Today's New International Version (TNIV)

[JerryNumbers]

I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct. I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I quote scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God including the latest Roman Church, Douay, authorized version, The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition. (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21)

...the 1769 KJV fits me and I believe God is honored that I have it settled.

Besides the above...I cannot submit to memory the newer EVs. It's too much like casual conversation which, lends to discard or minimalize a great percentage when someone is speaking. We have to remember this is God speaking to us and answering questions we have so, casual, discard, or minimalism are not options. The KJB makes me pause and think about the meaning also; in many cases I look up meaning. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him. (2 Timothy 3:15)

Yes, yet we have many Christians that are not very particular about what they use to teach & or preach out of. I can understand why, the influence to use any book that comes along that has the word 'b i b l e' upon it is thick and heavy. And of course most commentaries that are bought have used one of the new versions if not many of them.

[no name joe]

I really like the TNIV. It is really just the NIV, with gender neutral references where "Man" or "brother" refers to mankind as a whole. For example, if the passage is "IF your brother sins against you..." the translation is "If your brother or sister sins against you." It does not change the meaning.

I refer to several translations routinely. My primary reading text is New American, but I refer to several translations in study in order to get a good idea of the meaning. I like the NIV or TNIV in some instances. I have found that the NIV is really a better translation for the Old Testament, and NASB is better for the New.

I don't use KJV. I grew up using it, but really, people don't talk that way anymore. KJV was translated to make it into the common langugage of the people so they could read and understand. People don't use the KIng's English anymore. It is difficult to follow many times, thus the need for updated translations.

[Brother Rick]

Actually brother, technically the current King James Version is in modern English and it was last updated in 1769. The Flesch-Kincaid reading indicator places the KJV at an overall reading level of 5.8 grade, the NIV at 8.4, the NASV at 6.1, and the NKJV at 6.9. Occasionally there's a word that seems difficult in the KJV, but the truth is you can find tricky words in any Bible version and any book the size of the Bible.

The KJV is proven to be easier to read, memorize, and preach from. Regardless, how readable it is secondary to the fact that it is the only version of the Bible that clearly has the blessing of God on it, whereas worldwide spiritual apostasy followed the advent of the modern versions in 1881.

[Pastor Matt]

Hi kindofblue1977, nice to see you back here.

I don't use KJV. I grew up using it, but really, people don't talk that way anymore.

I'm assuming then you and others speak NIV english? I'm assuming you then use words like abasement, annotations, debauchery, gadfly, gaunt, Nephilim, porphyry, Praetorium and other archaic words found in the NIV.

With all the archaic words in the NIV, it can't be used as an excuse to stop using the KJV.

[John81]

For whatever reason, I get virtually nothing from an NIV, and from what I've seen of the TNIV, it's even worse. I even know of some men who don't mind the NIV who abhor the TNIV.

[Brother Rick]

Hi kindofblue1977, nice to see you back here.


I'm assuming then you and others speak NIV english? I'm assuming you then use words like abasement, annotations, debauchery, gadfly, gaunt, Nephilim, porphyry, Praetorium and other archaic words found in the NIV.

With all the archaic words in the NIV, it can't be used as an excuse to stop using the KJV.

Good one.

[John81]

Myself, I wouldn't want a Bible written in the manner people speak today. However, there are "paraphrase Bibles" out there which attempt to do this. Also, there are "Christian" publications which attempt to put forth parts of Scripture as if spoken by some "cool" youth who hangs on the streets all day and night.

The KJB has a proven track record, only months short of being 400 years long!

[DennisD]

NOTE, the following are excerpts from the NIV only for INSTRUCTION:

This right here is what really got me to put down that NIV book (it's not a Bible) and pick up a KJB.

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Revelation 22:16 (NIV)
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

There are many more reasons but the blatant contradiction and blasphemy the NIV teaches is straight from Hell.
--------------------
Here it is in the KJB:

Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!


