PDA

View Full Version : NIV or NKJV???



SeventytimesSeven
Jul 5th 2007, 12:23 AM
okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?

royo
Jul 5th 2007, 01:10 AM
I personally prefer the New King James Version, and have been using it for years. I know many, many Christians use the NIV, and, though I do not see it as a "bad" version, there are ways I do not care for it.
In john 3:16, where the KJV, and NKJV, say "the only begotten Son of God," the NIV says, "the one and only Son of God."
This may not seem much difference, but the word "begotten" is a descriptive word that tells you that God is the one who Fathered Jesus, whereas "one and only" does not. Throughout the Word, we find the word "begat," and "begotten," and it is always showing how the one fathered the other. It is so used here in John 3:16 to show that God the Father is the one who Fathered Jesus.
Now please understand, I am not condemning the NIV, but just showing one example of why I prefer the New King James Version. (or the original King James Version, which I read for years).
I had not made a post about this, as I believe if we do as He commanded, and "not lean upon your understanding," then He will reveal the truth of His Word to us. But since you asked, I have given you my opinion.

God bless you.....Roy.

SammeyDW
Jul 5th 2007, 03:29 AM
IMHO,
I like the NASB the best as it is a nice balance between the NIV (readability)
and the KJV/NKJV (accuracy).

But use whatever The Lord uses to speak to you.
If He speaks to you in the NIV then use the NIV, if He uses the NKJV then your Bible must be NKJV, etc.

GraftedIn
Jul 5th 2007, 05:04 AM
My main bible is KJV with wide margins for notes, but when I am really studying HARD, I use the NIV, NLT, and NASB! I think you should use the version that is easiest for you to understand. The NIV is more of a paraphrase than the NKJV.

calidog
Jul 5th 2007, 05:09 AM
okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?I would think a compact bible would be for easy reading, not so much for study. I'd hang on to it and use it for reading when you're on the go. For in depth study, the more translations to compare with each other, the better.

Braves27
Jul 5th 2007, 05:47 AM
They're both basically the same. Both twist and add to and remove from the Word of GOD. In a lot of the same places, actually.

freshstart
Jul 5th 2007, 07:51 AM
i personally use the NIV... but when i can i jump online and use biblegateway.com and look at other versions if i can...
i cant get along with the KJV the language is too hard for me... but i do check it after i have read the NIV and see what it says and that can sometimes help me understand it better...

but i also like the message...

9Marksfan
Jul 5th 2007, 09:09 AM
okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?

I used the NIV for over 10 years but felt I needed a change - I heard a lot of tapes saying that the AV was the "only accurate translation", based principally on the fact that the source text it used was the Textus Receptus ("TR"), whereas all modern translations (apart from the NKJV, as I understand) use texts discovered fairly recently (generally in the last 100 years). The arguments are quite complex but I ended up being convinced that the TR was probably the more accurate source, but I wasn't at all convinced that the AV was the "only one" - because the language is so archaic that, unless someone has been brought up with it and had it all the archaic words "translated" for them, one would need to have an English Language degree to understand it! Ezra's friends transalated the 500 year old Law of God for the people in Nehemiah 8, so I reckon it was entirely appropriate for a modern language KJV to be produced. No one in the world uses words like "howbeit", "peradventure" or "eschew" in ordinary language any more, so I reckon the NKJV is possibly the best balance of accuracy and readability. I have a lot of time for the ESV as well, as it is a very accurate and readable translation (word-for-word, like the AV, NKJV and NASB) rather than thought-for-thought (known as "dynamic equivalence"), which the NIV, NLT, CEV etc all are. But it's not based on the TR. I would recommend you always use a "word-for-word" translation - I'm keeping an open mind on whether the TR is the most accurate, as the Reformers only had six manuscripts to work from whereas we now have over 6000! My reasons for preferring the TR are as follows:-

1. The TR has lots of key verses in it that none of the modern translations has. Either heretics removed those verses early on or dishonest evangelicals added them to combat the heresies of the day - given the high view evangelicals have always taken of Scripture and the threats God makes of tampering with it, I go with the former.

2. Although scholars consider that the recently discovered texts are the most accurate because they are the oldest, does that necessarily follow? Heretics were around in the first century (many of the NT letters were written to combat them) and Paul makes reference to churches possibly receiving a letter "claiming" to be from him. None of the original manuscripts is left and one would expect evangelical believers to have used their copies the most and therefore they would all be prone to disintegrate at some point.

3. It seems almost inconceivable that the LORD would withhold His complete truth from the church for several centuries, especially when the greatest revivals in human history have taken place when the AV was the recognised and most widely used translation. There is a plethora of translations now and a plethora of heresies and a mass turning away from the authority and sufficiency of Scripture! And would the LORD really have blessed a translation that was basically fraudulent? Go figure, as they say!

Having said that, I am keeping an open mind but I find the NIV more and more frustrating - certain passages are very good (as they are both accurate and readable), but overall, I tend to go for either the NKJV or the ESV. I have heard so many good reports about the NASB, however, that I plan to get one of those too!

Hope that helps.

Nigel

TrustGzus
Jul 6th 2007, 07:17 AM
so whats the diff? Greetings SeventytimesSeven,

My post is longer than others, but I think you'll find it helpful. Plus, it really appears longer than it is due to my extensive use of quote boxes.

