Niv Is Better Than The Kjv

Sep 2, 2013
4,407
820
113
51
Yes but Mizpa these are one group of modern scholars (2000 years after the fact) most of whom do not believe the most basic Christian doctrines...consider this....

Sinaiticus (a text long discarded for burning, found in an Orthodox library, which you are saying we today should be relying on) and Vaticanus (a Roman Catholic text known to exist and only held and controlled by the Vatican, which you are saying we should be relying on), which disagree with over 90% of all other extant samples (which according to modern liberal scholars must all be incorrect if these are indeed the best), which disagree with each other in over 7,000 places (each adding to and taking away where seems fit), and disagree just in the gospels in over 3,000 places (and not just spelling errors or repetitions but entire passages), are reliable!

Okay then since they are in such stark disagreement (even opposing one another), both cannot be the best or the more correct, so which one is it? The one the Orthodox church threw away or the one the Vatican kept hidden?

Neither the Nestle hodge podge eclectic (he picked and chose as he felt appropriate) or the Westcott/Hort hodge podge eclectic (they picked and chose what they thought appropriate) agree with each other (these also disagree in 1,000s of places), so which of these is the correct or best? Choose!

And no! It has been noted by many Textual Critics that Vaticanus simply has a blank space where these passages of Mark would have been…so which is best? Sin or Vat? Which is the reliable edited version? Or is it neither? Then in that case which modern hodge podges (with personally selected choices from both, with some personal interpretations added) are the best or more correct?

Why did all of Christendom select what we have in the majority of examples that go back even farther if these were the better?

Think about it? Most of the people that are telling you this do not even believe the Bible is true...yet them we should trust in? They (like Sin and Vat) cannot even agree with each other (hence a version for any need to scratch any ear with a particular itch)
Brother Paul this is just propaganda from the KJV folks in large part. The most respected Greek Scholars and respected men of God who have spent time to study out this issue have come to the clear and right conclusion that the older text (1000) years older, clearly represent the intention of the scriptures much more than the modern text, that have been clearly added to. If you have a clear example you would like to discuss in detail, I will be glad to search that out with you, but posting this propaganda that just makes blanket and misleadng statements, has little value.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2, 2013
4,407
820
113
51
Have it your way brother...I got none of this from some KJV only propaganda site, I am not even KJV only...truth however is truth...ignore it if you wish. Peace be unto to you...
Well I have read allthis stuff on their sites, and the problem is that these thing are at best half-truths that are put together as to mislead others into error. And this issue is cut and dry for me...a text 1000 years older is clearly more accurate that one that is a 1000 years later... and when every issue is looked at apart from the propaganda, the older text are clearly more reliable and accurate to the true gospel. Love you Brother Paul...no hard feelings....your just wrong on this issue...:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: CeileDe
Likewise...no hard feelings....but I was not talking about a text 1000 years later....I was talking about quotations from texts centuries earlier....thats where the confusion comes from for the many today....because a bunch of apostate moderns hiding behind modern sheepskins come to a consensus does not make their opinion accurate or true.

For example to say these two examples are the oldest is actually a lie....they are two very old examples yes, and the oldest most complete collections, that a) we have available b) at this time...but clearly are not the oldest...

Same with "best"..."best" is subjective opinion that declares all that represents and is closer to the autographs is deemed "not best", and that of course does not speak to the manifold differences between them. My sources have come from my own studies of Textual Critics like Bruce, Hoskier, Ezra, Fee, and others...the popularized opinion is not always the only one and neither is it always the objective one. Because scholars like Dean Burgon and Dr. Peter Ruckman may have defended the KJV does not mean these other men are part of their camp...for example, Gershom Shalom is probably the best DSS scholar...John Allegro is at best an apostate, and he is definitely prejudice against the Bible as "God's word", yet he and the view he adheres to is the most popularized through the media, and thus the most believed in among the masses.

Oh well, I will not try and convince you....after your last comment (I will grin and bear it) I will say no more on this issue.
 
G

guest4

Guest
I am gonna stick with my kjv. I have looked up formyself all the things changed but mainly taken out of scripture in the niv compared to the kjv and there are so many it will make your jaw drop. There is mountians of info on the interweb on this. Do your homework and you will see I am telling the truth. The kjv is closer to original hebrew and greek texts. This is not my opinion, this is fact. I will say however that God can speak thru either version. Or another version. Even a paraphrase such as the cev or the contemporary english version. Or even a donkey. If I had to choose another version besides the kjv I probably still wouldnt go with the niv.