KJV vs NIV
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
All too often advocates of KJV-onlyism who criticize other translations don't play fair. They will compare apples to oranges (formal equivalence translations, such as KJV, against dynamic equivalence translations, such as NIV) also, they will make accusations of removed words when the removed words were insertions by the KJV translators.
My seminary Hebrew professor, Dr. James Price, a world renowned Hebrew scholar who acted as the OT editor for the NKJV, was often attacked by Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. These critics behaved in the most un-Christian manner. I would say they lied a lot, but I don't want to offend liars.
My seminary Hebrew professor, Dr. James Price, a world renowned Hebrew scholar who acted as the OT editor for the NKJV, was often attacked by Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. These critics behaved in the most un-Christian manner. I would say they lied a lot, but I don't want to offend liars.
Oh, no doubt. Riplinger is indeed a combatant who is good at stating what appears to be indisputable facts, but upon further study, betrays some of the imbalances of her shared information. I'm not at all a supporter of KJV-only-ism. God can and does reach through any and all corruptions and errors, as is evidenced by what is stated in 1 John 2:27.
MM
What I question are the very few manuscripts that the NIV people stacked over against the more than 6000 that comprise the Textus Receptus. The Vaticanus, after doing spectral analysis, is found to have been altered around five times in places. That's cause for question.
In other words, I'm not in favor of looking at five older manuscripts, and assuming they are better authorities than 6000+ copies from many different locations, and assume that mere antiquity is what givens to them a higher degree in the direction of infallibility than 6000+ copies that agree with one another more than 95% of the time.
MM
In other words, I'm not in favor of looking at five older manuscripts, and assuming they are better authorities than 6000+ copies from many different locations, and assume that mere antiquity is what givens to them a higher degree in the direction of infallibility than 6000+ copies that agree with one another more than 95% of the time.
MM
I just remembered about once attending a Southwide Baptist Prophecy Conference during which one of the speakers (a KJV-only proponent) stated from the pulpit his KJV-only reasoning by saying, "If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me."
How did you keep from falling out of your chair in disbelief and laughter at such intellectual and historic disconnect?
MM
I wasn't the only one biting my tongue that evening!
Arguments over translations (and translations vs paraphrases and which are paraphrases) have been around and never really cease. I am happy whenever one takes the time and energy to dig into any of them. I do have my preferred versions and I have reasons for those preferences but they are just preferences. There are one or two that I think have been personalized (paraphrases that seem to support one side of a doctrinal issue).
Does this happen in other languages? e.g. Are there arguments over which Spanish language version is more correct than others?
Does this happen in other languages? e.g. Are there arguments over which Spanish language version is more correct than others?
were dealing with translations yes i use kjv bible.. not a fan of the NIV i do like the csb . kjv is not the authorized version nor God ordained king James had it translated..... men died being burnt at the stake for translating the Bible and printing it i know many die hard kjv only brothers and sisters
it sounds good but paul never had a kjv not even sure he had what we call a bible .
it sounds good but paul never had a kjv not even sure he had what we call a bible .
Take 2
i think many of the kjv only people feel that way due to the fact for years kjv was all they had . as i stated i am not a biv fan i have compared it to kj in study time
i think many of the kjv only people feel that way due to the fact for years kjv was all they had . as i stated i am not a biv fan i have compared it to kj in study time
In German, there is some disagreement over versions of the German bible. Some purists advocate the Luther translation while some others prefer the Eberfelder version, both of which are formal equivalence translations. Young people generally prefer the dynamic equivalence Today's German Version because of its simplicity.
Yes sir. I did a sermon on this exact subject about 20 years ago. Unknown to me was one of our members had a daught who worked for Zondervan publishing which is the publisher of the NIV.
When I showed the congregation on a large screen the missing verse, they gasped every time.
I can assure you that we had a very exciting conversation.
I have been studying and teaching the 1611 edition of the KJV Bible for decades and believe it gives anyone sufficient guidance to achieve receiving eternal salvation.
Therefore, no need for the ...new...new age religion versions...... with just enough word changes to cause adverse positioning.
The actual 1611 edition comes only in facsimile and uses middle English script and language; I doubt that is the actual edition you're using. If it is the actual 1611 edition, is it the she or he printed version? Most people who believe they're using a 1611 bible are actually using the 1769 revision of the KJV.
Well certainly a revision but still based on the original texts of the King James Bible . There were certainly many spelling typos, wrong words in the original and earlier editions because the earlier editions were prone to printing error due to the newness and complexities of the printing press. I think there was even one king James edition known as the wicked bible because it said the opposite of what it was supposed to read. The last revision is a correct reading of the 1611 edition and is the standard trusted edition. The new King James Bible produced the 20th century is whole new translation partially based on different manuscripts other than the original text of the the 1611 edition. Some would not class it as a King James Bible
Last edited:
How can you tell if your KJV is the 1611 version. Mine says copyright 1984, 1977 by Thomas Nelson inc.
Of course if I actually had an original 1611 version it would be a miracle, otherwise it's in a rare books special collection library somewhere carefully preserved.
My other one, was printed by Oxford University Press and fell apart - the binding came undone cos it was well used.
I don't remember what year that was printed.
I also have a 2016 KJV Journal the Word Bible. But I haven't really been journalling the word. I just read it. The lines seem to small for me to write in and they are on that annoyingly thin paper that shows up the printing on the other side. So I don't read this one that much.
The devotion I'm reading is The Abundant Life by Sally Ozrovech is using the NIV copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. I don't really get the verses it uses that much because I am used to the KJV. So some of it seems a bit truncated.
I don't really have a choice though what Bible to read they just turn up whenever or people give them to me.
Of course if I actually had an original 1611 version it would be a miracle, otherwise it's in a rare books special collection library somewhere carefully preserved.
My other one, was printed by Oxford University Press and fell apart - the binding came undone cos it was well used.
I don't remember what year that was printed.
I also have a 2016 KJV Journal the Word Bible. But I haven't really been journalling the word. I just read it. The lines seem to small for me to write in and they are on that annoyingly thin paper that shows up the printing on the other side. So I don't read this one that much.
The devotion I'm reading is The Abundant Life by Sally Ozrovech is using the NIV copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. I don't really get the verses it uses that much because I am used to the KJV. So some of it seems a bit truncated.
I don't really have a choice though what Bible to read they just turn up whenever or people give them to me.
You can know if your KJV is the 1611 edition because it states that on the front cover.
Every translation is flawed. Even the 1611 translators, in the preamble, stated that they did not consider theirs to be the best.
MM
MM
That’s right the translators had no idea of the ramifications that their translation would become one of the most trusted and popular translations throughout the world
Last edited: