Face Off Between The KJV And NIV

[HankD]

We should IMO consider the simplistic view of this scripture, that the love of money is indeed the root of all evils.

This sounds crass but the crassness is in the minds of men NOT God.

e.g. Rape which has come up often - yes, because in the minds of evil men something is stolen, taken by force from another individual.
In the depraved mind a value is placed upon the theft. It may be hidden and subtle in man's depraved mind but I believe it is true.

Rather than obeying the scripture and entering into the state of matrimony and the benefit of that state (intimacy, children, family ,which in an evil and crass mind, is costly), the intimacy is stolen, taken by force.

Murder - look at the motives of murder and IMO a life again is stolen taken by force,a life which is of great value.

HankD

 

[Salty]

John 11:35
NIV: Jesus wept.
KJV: Jesus wept. ,

Gods Word Translation: Jesus cried

 

[HankD]

Gods Word Translation: Jesus cried

John 11:35 Jesus wept - root - dakruo.

Used only here in the NT. Years ago I did a study of this word - ended up in Kittles TDNT.

It has a heavy meaning e.g. When you say " a plane strafed the soldiers" you know that "strafe" takes several words to define.
- to spray bullets at a target on the ground from an automatic gun while flying an airplane.


dakruo - to weep silently with tears streaming down the face.

Everyone else was weeping - klaio - Crying loudly with emotion.

HankD

 

[OnlyaSinner]

A "faceoff" between two well-accepted translations seems to foster divisions where none need exist. I'm strongly KJVP, loving the language and familiar with the archaic terms thru long acquaintance. That said, if offering a Bible to a new convert I would likely choose another translation, probably NASB though if all I had was an NIV, I'd offer it without hesitation. For me, the stately Elizabethan English helps to put my mind in a worshipful mode, but personal preferences for other good translations should never be a problem.

 

[HankD]

A "faceoff" between two well-accepted translations seems to foster divisions where none need exist. I'm strongly KJVP, loving the language and familiar with the archaic terms thru long acquaintance. That said, if offering a Bible to a new convert I would likely choose another translation, probably NASB though if all I had was an NIV, I'd offer it without hesitation. For me, the stately Elizabethan English helps to put my mind in a worshipful mode, but personal preferences for other good translations should never be a problem.

Agreed,

Christmas would not be the same without the KJV account in Luke chapter 2.

HankD

 

[Rippon]

The carnal mind has difficulty with the Word of God in any lingo.

But instead of a dense undergrowth it might as well be given a clearer pathway. Lord knows it doesn't need more obstacles.

 

[Yeshua1]

ease of reading (and understanding) are critical to ones study of scripture. Without that criterion, people who struggle with the wording are apt to abandon the very texts that are so vital to the scriptural context. I myself struggle but with the tools of NKJ & NIV, I can at least gain some understand & I am less likely to become frustrated and abandon my scriptural studies.

The real question here is would we gain that much by have better readability at the sake of being accurate to the original texts?

 

[Yeshua1]

But instead of a dense undergrowth it might as well be given a clearer pathway. Lord knows it doesn't need more obstacles.

How could the Lord have used the Kjv, and others such as the Nasb/NKJV that do not "read" as easy as the Niv does?

 

[Salty]

Translation comparision

Reading level of translations

 

[church mouse guy]

No, I emphasized accuracy. While accuracy involves understanding the text, it doesn't necessarily mean easy reading.

I also stated that a test would be how much an unchurched American understood after reading a chapter of a given text.

As everyone knows, "...It [NIV] is, however, a "dynamic equivalent" translation. That makes it more "readable" than the NASB and other "word for word" translations. This means that in some cases its translations do not precisely correspond to the actual Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic words."

I have never heard anyone deny that the NIV is a dynamic equivalent translation, which by definition means that it is not word for word.

 

[Yeshua1]

Translation comparision

Reading level of translations

Any adult who has been high school graduated should be able to read pretty much any version then!

 

[Salty]

Any adult who has been high school graduated should be able to read pretty much any version then!

Reading and comprehending are two separate issues!

 

[McCree79]

Any adult who has been high school graduated should be able to read pretty much any version then!

Anybody familiar with the public school system know that many who graduate can barely read at a functional level. Plus there are people reading the Bible who have not graduated. Students will certainly grasp the CSB or NIV better than the KJV or NASB.

Some people are better off with an easier to read Bible. If they get frustrated with a transaltion, due to the difficulty of the read, and quit read.....than what good is it?

I prefer for myself the ESV and NASB. But I placed in my 7 year olds hand a NIV Bible. Even that is hard for him at times....I would not make it more difficult on a child by giving him a KJV.

I would not hand a KJV Bible to one the Spanish speaking immigrants in my county either. They will get a CSB, or if there English is extremely poor or absent, the LBLA.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

The real question here is would we gain that much by have better readability at the sake of being accurate to the original texts?

Reread my OP.

 

[Rippon]

How could the Lord have used the Kjv, and others such as the Nasb/NKJV that do not "read" as easy as the Niv does?

Absurd bservation" there Y. Obviously the KJV was less difficult to read in the 17th century than now.

If they had something like the NIV then they probably wouldn't have understood it.

 

[Rippon]

Translation comparision

Reading level of translations

Different charts --different conclusions.

In the first referenced one the NAB and REB are put at 7! No way! I really like the English style of the REB. I look at it regularly. But it has to be more of a 9 or more --the same applies to the NAB.

In the second chart the NKJV is put at 7. That's nonsense. It has to be more logically placed at a 9 or more.

 

[Rippon]

Any adult who has been high school graduated should be able to read pretty much any version then!

"High school graduated" you say. The wonders of the Detroit public school system.

 

[Rippon]

I placed in my 7 year olds hand a NIV Bible. Even that is hard for him at times....

No wonder! Give him an NIrV. It is much more suitable.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Personally, when I was learning to love to read, my dad handed me several books. Some fiction, some non fiction. He gave me a 3x5 card as a book mark, and told me to write down the page number and any words I didn't understand, and he'd explain them to me when he hit the chance.

The system worked out great. I read several biographies of missionaries as a 6 year old, and read the KJV cover to cover for the first time when I was 7 or 8.

There was nothing that I didn't understand as a preteen that my dad couldn't explain to me. I may not have understood the spiritual applications at the time, but I understood the English fine.

Because of this, I have to scoff at anyone who complains that the KJV is hard to understand. If I, as an 8 year old understood it, surely any adult whose native language is English should understand it.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

As everyone knows, "...It [NIV] is, however, a "dynamic equivalent" translation.

I'm denying it. The NIV is a middle-of-the-road version. It's a mediating translation. There are a fair number of functional equivalents and a fair number of more formal renderings.

That makes it more "readable" than the NASB and other "word for word" translations.

There are no word-for-word translations. Interlinears which are not really translations strive for the impossible but fail.

This means that in some cases its translations do not precisely correspond to the actual Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic words.

In "some cases" really? Most of the time in reality. Most of the time it's not a one-to-one correspondence. But I am not faulting them. It's just not reality.

I have never heard anyone deny that the NIV is a dynamic equivalent translation, which by definition means that it is not word for word.

I'm repeating myself because you are repeating yourself. Once again, it's a blending. There a number of times that the ESV and NASB have to use functionally equivalent renderings. "Yeah, but not as much as the NIV."

Sure, so it's a matter of degree. There's a gradation. It's not an either or proposition.