There a lot of little differences between the NKJV and NIV if you read them side-by-side. That being said, they aren't as serious as first glance may seem and all those little differences fall into one of two categories:

Translational Style/Method

There are basically two schools of thought on translation methods. One is called formal equivalence. The second is called functional equivalence. Here are simplistic definitions. Formal equivalence attempts to go more towards a word-for-word translation. Functional equivalence attempts to produce a thought-for-thought translation. No translation is exclusively one or the other. They are all a mixture of both.

The NKJV, in its preface, calls its method of translating complete equivalence. The NKJV leans more heavily towards formal equivalence. Dr. Ken Barker of the NIV translation committee calls the NIV a balanced or mediating translation. This is probably a reasonably accurate description.

Let me give an example of where these two play a difference. Let's look at 1 Peter 1:13 first in the NKJV . . .
13 Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
The New King James Version. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 1 Pe 1:13.


That's fairly literal -- for an English Bible. But what does girding up the loins of your mind mean? The NIV goes more functional (thought-for-thought) here to bring it into our language that we speak today . . .
13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Pe 1:13.Now the NKJV isn't impossible to understand, but the NIV certainly is easier. That's a more extreme example. The NIV is usually more formal than that.

Textual Base

Sometimes the NKJV and the NIV read differently because the manuscripts the NKJV translators chose to go with differ from the manuscripts the NIV translators went with. A great example is John 1:18. I'll give both the NIV and the NKJV . . .

18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,e (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1) f (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn2) who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.


e (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1)Or the Only Begotten

f (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref2)Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son


The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Jn 1:18.



18 e (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1)No one has seen God at any time. f (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn2)The only begotten 8 (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn3)Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

e (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1)Ex. 33:20; Matt. 11:27; 1 Tim. 6:16

f (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref2)Ps. 2:7; John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9

8 (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref3)NU God


The New King James Version. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jn 1:18.


One speaks of the only begotton Son (NKJV); the other speaks of God the one and only (NIV). The difference stems from the Greek manuscripts. I like the fact that in the notes, both the NIV and the NKJV let you know of the manuscript difference, that is that some manuscripts read Son while others read God. Neither side tries to hide anything. The NIV gets an additional plus for noting the difference of opinon on only begotten OR one and only.

Here's the NIV textual base . . .
18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979), Jn 1:18.



Here's the basis of the NKJV . . .
18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο
Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) : With Morphology (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2002), Jn 1:18.


Which is correct? A whole other question that I won't get into now.

And now, onto your second question . . .
and should I be using a certain one over the other?Either . . . both. I've been saved for twenty-one years. I've taught from the pulpit out of both. I've read both cover-to-cover multiple times. Neither will lead you astray (despite what some would tell you).

Appendix

Only begotten OR One and only?

Many contributors in the thread will tell you they read the NIV because it's easier. That's fine. I like reading it for that too. Others will tell you to read the NKJV because it's more accurate. That depends. One participant in the thread wrote . . .
In john 3:16, where the KJV, and NKJV, say "the only begotten Son of God," the NIV says, "the one and only Son of God."
This may not seem much difference, but the word "begotten" is a descriptive word that tells you that God is the one who Fathered Jesus, whereas "one and only" does not. Throughout the Word, we find the word "begat," and "begotten," and it is always showing how the one fathered the other. It is so used here in John 3:16 to show that God the Father is the one who Fathered Jesus.You may have noticed the begotten OR one and only difference in John 1:18 when I quoted it. The author in the thread is well-intentioned no doubt about begotten being more descriptive about the Father fathering Jesus. However, the proper question isn't which is more descriptive? The question is which is a more accurate translation of the Greek? Greek scholars have concluded that begotten is a mistranslation of the Greek word μονογενης . Scholar Dr. Wayne Grudem informs us . . .
The idea of “only-begotten” in Greek would have been not μονογενής but μονογέννητος.
Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1233.


Grudem informs us that μονογενης means unique or one of a kind. Thus one and only translates the Greek better. As newer translations are coming out, more are reflecting this. The ESV is a good example and so is the HCSB. Both of these are formal translations that have been released within the last 10 years.

Another contributor to the thread, Nigel, stated that while having an open mind, he leans towards the Textus Receptus (the base of the NKJV and KJV) being more accurate. The TR will not lead anyone astray. It is not bad. However, there are many reasons that the majority of conservative, Bible-believing scholars lean away from it and towards the more eclectic approach of the NIV, NASB and others. Let me give brief comments on this to Nigel's points:
1. The TR has lots of key verses in it that none of the modern translations has. Either heretics removed those verses early on or dishonest evangelicals added them to combat the heresies of the day - given the high view evangelicals have always taken of Scripture and the threats God makes of tampering with it, I go with the former.Nigel's openness is commendable. And I've probably heard several of the tapes he's listened to. They can be very convincing but they have a lot of logical flaws that can be hard to spot, but nevertheless the flaws are there. While Nigel leaves open the option that either additions or subtractions could have been made, he concludes bad motives for both: heretics for subtractions OR dishonest evangelicals for additions. Since he conclude that Evangelicals wouldn't likely do this, he leans towards subtractions by heretics.

