Face Off Between The KJV And NIV

[Rippon]

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.

Scoff away to your heart's content. However, the reality is that it is much more of a challenge than you imagine. Do you know about the Twentieth Century New Testament? It was put out in the early 1900's. I think the final form was released in 1904.

Mr. Malan said his children had difficulty understanding and reading the KJV. So he and folks --most laymen put out a really good contemporary version. It has been given high marks.

J.B. Phillips translated a few epistles for the high school students of his church in the 1940s. I have his 1972 version.It's quite functional, but much better than the Living Bible and things like that.

 

[Salty]

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. ...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.

But how many 8 year olds had the direction you had?

Makes me think about a TV movie I saw years ago - A plane landed on an island and found several women living there. Their plane had crashed years previously when the women were about 3-5 at the time. Well, one lady started counted- ... 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9 -- if you noticed they did not include 6 as a number - becasue the oldest at the time who was 5 taught the others how to count - and since she had not memorized the # 6 -she was unable to teach the others how to count properly.

BTW, I applaud your dad - for the excellent way he taught you!

 

[Deacon]

I came across a verse this evening at the Wednesday evening group that has quite a variety of differences between these two versions.


Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. Acts 13:26 (AV 1873)


“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. Acts 13:26 (NIV)

Rob

 

[Rippon]

I came across a verse this evening at the Wednesday evening group that has quite a variety of differences between these two versions.


Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. Acts 13:26 (AV 1873)


“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. Acts 13:26 (NIV)

Rob

Interesting, the CSB begins the verse with ""Brothers and sisters...."

 

[robycop3]

1 Tim. 6:10

KJV:For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

NIV: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I came across a verse this evening at the Wednesday evening group that has quite a variety of differences between these two versions.


Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. Acts 13:26 (AV 1873)


“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. Acts 13:26 (NIV)

Rob

The question is not what a translation says, but what the God-breathed original says.
The Greek is andres adelphoi. Adelphoi has the basic meaning of 'brothers' or 'brethren' but can certainly be translated 'siblings' or 'brothers and sisters' where the italics show that the words are not in the original.
But andres is a word that is almost invariably used to refer to the male sex only. Anthropoi would be the word to refer to 'men' as in 'human beings.' Therefore the use of andres adephoi shows that Paul was almost certainly addressing an all-male gathering.

 

[Deacon]

The question is not what a translation says, but what the God-breathed original says.
The Greek is andres adelphoi. Adelphoi has the basic meaning of 'brothers' or 'brethren' but can certainly be translated 'siblings' or 'brothers and sisters' where the italics show that the words are not in the original.
But andres is a word that is almost invariably used to refer to the male sex only. Anthropoi would be the word to refer to 'men' as in 'human beings.' Therefore the use of andres adephoi shows that Paul was almost certainly addressing an all-male gathering.

That was an easy one!
The difference that caught my eye was inserting "Gentiles" [it's even capitalized!]
And at least one more difference - To whom was the word sent?

Rob

 

[Rippon]

That was an easy one!
The difference that caught my eye was inserting "Gentiles" [it's even capitalized!]
And at least one more difference - To whom was the word sent?

The NET, NLT and CEB all have Gentiles in this verse.

Who else but Gentiles are being referenced here as "others among you who fear God'?

As for to whom was the word sent, the NET, NLT, LEB, CEB, ISV, CSB and HCSB all say to us.

 

[Aaron]

That is a stupid ground rule. That is like saying the modern updated versions of Pilgrims Progress are more accurate than the original work by Bunyons own hand.

I am not saying KJV is by Gods own hand, so please don't go there.

Yes. The plough boy cannot limit the vocabulary and education required to study the Scriptures.

"Have ye not read . . . ?"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That was an easy one!
The difference that caught my eye was inserting "Gentiles" [it's even capitalized!]
And at least one more difference - To whom was the word sent?

Rob

The Greek word for Gentiles is ethnoi; it is not found in Acts 13:26.
Whether the word was sent to 'you' or to 'us' will depend on whether you follow the Byzantine Text (humin) or the Critical Text (hemin). Approx. 97% of the extant Greek manuscripts have humin, 'you,' including P45 which is dated 3rd Century.

 

[church mouse guy]

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.

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

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'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.

I don't mind your opinion but NIV is a dynamic equivalent. The New American Standard is a literal translation.

 

[Rippon]

I don't mind your opinion but NIV is a dynamic equivalent.

That's your opinion. Most N.T. translation scholars differ with your notion.

The New American Standard is a literal translation.

It's more formal than the NIV, but literal? Nah, not really.

 

[McCree79]

The Greek word for Gentiles is ethnoi; it is not found in Acts 13:26.
Whether the word was sent to 'you' or to 'us' will depend on whether you follow the Byzantine Text (humin) or the Critical Text (hemin). Approx. 97% of the extant Greek manuscripts have humin, 'you,' including P45 which is dated 3rd Century.

The NA28 reads ὑμῖν. So "you" would be in line with the CT now. Perhaps you have an old version?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

***p45 carries a lot of weight in the CT. So they seem to have changed the reading

 

[McCree79]

That's your opinion. Most N.T. translation scholars differ with your notion.

It's more formal than the NIV, but literal? Nah, not really.

Even Mounce calls the NIV a dynamic equivalence translation. But he has a category called Natural language where he places ones like the NLT. But yeah, the NASB is formal, not literal.

"3. Functional (or dynamic) Equivalence. These translations argue that the purpose of translation is to convey the meaning of the original text into the target language. It may mean that a participle is translated as an indicative verb, or a few Greek words are passed over (such as conjunctions) to produce proper English style. This introduces an additional amount of interpretation and produces a more fluid, understandable translation. The NIV, CSB, and KJV fit into this camp."

*Note he places the KJV here as well.
Is the ESV Literal and the NIV Gender Neutral? | billmounce.com


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The NA28 reads ὑμῖν. So "you" would be in line with the CT now. Perhaps you have an old version?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

***p45 carries a lot of weight in the CT. So they seem to have changed the reading

Thanks for that. Yes, my CT New Testament is the UBS 4th Edition, dated 1993, so it seems I m out of date It appears that the CT, BT and TR are united on this text now. Splendid!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

I agree with yous assessment here, as there are indeed many who jave a HS diploma and cannot even read what it said, and also would not add a child the Kjv to start out with..
My assumption here is we are discussing persons who can read and understand either the Kjv/Niv...

 

[Yeshua1]

Reading and comprehending are two separate issues!

Yes, but I am assuming here that the real decision is to choose between having better reading comprehension vrs more accuracy to the original texts!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

My point is that the Lord has used those more difficult to comprehend versions thta I listed very well in this present time, and have you noticed

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.

My point was that the Lord still has used formal versions such as Nasb/Esv a lot today, as many Baptists prefer those two versions for serious bible studies over the Niv!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Or the Nlt

 

[McCree79]

The NA28 reads ὑμῖν. So "you" would be in line with the CT now. Perhaps you have an old version?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

***p45 carries a lot of weight in the CT. So they seem to have changed the reading

Allow me to correct myself...my paper copy of UBS5 still reads "ἡμῖν". My digital copy of the NA28 reads "ὑμῖν" in two places in Acts 13:26...verse the one place of my UBS5. One is a misprint.....I am leaning to an issue with the digital copy.


*** it does seem to be a error in the digital. The apparatus indicates that the text should read as p74 and Sinaiticus

υμιν ��45 C E L 323. 945. 1175. 1241. 1505. 1739 �� lat sy bo ¦ txt ��74 ‏א‎ A B D Ψ 33. 81. 614 sin w syhmg sa mae


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk