Defending the NIV

[EricH]

The KJV only debate simply does not hold water when looked at closely.

[EricH]

The KJV has been proven to be 97% textually pure if that helps you in your quest?

By who and compared to what?

[Vince53]

You all should use the Interlinear Bible if you are concerned with translations. There are many online that can be downloaded for free. One is Interlinear Scripture Analyzer, which is the one I use.

OneLight, thanks for the link.

[traveller]

Blessings, shiloh62

I have heard that the NIV had many deletions quite awhile ago, so I stopped using mine and use my KJV now. You can also do a search online and find information about this.

One should be careful what they take from the internet. You can do a search and find "proof" that the moon landing was a hoax.

Why the KJV? because it was the "first"?

because it is old?

Do you know anything about the people and the methods and the sources used in the translation of the KJV, or the NIV for that matter?

Blessings,

You are absolutely right about about what you read on the internet. Including message boards Just look at the controversy in this thread I did my own research, and anything concerning God's Word that has that much controversey attached to it, I think it is wise to stay away from. After I learned about the descrepancies in the NIV, I prayfully sought the Lord's guidance and I went back to the KJV based upon that.. I feel totally comfortable with the KJV. That's good enough for me.

That's how I see it too, nikki. I like the KJV simply becasue I grew up with it, and i understand it. I'm more comfortable with it. I'm not a KJV only type, though. I compare with other translations when in a study.

[Miss Elly]

I love my King James Version and always have. I was raised with it as a child in my church and my mother also used it. I never had any trouble understanding it. It is beautifully written and some translations seem to ruin some of the poetry, especially in the psalms. I have no trouble memorizing it either. In fact, I sometimes wonder how people memorize scriptures from all of these translations???? However, I do compare the translations side by side occasionally and read the amplified bible too.

Personally I do not care for the NIV translation. God bless.

[wyguy]

The KJV has been proven to be 97% textually pure if that helps you in your quest? You can search in google to find a lot of these studies.

97% textually pure compared to what? this is a meaningless figure.

I find that reading KJV is the most safe. Now that I'm older and I understand God's Words more, I see the error in other translations. I don't now how dangerous it is though. Maybe others will be able to help you with determining that more.

why do people assume that in the case of Bible translation that older equals better?

Ya got me. If that's the case, all the "KJV Only" crowd should then be reading the Bishop's Bible, which is what the KJV was a revision of, which itself was a revision of the Geneva Bible .

[Guest shiloh357]

I like the KJV and the NIV and use both regularly. I don't see what the big deal is.

[Believer1997]

I read both, also. And, I agree... I don't know what the big deal is either. I read other versions, too... I once bought a Bible at a dollar store ... gave it to a friend and a few weeks later she said - Uh, aren't there supposed to be 66 books in the Bible and I said, Yeah.... - her's was missing Exodus, Ruth, Lamentations and Luke....

I felt terrible and went to a 'real' bookstore (even though I didn't have a lot of money at the time and bought her a 'complete' Bible).... That was a long time ago and she and I have had many wonderful Bible studies!

[Fez]

I have a KJV, NIV, ESV and NASV, and just bought in a second hand book store The New English Bible (NT only). I read from all of them at one time or another. I also have the Message, which I bought when first saved and do not read that often anymore.

I have decided to start collecting old bibles, for no other reason than I think it would be cool to do. Some of the inscriptions in the covers tell a story on their own.

[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

Here is what I have found. Though there are many deletions and changed words in the NIV as compared to the older KJV word like helper and help-meet mean exactly the same thing so no harm done. But when it comes to verses like Numbers 14:34 in the KJV -- After the number of the days in which you searched 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.

As compared with the same verse in the NIV --- For forty years--one year for each of the forty days you explored the land--you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.

The entire concept of the meaning of this verse has been changed. In the KJV the words "breach of promise" are telling us that the promise that God gave to the Isrealites has been "taken back" because the Isrealite people doubted God and in doing so they rebelled against God and indeed only three of the men who were alive when the Isrealites searched out the land made it into the promised land.

But when the word breach has been taken out and replace by "know what it is like to have me against you" the whole reality that God actually took back his promise has been changed to the watered down notion that God was against the Isrealites. That fact of the matter is that the Isrealites did not do very much suffering during the forty years in the desert. All of their food and water was supplied for them. Their cloths never wore out. They were protected by God from being attacked by other peoples and the only time they suffered from decease or snakes or anything else was when they were being punished for other sins committed during their travels. If God was against them then why bother to feed, water and proptect them?

So when the NIV says "you will suffer" it is corrupted scripture as compared to the KJV which tells us that they "carried their iniquities". The punishment was not suffering phyically in the desert, it was knowing what they had done wrong and knowing that they will spend the rest of their lives walking around in the desert. When the NIV uses the word "against" it is onlt speaking of an attitude or a frame of mind but when the KJV uses the word "beach" it is a word that speaks of an action.

If just one verse is in any way misleading (and the NIV has many such verses) then the whole bible version should be considered corrupt becouse one one verse is corrupted ther are more.

I have even had arguments on this web site where my arguing partner was insisting that I was wrong because the bible did not used the word I was speaking of and I was telling him the very same thing. Then it occured to me that we were reading two different bible versions whci ment that we were both correct. But only one of our bible versions was correct and the other was corrupted.

I use only the KJV and I can say that it is not perfect but I can say that the KJV version of the bible has been the number one best selling book in the world in many languages since 1611 and it has been the worlds best selling book for 400 years because it is blessed by God. No other version of the bible has ever taken the number one spot from the KJV so you tell me. Which bible version do you think that God would want you to study from?