However, there are lots of reasons to believe that either additions or subtractions could have been accidental and not deliberate. This removes bad motives and makes either possible. Each manuscript difference must be taken on a case-by-case basis. None of them will change your beliefs.
2. Although scholars consider that the recently discovered texts are the most accurate because they are the oldest, does that necessarily follow? Heretics were around in the first century (many of the NT letters were written to combat them) and Paul makes reference to churches possibly receiving a letter "claiming" to be from him. None of the original manuscripts is left and one would expect evangelical believers to have used their copies the most and therefore they would all be prone to disintegrate at some point.Per my comments on the last point, there is no reason to instantly assume heretics removed things from the text. All things being equal, whatever is closer to the source chronologically should be considered more accurate unless there is very good reason to believe stuff further away chronologically is more accurate. If you wanted to find out details about the holocaust, would you rather speak to the son of a Jewish prisoner or the great-grandson of the same Jewish prisoner? Unless there is extremely good reason to demonstrate an older copy has been tampered with, it makes more sense to go with manuscripts dated around 300-400 A.D. rather than ones dated around 1100-1200 A.D.
3. It seems almost inconceivable that the LORD would withhold His complete truth from the church for several centuries, especially when the greatest revivals in human history have taken place when the AV was the recognised and most widely used translation. There is a plethora of translations now and a plethora of heresies and a mass turning away from the authority and sufficiency of Scripture! And would the LORD really have blessed a translation that was basically fraudulent? Go figure, as they say!The LORD didn't withhold any truth from the church. Both strands - the TR and the eclectic approach - teach the same doctrine. And of course revivals in the English speaking world used the AV -- it was all the English speaking world had for 300 years. It wasn't the Bible of choice, it was the Bible by default.

It's interesting that Nigel then states he leans towards the NKJV (Textus Receptus base) or the ESV (same textual base as the NIV). Two different textual bases. However, both are more formal than functional. The NKJV calls their method complete equivalence. The ESV calls theirs essentially literal. The same thing more-or-less.

Again, the bottom line is read either the NKJV or the NIV . . . OR even better, read both. English speaking people are better off having multiple translations handy. It's a blessing, not a curse.

TrustGzus
Jul 6th 2007, 07:34 AM
Wrong. .Hey Braves,

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I've been wrong many times in life and I could be wrong again. However, I don't want to sidetrack the thread from SeventytimesSeven's questions.

If you're willing, start another thread telling how you came to that conclusion and let me know where it's at via PM or email . . .or send me a PM or email telling me how you came to that conclusion. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

"Wrong" without any details isn't convincing to me.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Braves27
Jul 6th 2007, 09:11 AM
Hey Braves,

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I've been wrong many times in life and I could be wrong again. However, I don't want to sidetrack the thread from SeventytimesSeven's questions.

If you're willing, start another thread telling how you came to that conclusion and let me know where it's at via PM or email . . .or send me a PM or email telling me how you came to that conclusion. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

"Wrong" without any details isn't convincing to me.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

You're right man.

I didn't say more for that reason--so as not to take the thread off topic. I said what I had to say on the topic--neither are any good. My comment is directed at that one line. That it is not a blessing to have all the confusion and strife created by all these so-called "versions" of the Bible. If I can think of a way to turn that into a thread, I will elaborate. If not, I'll send you that PM.:)

9Marksfan
Jul 6th 2007, 09:29 AM
Greetings SeventytimesSeven,

Another contributor to the thread, Nigel, stated that while having an open mind, he leans towards the Textus Receptus (the base of the NKJV and KJV) being more accurate. The TR will not lead anyone astray. It is not bad. However, there are many reasons that the majority of conservative, Bible-believing scholars lean away from it and towards the more eclectic approach of the NIV, NASB and others. Let me give brief comments on this to Nigel's points:Nigel's openness is commendable. And I've probably heard several of the tapes he's listened to. They can be very convincing but they have a lot of logical flaws that can be hard to spot, but nevertheless the flaws are there. While Nigel leaves open the option that either additions or subtractions could have been made, he concludes bad motives for both: heretics for subtractions OR dishonest evangelicals for additions. Since he conclude that Evangelicals wouldn't likely do this, he leans towards subtractions by heretics.

However, there are lots of reasons to believe that either additions or subtractions could have been accidental and not deliberate. This removes bad motives and makes either possible. Each manuscript difference must be taken on a case-by-case basis. None of them will change your beliefs.Per my comments on the last point, there is no reason to instantly assume heretics removed things from the text. All things being equal, whatever is closer to the source chronologically should be considered more accurate unless there is very good reason to believe stuff further away chronologically is more accurate. If you wanted to find out details about the holocaust, would you rather speak to the son of a Jewish prisoner or the great-grandson of the same Jewish prisoner? Unless there is extremely good reason to demonstrate an older copy has been tampered with, it makes more sense to go with manuscripts dated around 300-400 A.D. rather than ones dated around 1100-1200 A.D.The LORD didn't withhold any truth from the church. Both strands - the TR and the eclectic approach - teach the same doctrine. And of course revivals in the English speaking world used the AV -- it was all the English speaking world had for 300 years. It wasn't the Bible of choice, it was the Bible by default.

It's interesting that Nigel then states he leans towards the NKJV (Textus Receptus base) or the ESV (same textual base as the NIV). Two different textual bases. However, both are more formal than functional. The NKJV calls their method complete equivalence. The ESV calls theirs essentially literal. The same thing more-or-less.

Again, the bottom line is read either the NKJV or the NIV . . . OR even better, read both. English speaking people are better off having multiple translations handy. It's a blessing, not a curse.