Revelation 22:16 (King James Version)
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

----------------------


As some have said, when the King James was published the Old English wasn't what they were even using in England in regards to "Thee, thou, ye, etc". The translators (you should search their qualifications, some of the best minds/linguists the world had ever seen) used those because the English language of the time didn't have different ways to say "you". In English today if you walk into a room and "You, come with me" who are you talking to? One person? All? Some? The Old English helped show that distinction and is why it was used.

Additionally, the modern versions are based on the minority text which were found in a garbage can in a monastery. Even the New King James is based on the minority text and is blasphemous. These modern versions are translated using "Dynamic Equivalence" which means "thought for thought"(paraphrasing) whereas the KJB is translated using verbal and formal eqivalence. Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. Formal equivalence involved the translators bringing over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn't transform the grammar.

Here is a huge difference between the KJB and TNIV:

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. KJV

Luke 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'People do not live on bread alone.’ TNIV

Some more food for thought, may it bless your decision to get to a good Church and help you understand the need for the one true Word of God in your hand:

−Part of the antiquated feel of the King James Bible is its usage of the second person singular pronominal forms, "thee," "thou," and "thine." The use of these allows the distinction in English between singular and plural pronouns. In other words, "you" and “ye” are plural, while “thee”, "thou", and “thine” are singular. The singular forms have almost disappeared from contemporary English, so that there is no difference between "you" plural and "you" singular. The Hebrew and Greek languages, though, have both a singular and plural form of the pronoun.

−The use of thee, thou, thine was already antiquated when the King James Bible was translated. The King James translators did not adopt thee, thou, thine because those forms were common to their day, but because they wanted to faithfully translate the original Scripture text into English.

−The usage of the KJV is not the ordinary usage of the early 17th century; it is the ‘Biblical’ usage based on the style of the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures of centuries prior.

(D.A. Waite)
________________________________________

Italics

Whenever you translate from one language to another there will be times when the words do not flow as well in the second language as they did in the original language; or, there simply is not an English word for the Greek or Hebrew word being translated (i.e. Baptidzo). When this happens, translators will often insert a word and/or words into a phrase so that the phrase will read better (transliteration). Whenever the KJV translators added a word in this fashion they always placed the added word in italics. In the new versions, italics are not used. When the new version translators insert words into the text they make no effort whatsoever to separate their addition from the rest of the text. Therefore, the reader of a new version does not know that the word was not in the original text.
________________________________________

Perfect Meter

Another reason the King James Bible is to be preferred is because it has a perfect meter. The King James Bible is written short/long, short/long, short/long. "Thy word / have I hid in my heart / that I / might not sin against thee." Short/long, short/long. Why? So that you can memorize it. Just try and memorize the New International Version. You would be surprised at how many seminary professors who hate the King James, and who normally reject its use, will allow students to memorize out of the King James.
________________________________________

The KJV Is Unchanged

Every popular new version has undergone major revision. The American Standard was updated to the New American Standard. The New American Standard has now been revised again. The RV became the RSV which became the NRSV. The NIV has a sister now named the TNIV. But, don’t be fooled by the NKJV; it relies on the faulty texts of the perversions. Almost 400 years of stability, acceptance, believability…the KJV Bible!

Edited November 12, 2010 by DennisDurty

[irishman]

I may as well get my 2 cents in here:

The Ten Commandments, which we all respect and hold dear, were re-copied, if you remember. they are not "the originals" either, yet we esteem them highly as the basis for the New testament theology. They out date all manuscripts;
They are completely endorsed by God Himself;
They are a paradigm (Just learned that word recently! Aren't you all proud of me?)of Truth;
They are "set in stone" (literally), eternal and irrefutable.

As i read through these posts, I see many "authorities" on the Word of God, Thayer, for one was mentioned; did you know that he was a Unitarian? (doesn't believe in a triune God!) I don't know it as a fact, but I have heard that he also helped translate the New World Translation, which is the Jehovah's Witness "bible". At any rate, he could have, being a Unitarian himself.

