The KJV is indeed copywrited. The British Crown holds the copyright and renews it with accession of each new sovereign. Accordingly, the copyright would have recently renewed when King Charles was crowned.
KJV vs NIV
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
Hello brothers and sisters;
This is a good discussion from everyone. No one can refute or take away your personal testimony regarding the KJV, NIV or whatever translation you use in your personal study and growth of God's Word.
Yes, but, how do we know we are being led astray by a translation with broken credibility and omitted verses? The scholars and publishers, the manuscripts from old and new, the footnotes and revisions for the last 600 years all come into play including the 1611 KJV and later the 1769 revision. We can open this discussion further in this topic.
18 years ago I can't believe I got into a heated exchange with a brother who swore by the 1611 KJV and should be the only Bible used, period! We were just beginning Bible study when he refuted my statement that I will share later about the various translations of the Bible.
BibleLover made an informative point about the formal equivalence (literal) KJV, "the attempt to keep as close to the form of the Hebrew or Greek, both words and grammar" - quote Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, Zondervan Publishing;
and functional equivalence (dynamic) NIV, "the attempt to keep the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek but put their words and idioms into what the normal way of saying the same thing in English" - quote Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, Zondervan Publishing
There is also The Free Translation (paraphrase) examples are The Message, The Living Bible, The New English Bible, the attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concerns about using the exact words of the original Hebrew or Greek - quote Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, Zondervan Publishing
The debate of "this Bible vs that," which translations should we avoid, the omission of verses in various translations has been going on for centuries. Side note, many translations have not been approved by the publishers, example, from the late 60s when Bibles with poor scholarship were designed for the Jesus People movement.
gpresdo has been studying and teaching the KJV for decades. Praise the Lord! Sadly, Bible teachers come and go but for our brother to teach for decades is a blessing. Imagine how many new believers grew in their discipleship from Bible study!
Earlier, the brother who refuted my said statement, "We are all one body in Christ but God created each of us uniquely different. I have witnessed when one who studied the KJV, another studied the NIV and another studied the NJB (New Jerusalem Bible) and so on. One student who is well versed in the formal equivalence had no testimony of sharing the Gospel with non-believers. Another student who studied The Message with less concentration of the Hebrew or Greek, introduced many to Christ and their new found salvation."
Though many of us have been faithful disciples of studying the Word, and whatever translation we use, MM and Prim90 are correct that translations are flawed. I was floored when I learned this in my first ever seminary class, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth. The text authors are Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, Zondervan Publishing. This is one of the reasons for revisions, to improve earlier translations of God's Word, but there are other factors such as altering, changing or updating a translation that can be from better to worse when no amendment was really needed!
Other's thoughts?
God bless you all.
your bible is just fine i dont own a 1611 either i wasnt born till 1961
Seriously, forgiven?!?
All this time I had confused the 9 and 6 for 6 and 1. lol!
the whole point nobody owns the original 1611 kjb i have seen it on line seems like instead of holyspirit it was spirit and holy
“As farre as the East is from the West: so farre hath hee remooued our transgressions from vs.”
Psalms 103:12 (KJV)
now:
13Howbeit, when hee the spirit of trueth is come, he wil guide you into all trueth: For he shall not speake of himselfe: but whatsoeuer he shall heare, that shall he speake, and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorifie me, for he shall receiue of mine, and shall shew it vnto you.
Euery branch in me that beareth not fruit, hee taketh away: and euery branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring foorth more fruit.
3Now ye are cleane through the word which I haue spoken vnto you..
i do NOT use the niv i cut my teeth on kjv and i am not going to go out and by new version Bible just to be like other preachers
i have read other versions with warnings that was more plain spoken than kj . tyndall helped write the Bible as per us to have one. we dont have his original transcript . it cost him his life being burnt at the stake. after the fire was out they buried him later dug up his remains my understanding bones. ground them up and dumped them into a stream .
kjv challenges me to study and look words up
1 John 2:26-27
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who [try to] deceive you.
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
TRANSLITERATION in the minds of the all those fuss-buckets who disbelieve that God can get through the noise in the weaknesses of errors in translations:
These things I have written to you concerning those OTHER translations that [try to] deceive you.
But the one and only translation which you have received from Him abides on your book shelf, and you do not need any other translation; but as the same one and only true translation you have chosen is the only source for teaching you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will trash all others!
MM
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who [try to] deceive you.
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
TRANSLITERATION in the minds of the all those fuss-buckets who disbelieve that God can get through the noise in the weaknesses of errors in translations:
These things I have written to you concerning those OTHER translations that [try to] deceive you.