Hi TrustGzus

Many thanks for your very fair and gracious critique of my comments. I hope you don't see any inconsistency in my favouring both the NKJV and ESV - I guess what is more important to me is formal/complete equivalence (rather than dynamic/thought-for-thought equivalence, which can so easily be the thin end of the wedge of paraphrase) rather than textual bases. I am keeping an open mind on what are the most accurate source texts, however. I would agree that the removal of verses may not have been by heretics, but if the "controversial" verses in the TR were not in the original, then how did they get there if not by well-meaning (but misguided) evangelicals who wanted to combat the heresies of the day? Also, what do you make of the argument that surely the LORD would have preserved His perfect word down through the ages and that Satan has been doing whatever he can to distort it (as he's been doing since Eden!)?

Re your final comment, I would agree that some of the more modern translations (principally NKJV, NASB and ESV and, to a large extent, the NIV) have been a blessing to the church, ALL the paraphrases would, imho, fall into the other category, because they distort the truth, water down or remove several key doctrines and give an overall false impression of the nature of God and of the Christian life. Discernment is so important in these matters - I'm sure it's no coincidence that neo-evangelical, "trendy" churches favour these paraphrases over the more accurate translations, as both take a far less "serious" view of God and the nature of Christian living.

So, in conclusion, I think I would agree with your advice to Seventytimes Seven - I too have preached from the NIV several times and, in some passages, I think it is the "best" - but a combination of other accurate translations (rather than paraphrases), esp the NKJV, can be a very helpful thing.

Sold Out
Jul 6th 2007, 12:54 PM
okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?

There are over 40 verses missing between the KJV/NKJV & the NIV. The NIV translators took great liberties in translating, to the point of communicating ideas & concepts over word-for-word translation.

I used NIV for many years, but after finding out the lack of integrity on the part of the translators/compilers, I feel more confident reading the KJV or NKJV.

TrustGzus
Jul 6th 2007, 03:38 PM
Hey Nigel/9Marksfan,

I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll PM you . . . Well, I was going to but it looks like you don't allow PMs and emails. So I'll reply here.


Hi TrustGzus

Many thanks for your very fair and gracious critique of my comments.Thank you kindly. I try to be fair and give benefit of the doubt. The Golden Rule. Dr. Norman Geisler is always fair and points out good things of people he disagrees with. I'm trying to model him in that way. Hopefully I'll do it as well as he someday.
I hope you don't see any inconsistency in my favouring both the NKJV and ESV - I guess what is more important to me is formal/complete equivalence (rather than dynamic/thought-for-thought equivalence, which can so easily be the thin end of the wedge of paraphrase) rather than textual bases.That's cool. Many agree with you there. I like both. I'm glad we have both and not just one or the other. The important thing, in my mind, is to know which one you're reading or what balance the translation you have contains. It never hurts to check Greek either.
I am keeping an open mind on what are the most accurate source texts, however. I would agree that the removal of verses may not have been by heretics, but if the "controversial" verses in the TR were not in the original, then how did they get there if not by well-meaning (but misguided) evangelicals who wanted to combat the heresies of the day?There are lots of good answers. Most of these have to take place on a case-by-case basis. There are lots of different ways to "accidently" add. There are also reasons to add intentionally that don't require bad motives. I'll use Matthew 23:14 as an example . . .
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), Mt 23:14.


The NIV doesn't even have a Matthew 23:14. Why? Because the Greek text is different. Some Greek manuscripts have it; some don't. The proper way to approach this is to assume neither addition nor deletion but simply ask What did Matthew write? If Matthew wrote it, we don't want to delete it; If Matthew didn't write it, then we don't want to add it. No scribe left us a note saying this is why I added it OR this is why I deleted it. So all we can do is propose scenarios.

So we must ask two questions:

1) Why might someone remove it?
2) Why might someone add it?

I can't think of a good reason to remove it. Some KJV-only advocates claim someone might have removed it because it's harsh, but the whole passage is harsh in all honesty. Why remove one verse? There's an added problem in that Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 do contain the teaching and are in all versions and manuscripts.

40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mk 12:40.




47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Lk 20:47.


So to me it seems more likely someone added it either deliberately with good intentions or accidently. If it was heretics trying to remove it, then they were very sloppy because they entirely missed it in two other gospels and only got it in some copies of Matthew. In fact, that becomes the problem with heretic proposal -- in almost every single proposed deletion the same comment is found elsewhere in Scripture, sometimes even in the same chapter.
Also, what do you make of the argument that surely the LORD would have preserved His perfect word down through the ages and that Satan has been doing whatever he can to distort it (as he's been doing since Eden!)?God did preserve His Word. So there is no problem. If the eclectic approach of translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV are correct, it must be pointed out that we only know of the texts reading this way because God preserved them and archaeologists have un-earthed them. If they are more accurate, the TR versions include everything and add a little more in most cases (not all cases) by duplicating quotes in multiple places. But that religious leaders devoured widows' houses and made lengthy prayers isn't truer because it's now found three times (Luke 20:47; Mark 12:40; Matthew 23:14) rather than just twice (Luke & Mark).
Re your final comment, I would agree that some of the more modern translations (principally NKJV, NASB and ESV and, to a large extent, the NIV) have been a blessing to the church, ALL the paraphrases would, imho, fall into the other category, because they distort the truth, water down or remove several key doctrines and give an overall false impression of the nature of God and of the Christian life. Discernment is so important in these matters - I'm sure it's no coincidence that neo-evangelical, "trendy" churches favour these paraphrases over the more accurate translations, as both take a far less "serious" view of God and the nature of Christian living.I think the key is simply understanding what a translation is attempting to do. I treat paraphrases as commentaries. I tell people to treat them as such. Then what the Living Bible or Message says doesn't matter so much. If people would only read the prefaces to their Bibles, then they'd understand the differences. No one has to have a seminary degree to figure this out -- no rocket science. Readers are leaders. Too many people don't read enough -- including prefaces. Paraphrases are "baby food" in a sense. They're great for new believers and young kids, but leaders should graduate people to better versions. They're good for quoting too sometimes. Chuck Swindoll quotes the Living Bible a lot. Being discerning is good. Being well-informed is better.