We are impressed too often with the "qualifications" of the translators, when we ought to focus on the what is being translated.

I am KJBO, and will remain so until the Lord comes (by His grace).

[DennisD]

I may as well get my 2 cents in here:

The Ten Commandments, which we all respect and hold dear, were re-copied, if you remember. they are not "the originals" either, yet we esteem them highly as the basis for the New testament theology. They out date all manuscripts;
They are completely endorsed by God Himself;
They are a paradigm (Just learned that word recently! Aren't you all proud of me?)of Truth;
They are "set in stone" (literally), eternal and irrefutable.

As i read through these posts, I see many "authorities" on the Word of God, Thayer, for one was mentioned; did you know that he was a Unitarian? (doesn't believe in a triune God!) I don't know it as a fact, but I have heard that he also helped translate the New World Translation, which is the Jehovah's Witness "bible". At any rate, he could have, being a Unitarian himself.

We are impressed too often with the "qualifications" of the translators, when we ought to focus on the what is being translated.

I am KJBO, and will remain so until the Lord comes (by His grace).

I think qualifications are important though and I'll tell you why I think that. Because the people that worked on the the KJB1611 had the BEST qualifications as well. Not only is it the preserved Word of God and by tremendous faith do I believe that...the best and smartest people of the time (better than any of those nowadays as well) were the ones involved. KJB is far beyond any of the modern versions in each and every aspect we can think of, including the qualifications of those people.

Additionally, I feel we can get some of those that prefer the NIV over the KJB by showing them "worldy qualifications" and then the Holy Spirit can do the rest.

[irishman]

I think qualifications are important though and I'll tell you why I think that. Because the people that worked on the the KJB1611 had the BEST qualifications as well. Not only is it the preserved Word of God and by tremendous faith do I believe that...the best and smartest people of the time (better than any of those nowadays as well) were the ones involved. KJB is far beyond any of the modern versions in each and every aspect we can think of, including the qualifications of those people.

Additionally, I feel we can get some of those that prefer the NIV over the KJB by showing them "worldy qualifications" and then the Holy Spirit can do the rest.

I understand what you are saying about qualifications, but "scruples" don't always equal common sense! Consider the evolutionists, many of them are very smart in various ways, but they still have a major flaw in their reasoning. I believe that is the crux of the matter for those trying to clarify the Word of God (as if He could not clarify things for Himself!). Education (worldly) is many times, the enemy of faith too. the point is God's Word (KJB) is eternal, and therefore, no matter how many centuries pass, it remains the final authority for all ages. Edited November 12, 2010 by irishman

[John81]

We must also remember the Holy Ghost. Without the Holy Ghost one can't truly or fully understand Scripture and neither can one rightly determine between versions.

Sad as it is, there are a great many seminary professors, pastors, "Christian" speakers and authors, who don't have the Holy Ghost because they are not born again in Christ.

At the same time, there are many of these who are born again but don't submit to the teaching and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

As a personal note, when I was saved the only Bible I had was an RSV which I had been presented as a child in Methodist Sunday school. In the course of reading and trying to understand the Word of God, I bought several different versions thinking this would help. What a mistake! This only added to the confusion as the different versions often didn't seem to agree. I decided the Living Bible was pathetic and the NIV horrible and settled on the NASB. Why the NASB? Because it was an "American" Bible!

After using the NASB for about a year several things caused me to consider the KJB. Rather than going it on my own again, I took it to the Lord in prayer. It wasn't long before the Holy Ghost made it very clear I was to use the KJB. From that point on I used the KJB and the Lord quickly confirmed this was the right course as the Holy Ghost opened up the Word to me like never before. Memorization also became almost easy even though I had struggled to try and memorize a verse or two from other versions in the past.

[Pastor Matt]

So it is being updated because of errors also? Hmmm, those poor people that sat under the preaching of a preacher preaching with a Bible full of errors. Poor people never fully got God Word. That is why my trust is in God not man.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html