KJV vs. NIV...

[refinedbyfire]

Go ahead. I read the NIV and KJV. I've heard a few arguments but never anything that holds weight. Since signing up yesterday with this forum, I've seen that the NIV changes who killed Goliath and also calls the Devil the "Morning Star" as well as Jesus being the Morning Star. 2 good arguments yet two that I have never heard.

Please... give me more.

[bzmomo7]

Go ahead. I read the NIV and KJV. I've heard a few arguments but never anything that holds weight. Since signing up yesterday with this forum, I've seen that the NIV changes who killed Goliath and also calls the Devil the "Morning Star" as well as Jesus being the Morning Star. 2 good arguments yet two that I have never heard.

Please... give me more.

Wow, I think this topic has been beat to death elsewhere.....check out the virgin birth and all those missing verses and words!!

[refinedbyfire]

Wow' date=' I think this topic has been beat to death elsewhere.....check out the virgin birth and all those missing verses and words!![/quote']

Wow... thanks for the help. [/sarcasim]

The virgin birth is in the NIV.

If you're someone who can help me with example, I'd certainly appreciate it.

I'm not trying to fight about which Bible is better. I have the feeling that it's the KJV but I want the examples to tell other people.

[pneu-engine]

Hi R-F, :lol

A good place to begin with a refutation of the NIV being any good at all is the fact that it is built on the wrong foundation, I.E. it is translated from a text corrupt from the very get-go. Westcott and Hort who developed the text were anti- Virgin Birth, ant- Biblical Creation, anti- Deity of Christ, and a whole host of other things of like nature.

[bzmomo7]

I wasn't trying to be ornery or sarcastic. You might want to search this site for threads about KJ vs. Modern versions--which might have links to some good websites to do research. Another good site to check out (I'm sure he must have some good stuff on this) is Way of Life Literature by David Cloud. I tried to look for myself to see, but right now their web-site is down.....maybe you could try that later. Just google that phrase and use the search engine for the site. P-E is right the foundation is where you start, look up Wescott and Hort, look at the manuscripts that were used to create the modern version (MV) vs. the King James Bible (KJB). That alone convinced me. I know, you may be like, well that's not particularly helpful--I didn't list 5 pages of pro and con, but this subject is deep, and there is literally a TON of info. on the web about it. This is one of those debates that is well documented. Do your homework, pray about it...God will direct you to the right version.

[warden3:16]

i think there is nothing wrong with the niv i own one. Although a KJV is one of my favorite. warden 3:16 :thumb

[LindaR]

Here's a quote from David Cloud's book "Faith vs. The Modern Bible Versions". I received this article in my email--it is called THE PEERLESS LITERARY BEAUTY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE.

THE STYLE AND RHYTHM OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

The style of the King James Bible is not that of the 17th century but is an English style molded by the Hebrew and Greek.

Consider the following testimonies:

"... the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. IT IS BIBLICAL ENGLISH, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W.A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century English--which was very different--but to its faithful translation of the original. ITS STYLE IS THAT OF THE HEBREW AND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation" (Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 218).

http://www.wayoflife.org/

[Kubel]

:zzzz

[kevinmiller]

Way-of-Life article a bit suspect there... :uuhm: :hmm

[Jerry]

What's wrong with it?

[kevinmiller]

To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. IT IS BIBLICAL ENGLISH

It's English. Does Mein Kampf in English have Hitler English?

The difference in style at the beginning could have been any number of things. One, being, the translator wasn't Paul or Moses or Jesus so he obviously wrote differently. Another is that the preface was most likely written by one man rather than a committee like most of the Bible was done.

I can accept that it followed the Hebrew and Greek. That is fine, he's got a few things in there that are accurate.
However:

Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation

Using 'thee' and 'thou' was in the Greek and Hebrew? Already replaced by 'you?' For one, the Bible does use 'you' in some verses. For another, 'thee' and 'thou' was used for centuries afterwards, up until probably the late 1800's.

I don't mind people defending the KJV, but this is another example where it is done in the wrong way.

[MilkmanDan]

What's wrong with it?

"Bump a saurus rex"

[Jerry]

"Bump a saurus rex"

:puzzled:

[MilkmanDan]

:puzzled:

In trying to re attract attention to your post, i added a "Bump".

The "bump" just "bumps" the post back to the top of the heap.

The last bit was my albeit lame attempt at humor. :ooops :loco

Sorry for the confusion Jerry

[matie-k]

lol!