I don't find "key" doctrines missng in paraphrases I've read. I'd be curious to see what you consider "key" and how they've been removed. Obviously there are deliberate attempts to distort the Word such as the New World Translation of the Watchtower. Not too many people are trying to be that blatant. They do indeed distort key doctrines.
So, in conclusion, I think I would agree with your advice to Seventytimes Seven - I too have preached from the NIV several times and, in some passages, I think it is the "best" - but a combination of other accurate translations (rather than paraphrases), esp the NKJV, can be a very helpful thing.Cool. We agree in many more ways (and more important ways) probably than we disagree.
.
BTW, if you'd like more info on how I think certain verses ended up the way we have them in different translations, PM or email me. I used to be Textus Receptus only and have been studying the issue for twenty years. I switched sides in 1994. In the process I've gathered many Greek texts. I own several different versions of the Textus Receptus (yes, there are differences - not all TRs are the same). I own Westcott & Hort. I own Nestle-Aland's 27th and the United Bible Society's 4th. Basically, I purposed that no one will be able to tell me what to believe from either side of the issue. I can look at the evidence, i.e. the different Greek texts, for myself.

Grace & peace to you, Nigel.

Joe

NightWatchman
Jul 7th 2007, 05:37 AM
If the 'scholars' think I don't love my Lord Jesus Christ, then so be it.

I presently (and for over ten years) read both the NIV and the NKJV.

I have been mightily blessed for many years as a result.

If you tell me 'KJV only,' that's fine with me too. I know that we are
worshipping the same LORD.

But I'm sticking with my NIV and NKJV. :D

john914
Jul 8th 2007, 05:47 AM
okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?

If you really want to know the answer, you should search and find how each bible came to be. The short answer is the NIV was translated by thought and the NKJV and the KJV was translated from the same source. I have them all, but use the KJV to study and after 35 years I would use only what I tust.

John914

StarscreamX-2
Jul 8th 2007, 06:09 AM
okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?

Im sorry but this struck me as funny.....most of the time its NIV vs KJV......LOL....now you have to deal with the NIVers defender their "word" KJVers slamming the NKJV and the NIV and the folks like me that only care for how God speaks to our Hearts....sans the 1.5 billion translations.......LOL

7Trumpets
Jul 9th 2007, 05:04 PM
Hi Folks,

I can PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt, by a clever piece of work by God, that the Greek Texts that form the basis of the Modern Revisions are false. That is for another time.

The hint is found in the comparison between the Gospel of John and Revelation. It has been proved conclusively that Revelation is actually the completion of John and for example, the woman caught in adultery John 8:1-11 has been dismissed by the "revisionists" but its parallel has been found in Revelation.

Revelation has been shown to be a railroad parallel (====), as well as a railroad crossing (X) to John.

The numerous omissions and deletions by the NIV and others and many disputes of the original texts can easily be laid to rest by God's parallels found elsewhere and UNDISPUTED.

My recommendation is to use the KJV and then if the words and phrases are too difficult, use the NKJV and KJ21 for clarification.

*** content and links removed by wia ***

BadDog
Jul 9th 2007, 11:06 PM
okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?
:P Funny.

Both Bibles are good. They are definitely different. You will find the NIV more readable, and more Christians use the NIV than any other translation, so that may interest you. (More churches use it from the pulpit as well, just FYI.) My favorite Study Bible is the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) edited by Earl Radmacher.

I have used both and like both, though neither are my preference at this time. You will not find too significant differences, in general. Just read a chapter side-by-side and I think you'll get an idea of the differences. Don't let anyone tell you that either is a mistake - they're both solid choices.

Way to go. See, you made two solid choices. Hey, you know more about Bibles than you thought, huh?

have fun reading 'em.

BD

PS: Beware - there are some on this board who promote the KJV-only on any thread that has something to do with translations of the Bible. I have debated them from time to time here. Don't have an interest in doing that here - should that evolve on this thread. (Yes, there is one here already - 7trumpets) If you like a Bible, don't let people tell you it's wrong. Sure, some Bibles are better than others in various aspects. Some read better, and others are better for study. Some are handy because your pastor or Bible group leader uses it. I personally know a lot about translations. I even dabbled a bit in translation - I was involved in the WEB translation. But I don't think such details are useful here.

BadDog
Jul 9th 2007, 11:15 PM
I do not wish to be led by 7trumpets into a debate on the reliability of the Greek texts. Let me simply say that nearly every single modern evangelical textual critic (the study of which Greek texts are more reliable) holds to the Alexandrian Greek family - upon which modern translations are based (New Testament was translated from koine Greek). So seventytimesseven, just pointing this out so that you can ask yourself if what KJV-only say is true, then why do all of the authorities disagree with them? Virtually all of them.

Take care, and keep digging into the Word.

BD

7Trumpets
Jul 9th 2007, 11:19 PM
:P Funny.