But the one and only translation which you have received from Him abides on your book shelf, and you do not need any other translation; but as the same one and only true translation you have chosen is the only source for teaching you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will trash all others!
MM
the only weakness is the ones who deny the basics the blood the virgin birth the resurrections/ we have the obvious the nwt j.w bible and Mormon bible . in which i have both some place in the house. both was gave to me. . see i talked to a co worker today how is blinded by the Mormons. the main requirement is no drinking smoking or drugs take the classes and be baptized ..no new birth no conviction notta. i will assure you there are many others like him. it all started when he replied to lds for a free Bible
read the word
Wow. It seems in Britain the Royal Crown does indeed hold copyright on KJV, but in the rest of the world (as far as I -- and by "I" I mean Wikipedia -- can tell) it's in the public domain. I did not know that. Best have your KJV printing done in France or Ireland I suppose.
MM I do recall in the book of Galatians chapter one from the apostle Paul giving us such warnings. Be that by the literal word or by word of mouth. It might pay to take more notice all those old fuss buckets you mention a Little more seriously.
MM your post is called KJV v NIV. Maybe the post should have read MM vs the KJV : ). As You seem to have a axe to grind with the King James Bible or the people that strongly trust it as the Bible for them . But tell me this why is it that the NIV bible is continually changing with each new edition. It certainly can’t be because of newly revealed information with every new updated revised edition. Some do say anywhere up to 30 -37 percent of change has occurred since its full conception from the 1984 edition. Seems with each new edition what seemed to be the word of God today only holds true until the next edition. In contrast the King James Version which be on a more stable and firm foundation. It has held true to the 1769 revision. The NIV cannot even compete in its stability when compared to the stability of the King James Bible.Prim, I have no axe to grind against the KJV. Please read my posts for what they said. I was taking issue with those who point to the KJV and claim that all others must the thrown away.
Dare we observe reality, though, the KJV is not perfect. It too has flaws. The translators knew that before the last word was written. There is bias even in the KJV, but it's not to the extent that we would throw it out the window with all others.
That's why I personally delve into the Hebrew and Greek from which the KJV and some of the others were translated. The most problematic of them are the paraphrases.
So, as I've said before, even translations are vastly inferior to the Spirit of the Lord who directly instructs any and all who seek the Lord for His instruction.
1 John 2:27
MM
I'm not really a fan of the NIV sorry.
It's still the prevalent edition though, because English is now an international language and not restricted to the British empire or Commonwealth nations as they are now called. NIV makes the Bible read like a paperback novel. That's ok if you want something easily accessible, but the Bible is an ancient HOLY book and not all of it can be translated/paraphrased into modern day idiom and have the same meaning. This is why the Message often falls short, and when pastors quote from the Message Bible you can be guaranteed some funny or amusing translation that seems a bit 'off' lol.
A lot of Americans use the NASB, which I find even more confusing than the NIV. The NIV has bits cut out, but the NASB uses a lot of American terms that speakers and readers outside of the US aren't familiar with.
It's like a translation of a translation of a translation. If you like this chinese whispers version of the Bible and constantly having to refer to a dictionary, then read it but I'd rather just stick to one version that's consistent. Not saying the KJV is perfect, but it really has a lot more depth spirutally than the others, which I find are quite watered down.
Childrens Bibles are also a bit hit and miss. CEV and ICB have problems with syntax, and can get confusing.
If you can read (and speak) Hebrew and Greek, then good for you! Just don't be a snob about it.
It's still the prevalent edition though, because English is now an international language and not restricted to the British empire or Commonwealth nations as they are now called. NIV makes the Bible read like a paperback novel. That's ok if you want something easily accessible, but the Bible is an ancient HOLY book and not all of it can be translated/paraphrased into modern day idiom and have the same meaning. This is why the Message often falls short, and when pastors quote from the Message Bible you can be guaranteed some funny or amusing translation that seems a bit 'off' lol.
A lot of Americans use the NASB, which I find even more confusing than the NIV. The NIV has bits cut out, but the NASB uses a lot of American terms that speakers and readers outside of the US aren't familiar with.
It's like a translation of a translation of a translation. If you like this chinese whispers version of the Bible and constantly having to refer to a dictionary, then read it but I'd rather just stick to one version that's consistent. Not saying the KJV is perfect, but it really has a lot more depth spirutally than the others, which I find are quite watered down.
Childrens Bibles are also a bit hit and miss. CEV and ICB have problems with syntax, and can get confusing.
If you can read (and speak) Hebrew and Greek, then good for you! Just don't be a snob about it.
