read the bible completely in hebrew. When I get someone who reads/understands hebrew to tell me what their bible says, it's always much deeper revelation than the english language can offer.

[Shiloh62]

I was talking to my manager/preacher the other day, and he asked me to read a passage from Genesis about Adam needing a companion. I remember the NIV (which I always use) used the word "helper", and he asked me what translation I was using because his KJV used "help-meet". When I told him that I always use NIV, he told me that the NIV had over 3000 deletions from the KJV and that it was good only as a reference bible. Is there any truth to that or has anyone else ever heard anything similar? Shiloh62

I don't know about 3000 deletions although it wouldn't surprise me. But I can tell you that I have found many places in the NIV where words have been changed or deleted that would change your perception of what the bible is saying. Probubly the best way to find out for yourself would be to find a bible that has both the KJ and the NIV version side by side in the same book. That way could make up your own mind. As for me I don't trust the NIV at all because I have found where half verses have been deleted. And no I am not going to look them up because it would take to much time. I used to know a few of them by heart but not any longer. However I can give you one example quickly if you would like?

Yes,massorite, please do-Shiloh62

In the book of Numbers 14:34 "After the number of the days in which you rearched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall you bear your iniquities, even forty years, and you shall know My breach of promise"

There is a doctrinal teaching that says that God will never take back a promise but that is a false teaching. Because there is not one promise that God ever made that doesn't have conditions attached to the promise. Except for Agape love.

In this verse the words "breach of promise" is talking about how God took back His promise to the Isrealites that they would be going to the promised land because of their disobediance. And indeed only two of the three million or so origenal congregation made it two the promised land. The rest were killed by wild animals and all sorts of other things during the forty years.

However in the NIV word "breach" has beenProbably changed to the word 'oppresearchedIsraelitesdisobedienceoriginalosition" (that you may know My opposition). While it doesn't seem to be very much it is a big deal. At least it is to me. Because the word "opposition" is a watered down word compared to the word Breach (as in breach of contract) and deflects the seriousness of the dissatisfaction of God with the people and it is one proof that if we don't abide by the rules set forth for us by God he will or can take back His promises to us. It is a matter of obedience or rebellion. This can be counted with regards to the "Once saved always saved" doctrinal teaching and shows that the once saved always saved concept is actually contradicted by scripture. However with the word opposition in place the true value of the statement made by God is diminished But when the word breach is changed to the word opposition it doesn't imply or reflect any punishment for the rebellion even though punishment is given out. It leads the student of the bible to believe that God was simply opposed to their actions instead of telling the student that God condemned their actions with punishment.

There are those that would or might argue or disagree with me but I came to this conclusion long ago and I am stead fast in my conclusion.

I hope this is a help to you.

I agree with you massorite. I would much rather someone be opposed to me than punish me for breaking a contract. lets look at this in modern day. Suppose you have someone come out and reroof your house. They roof the house,clean up and go home. Next day,while you are inspecting their work, you notice the north side of your house is obviuosly missing about 10 shingles. If we just said"Oh, I'm opposed to that",thats pretty meek incomparison for what we should do.which is sue the contractor for breach of contract. Good points! Shiloh62

[Shiloh62]

Who Authorized the "1611" King James Version?

what a person is reading these days (most people that claim they read only the "authorized" King James version) are not actually reading the true 1611 KJV. in fact, very few.

I am not speaking against the King James Version..... but was not King James, just a man?

by the way, Prince Charles and Princes Di are cousins...... something in the neighborhood of 12th cousins once removed (if I did the count right), and King James was the Great great great great great great great great great great grandpa (11 greats) of Prince Charles and the great great great great great great great great great grandpa (10 greats) of Princes Di.....

anyways, there are many discussions on bible preference and which ones are thought to be more accurate.....

something to think about, is King James (even though he was very well educated in languages) did not do the translation himself, he had others working on it, to include (possibly) Shakespeare.

have a wonderful ice filled day.....

mike

Indeed,King James was just a man,like you and me, so we don't need to feel obligated to bow don't and worship him

any more than we wwould worship George Washington or George Bush (although some people do that too). No ice here,but plenty of rain! Shiloh62

[Shiloh62]

Yes that is correct Mike. The original KJV was done in old English which had different word with different meanings but also words that are no longer used. For example the word "retire" was used to speak of going some place instead of going to bed or resting.

I believe that King James got a bunch of the best of the best of Schalors together and they picked through Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and decided which books were spiritualy inspiring and which one were not. Those that they deemed had no real value they left out of the bible and I believe one reason this was done was because it was a in opposition to the Catholic bible which has a few more books in it then the KJV.

Then the KJV was once again revised in 1629.

Not quite Massorite. Below is a part of an article on bible history, with citation and permission to post. It shows that the KJV included the apocrypha and that it was in fact translated in opposition to the Geneva protestant bible, not the catholic bible. The canon itself was decided centuries before the translation of the kjv.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

The Anglican Church