Both Bibles are good. They are definitely different. You will find the NIV more readable, and more Christians use the NIV than any other translation, so that may interest you. (More churches use it from the pulpit as well, just FYI.) My favorite Study Bible is the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) edited by Earl Radmacher.

I have used both and like both, though neither are my preference at this time. You will not find too significant differences, in general. Just read a chapter side-by-side and I think you'll get an idea of the differences. Don't let anyone tell you that either is a mistake - they're both solid choices.

Way to go. See, you made two solid choices. Hey, you know more about Bibles than you thought, huh?

have fun reading 'em.

BD

PS: Beware - there are some on this board who promote the KJV-only on any thread that has something to do with translations of the Bible. I have debated them from time to time here. Don't have an interest in doing that here - should that evolve on this thread. (Yes, there is one here already - 7trumpets) If you like a Bible, don't let people tell you it's wrong. Sure, some Bibles are better than others in various aspects. Some read better, and others are better for study. Some are handy because your pastor or Bible group leader uses it. I personally know a lot about translations. I even dabbled a bit in translation - I was involved in the WEB translation. But I don't think such details are useful here.
Are you saying you do not care about the source of the Bible when there are pertinent questions to be answered about omissions and deletions?

Are you saying that Satan is sitting silently by not trying to corrupt God's word?

Are you saying that people must not be aware of the issues others discuss?

I am not saying that people cannot come to know God by the different translations, but when one approaches finer points of doctrine and issues to living a victorious life, there are great differences in the translations.

God's word cannot be confusing. The later versions came out attacking the KJV (they started it) and claiming to be of older and more reliable manuscripts. There are others who disagree. *** comment removed by wia ***

BadDog
Jul 9th 2007, 11:42 PM
SeventyTimesSeven,

Just wanted to add that the first post by TrustGzus (#9) was as solid a post on translations as I've seen on this board. Exc. stuff. It gets a bit technical, but he did an excellent job of keeping it basic. And he took a lot of time to give specific examples in that and following posts to make his points. Just excellent, and gracious as well.

BD

BadDog
Jul 11th 2007, 06:43 PM
excubitor,

This post is not about the KJV. The OP was from a fairly young believer, who needs encouragement, not debates about KJV-only stuff. Let's all try to be sensitive here.

Thx much,

BD

BrianW
Jul 11th 2007, 06:59 PM
I have the KJV and the NIV. Which is best? I think that if you pray that God shows you what he wants you to know he will do so no matter what version you read. God can do anything.

jiggyfly
Jul 12th 2007, 12:33 AM
I have the KJV and the NIV. Which is best? I think that if you pray that God shows you what he wants you to know he will do so no matter what version you read. God can do anything.


HELLO! BINGO! We have a WINNER folks. Thank you BrianW for your post.

If the Spirit can do the leading than I think He is very capable of doing the weeding too. I would be willing to bet that there are more unread KJV bibles than all the rest put together and for one reason it is grammatically out of date making it difficult for most to read. If all you will read is a comic book bible then do it and allow the HolySpirit to reveal truth to you.

Beloved by God
Jul 18th 2007, 03:44 AM
God can use unbelievers to bring people to him, so he could use a Bible that is not perfect as well. But personally I do not recommend the NIV. This test I found online is something that is interesting, and helps prove my point.

INSTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________
7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. (These are all missing in the NIV.)

So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?
If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.

TrustGzus
Jul 18th 2007, 08:13 AM
God can use unbelievers to bring people to him, so he could use a Bible that is not perfect as well. But personally I do not recommend the NIV. This test I found online is something that is interesting, and helps prove my point.

INSTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________
7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. (These are all missing in the NIV.)

So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?
If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.The NIV Bible Test by Rex Cobb (the 25 fill in the blanks provided by Beloved by God) are easily answered with good answers. The NIV Bible test relies heavily on the logical fallacy known as special pleading.
Special Pleading. This is yet another way to make certain the opposing view doesn’t get a fair shake. Here only the evidence that supports one view is cited, and the rest is left out. This is the fallacy of saying, “Accept this because this select evidence supports it (even though other evidence is neglected).” If there are ten studies that show your view to be false, ignore them and make a big point about the one that confirms your conclusion. Really, this argument counts on the listener to be ignorant of the facts. That way anything can be claimed, and no objection can be raised. However, if someone knows about the other ten studies, you’re in trouble. This kind of argument can be torn apart easily if all the facts are made known.

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason : An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1990), 102.To answer all 25 here would take up too much space. If anyone is concerned about any of the 25, Private Message or email me. I'll be glad to help.

Back to the Opening Post . . . read either Bible, the NIV or NKJV, or both (or any of a number of other reliable translations). But whatever you do, read your Bible every single day.

Grace & peace,

Joe

excubitor
Jul 18th 2007, 09:21 AM
The NIV Bible Test by Rex Cobb (the 25 fill in the blanks provided by Beloved by God) are easily answered with good answers. The NIV Bible test relies heavily on the logical fallacy known as special pleading.To answer all 25 here would take up too much space. If anyone is concerned about any of the 25, Private Message or email me. I'll be glad to help.

Back to the Opening Post . . . read either Bible, the NIV or NKJV, or both (or any of a number of other reliable translations). But whatever you do, read your Bible every single day.

Grace & peace,

Joe
Just to add to Joe's words, when you read your bible every day, make sure that you believe by faith that it is the utterly perfect words of God. Words which he has preserved throughout the millenia utterly free of any impurity or error. If you can't have absolute faith in your bible then toss it out and get the KJV. You can be utterly confident that there are no errors in the KJV.