ESV is a bit problematic because of the gender pronouns in English. Unfortunately English is not a character language like Hebrew is - Hebrew actually seems a lot closer to Chinese! English phonemes and the grammar can be all over the place. As for Greek?! A lof of Greek words have to be transliterated into English and the vowels and consonates are not the same, its not a roman language like French which at least uses the same alphabet - which is why we say Jesus, and not Yeshua.
I had a range of Bibles in the church library and I'm sure people would get confused over which one to read..most people bought their own and it didn't matter if you had a different one from the one the preacher had, who seemed to use several versions. His go to was CEV.
I have been to a KJV only church and its kind of nice to hear that version being read and everyone reading the same version though. However sometimes KJV only people can be a bit fanatical to put it mildly.
I'd love to go to a church that just read from LOLcat version. That would be interesting....
I had a range of Bibles in the church library and I'm sure people would get confused over which one to read..most people bought their own and it didn't matter if you had a different one from the one the preacher had, who seemed to use several versions. His go to was CEV.
I have been to a KJV only church and its kind of nice to hear that version being read and everyone reading the same version though. However sometimes KJV only people can be a bit fanatical to put it mildly.
I'd love to go to a church that just read from LOLcat version. That would be interesting....
MM You mention Paraphrase: Meaning to reword something written, to make it even clearer. Example the John Phillips paraphrase bible. John 1:1. At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God. Compared to the King James John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. There be a number of paraphrased bibles. But the King James Bible has never been known to be one of them. Italics are generally used when extra words are added to make sense of the transition of the translation into another language.But that be something different when compared to a paraphrase bible which was never the intention of the some 60 people involved with the creation of the King James Bible. I’m sure most of those men were very gifted in the ancient languages, more so than with many of the scholars of today. Some knowing anywhere up to 15 languages and certainly no amateurs and many certianly knew the Hebrew and Greek as good as their own native language . And yes they certainly did humbly seek out the Spirit of God to guide them in all wisdom and instruction. .MM you speak of bias. There may have been some bias over the inclusion of the 14 extra biblical books in the early editions of the King James Bible. Of which the high church demanded. Not that many of the scholars agreed for their inclusion. But it was certainly made clear that everyone got the message of what they were, and what what they represented with the word apocrypha stamped over such books. Meaning writings of dubious authenticity. There may have been the matter over over a few words, .Yes of course there be extremes with some people even burning other Bible translations MM of what other bias do you refer? You say translations are vastly inferior to the spirit of God. I would say to that depending if the Spirit of God be upon the translators mind and words.
Agreed.
Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect.
So what is it anyway? Where's the BEEF????
The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others.
I don't know about all those conspiracies, even though I had read Riplinger's book many years ago.
It is true, however, that the Aleph, B, C, Vaitcanus and Siniaticus texts are very old, with the Vaticanus known to have been altered about five times in places and throughout, I prefer to rely in what is in the Textus Receptus.
MM
Its an age old argument that will never end..which version is 'better'. Even in NIV they have little footnotes that say 'the best manuscripts' or 'the better manuscripts' say this.
Well what do they mean by the 'best manuscripts'. The ones that haven't been crossed out? The cut and paste jobs? Remember back in the day everything was written by hand and you couldn't make a mistake but lots of people would painstakingly copy the scripture and sometimes some might have missed some words out, or left off a sentence or spilled ink somewhere.
Well what do they mean by the 'best manuscripts'. The ones that haven't been crossed out? The cut and paste jobs? Remember back in the day everything was written by hand and you couldn't make a mistake but lots of people would painstakingly copy the scripture and sometimes some might have missed some words out, or left off a sentence or spilled ink somewhere.
Gail Riplinger isn't qualified to write on the subjects of textual criticism, theology, or any other Bible subject. Her advanced degree is in home and industrial design (aka home economics). She has never taken any formal courses in Bible subjects. She holds an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson college, an ultraconservative KJV-only private Christian school. Her writings cannot be taken seriously by anyone interested in biblical truth.
He has not been crowned yet.
Official coronation is this April. But technically he becomes King as soon as his mother died. I never quite got the whole King/Queen/Crown thing.
But as the Israelites said in the Bible they wanted someone who was human to rule over them instead of God so they asked for a King like people in other nations had. In the US since they are a republic they don't have Kings or Queens but they do have Presidents. And in Roman times they didn't have Presidents they had Emperors, who then became Popes. Even though they were meant to be a democracy and a republic.
China had a 'Chairman' but now they are calling their leader a President too.
No other King or Queen of Great Britain or as they now call themselves the United Kingdom (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales) had a Bible version commissioned. There is no Queen Elizabeth 2 Bible. There was never a King Charles 1 bible.
In England they don't call it the King James Bible anyway. Anglicans just call it the 'AV' meaning the Authorised Version.