Some people think that the KJV was only about 90% correct and that they were justified in rejigging it and correcting it. They figure that their new version might be 95% correct compared to the original manuscript. But I ask you, how do you know that the passage which you are reading and are staking your life and your eternal salvation upon is not one of those 5% of errors?

What would be the point of having a measuring tape or ruler which got the measurement wrong 5% of the time. You would chuck it out and get one which was always measuring correctly 100% of the time. When I read my KJV every day I believe as an article of faith that it is absolutely correct 100% of the time. It is a solid foundation and guidestick for my whole life.

Why would I trade in my Bible which is ALWAYS correct for one which is mostly correct. That would be madness. When we drink a glass of water do we reach for the 100% pure water or the one which is potentially 5% adulterated?

If you think your NKJV is 100% correct and you believe by faith that there is no error in it, then all power to you. You will make the NKJV the authoritative word of God and you will be streets ahead of the guy who doubts. Personally I simply cannot make that assessment after my extensive research. Depite having spent up to 1000 hours of research into biblical textual criticism, I have found that the KJV has held up under every scrutiny.

As an example of the shonky approach of modern translators by comparison, they took thousands of words out of the KJV because they werent in Codex Vaticanus, but did they add in the apocrypal books because they were in the Codex Vaticanus. No what a wonky double standard. Any wonder the readers of modern translations cannot put their hands on their hearts and profess that their bible is perfect and inerrant.

Brother Mark
Jul 18th 2007, 12:16 PM
So the KJV worshipers are out in force this morning. :P

My personal preference is the NASB but I could not choose it. I use almost all of them. When I want an easy to read version, I like the NIV or NLT. When I am doing a word study, I prefer the NKJV, KJV, or NASB. I also like the Amplified. The KJV is a little harder to understand because it is not in the language we speak. The word definitions have changed since the time it was written and you will need to keep a dictionary close at hand.

I like what Billy Graham said. I like whichever bible you will read. :lol:

Find one you like and enjoy the word of God! He will speak to you through almost all of them.

Blessings,

Mark

BadDog
Jul 19th 2007, 07:16 AM
God can use unbelievers to bring people to him, so he could use a Bible that is not perfect as well. But personally I do not recommend the NIV. This test I found online is something that is interesting, and helps prove my point.

INSTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

...

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. (These are all missing in the NIV.)

So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?
If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.
OK, funny. But the fact is that this could be written so as to express the opinion that the KJV is actually at fault there and has added to God's word in those places. Actually, for a few of those hardly any Greek manuscripts exist... at all, which has the text. A good question to instead ask might be why Erasmus included them, when 99.9% of the manuscripts say something differently, or not at all? (Because he only had one or two manuscripts for those books to work from.) One thing we know, if Erasmus had the Greek manuscripts available today, regardless of which Greek family he preferred, the KJV would be a lot closer to the... NIV. He himself decried the fact that he had so few MSS from which to work.

I am really tempted to use Zane Hodges Greek Majority Text (not critical text) and take each one of those and show which ones, from a KJ-lovers point of view, are not supported by either the critical or the majority text. Been there, done that. Got the saved files and Hodges' Greek text. I could use his apparatus to analysis the ones I don't already have data on.

But I do NOT want to send this down the KJVO debate path again. May I suggest that you look for some of the non-KJVO sites on this, and check it out for yourself?

But the KJV and the NIV are both fairly close and valuable, as you've said, if read. BTW, no way the KJV is "perfect." The translators said so in the preface to the 1611 version. Just better than previous Bibles. (The KJV was not a new translation, but a revision of existing translations - mainly from the English, not the original languages.)

You see, this thread is NOT ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION!!!!!!! It's about the NKJV and the NIV. Let's talk about them.

Take care, and please, let's all read our Bibles.

BD

excubitor
Jul 19th 2007, 11:53 AM
OK, funny. But the fact is that this could be written so as to express the opinion that the KJV is actually at fault there and has added to God's word in those places. Actually, for a few of those hardly any Greek manuscripts exist... at all, which has the text. A good question to instead ask might be why Erasmus included them, when 99.9% of the manuscripts say something differently, or not at all? (Because he only had one or two manuscripts for those books to work from.) One thing we know, if Erasmus had the Greek manuscripts available today, regardless of which Greek family he preferred, the KJV would be a lot closer to the... NIV. He himself decried the fact that he had so few MSS from which to work.

BD, Is this a general comment about the Textus Receptus or is it specific to the Matthew 5:44 passage. What you have said here is certainly false if you are making a general statement. In fact there are only a handful of places where the Textus Receptus has departed from the majority Greek text and has adopted the minority reading. In those cases it was because of the witness of the majority of Latin manuscripts which greatly exceed the number of greek manuscripts.



I am really tempted to use Zane Hodges Greek Majority Text (not critical text) and take each one of those and show which ones, from a KJ-lovers point of view, are not supported by either the critical or the majority text. Been there, done that. Got the saved files and Hodges' Greek text. I could use his apparatus to analysis the ones I don't already have data on.

Interesting how temptation causes you to choose the Zane Hodges MT as a tool for overthrowing and drilling holes in the Textus Receptus. Is this its purpose? If so it drills far more holes in the CT and Nestle-Aland texts behind our array of modern translations.

I use the Textus Receptus based Bible out of firm conviction and unshakable faith in its purity and truth for edification and the teaching of the truth and correction. I don't have to run the statistics as Zane Hodges did to determine what is the pure scripture. I have it already from Erasmus who was appointed for and carefully supervised in his task by the most senior bishops of the church. Zane Hodges appointed himself and Farstard to their task, overseen by nobody, peer reviewed by noone. Zane Hodges completely ignores the witness of the Latin manuscripts and the very many other ancient translations. Is this why you are tempted to use it?

In fact Hodges majority text is a charade. He didnt even look at many manuscripts. He worked of collations by Von Soden many of which are ambiguous in nature requiring Hodges to make a large amount of guesswork to figure which indeed was the majority reading and which the representative reading. There is also significant evidence that Von Soden had an irrational bias against the Textus Receptus (why else would he have undergone the task) and that his findings are biased against the Textus Receptus. Kurt Aland who is supposed to be the foremost authority for textual critics described Von Soden techniques as completely unreliable and that his work was a distinct failure. In fact the number of manuscripts actually collated is very small. 5,300 have been catalogued but very few have been collated. Why not? Because they all overwhelmingly support the Textus Receptus and the Textual Critics who would be required to do such a work of collation are absolutely not interested in finding that out. Therefore the work of collation does not get done. Even Hodges said this of his work "ALL DECISIONS ABOUT MAJORITY READINGS ARE PROVISIONAL AND TENTATIVE". Now that really inspires confidence doesn't it. I think I will stick with my unshakeable, pure inerrant Textus Receptus thanks.

So why would you be tempted to use this MT to poke holes in the Textus Receptus BD? If you want to poke holes in something at least you could make some effort to find something sharp to do it with.

Even if the collations had been done and someone put every one of the 5,300 manuscripts into a computer the computer could run the statistics perfectly and spit out the perfect majority text. Would you be tempted to be use it. What if Bill and Ted came up with the Excellent Text, would you be tempted to use it too. I was given the Textus Receptus, received it as a gift. I was tempted with the CT NIV and I resisted it and cast it off.

Zane Hodges believes that Outer Darkness is a section of heaven where Christians who have not done enough work are cast. Are you tempted to believe this? Then why are you tempted to use his bible for any purpose?



But I do NOT want to send this down the KJVO debate path again.

I'm not suprised BD because every time you do you get woefully exposed and embarassed by how easily your flimsy arguments crumble upon scrutiny.

This information on the MT with references and much more is to be found here http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/majoritytext.htm

jiggyfly
Jul 19th 2007, 12:15 PM
So the KJV worshipers are out in force this morning. :P

My personal preference is the NASB but I could not choose it. I use almost all of them. When I want an easy to read version, I like the NIV or NLT. When I am doing a word study, I prefer the NKJV, KJV, or NASB. I also like the Amplified. The KJV is a little harder to understand because it is not in the language we speak. The word definitions have changed since the time it was written and you will need to keep a dictionary close at hand.

I like what Billy Graham said. I like whichever bible you will read. :lol:

Find one you like and enjoy the word of God! He will speak to you through almost all of them.

Blessings,

Mark

Good points Mark, but I would say that God can speak through any bible translation or paraphrase.

Ok everyone question time, does anyone happen to remember author's name? These threads turn into my version is better than your version and very little focus if any, on the Author and Teacher.

ProjectPeter
Jul 19th 2007, 12:23 PM
This is not nor is it going to be a King James Only Version debate. Take that into Contro Forums and have at it. But the teenager asked a question specifically. Answer that question specifically.

BadDog
Jul 19th 2007, 04:33 PM
This is not nor is it going to be a King James Only Version debate. Take that into Contro Forums and have at it. But the teenager asked a question specifically. Answer that question specifically.Thx,

I'll ignore the previous post by excubitor.

OK, why do you guys prefer the NKJV or the NIV, if you do? What are some of the strengths you perceive in them? (Let's try to not be overly critical of these translations.)

BD

Beloved by God
Jul 20th 2007, 03:59 AM
Ha Ha.... well that is not going to work because those of us that like the KJV are gonna say "The New KJV because it is like the original." You can't ask about the KJV or the New KJV and expect people not to say something like "Because the KJV is the best translation."

This thread was doomed to be a KJVO vs. NIV from the start. And I think the conversation that has gone on in this thread, as well as most others, showed the OP exactly what people think. We can't all agree and that is fine, and so now we all need to go on our merry way.

dan
Jul 21st 2007, 06:53 AM
...KJV. Something about the difficulty of the language leads me to believe that all the mystery hasn't been solved (duh!).
Also, recent versions of NKJV have changed Rev 13:10. Therefore, if it doesn't say:

REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

I won't buy it!

I believe that God kept the KJV for a thousand years, a whole day for Him, and the rest are man's attempts at easier understanding.
Sometimes I feel that some see "easy to accept" as more important than "The Word" itself.

JN 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
JN 4:14 but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life.

Kiba
Jul 21st 2007, 04:35 PM
I personally like the KJV, since its been in use since 1611 and is one of the oldest english translations of the Bible. Although, a drawback is that some people find it difficult to understand, since it uses "thy" and "thou." That's why KJV has been gramatically updated to the NKJV. However, I love the origional, poetic KJV and appreciate it more than other translations for its literary composition (I'm a lit. freak).

Also, there are sites that compare Bible translations and comment upon them so that you can compare passages and find one more suitable for you. http://www.bibletranslation.ws/comp.html focuses more on the grammer of each translation while http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm give more information on the advantages and disadvantages of each english language translation. the second link is more intuitive. Hope this helps!