Face Off Between The KJV And NIV

[Deacon]

Acts 13:26 (NA28) [unchanged from NA27]
Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ γένους Ἀβραὰμ καὶ οἱ ἐν ὑμῖν φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἐξαπεστάλη.

Acts 13:26 (UBS5)
Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ γένους Ἀβραὰμ καὶ οἱ ἐν ὑμῖν φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἐξαπεστάλη.

Acts 13:26 (TR1550MR)
ανδρες αδελφοι υιοι γενους αβρααμ και οι εν υμιν φοβουμενοι τον θεον υμιν ο λογος της σωτηριας ταυτης απεσταλη

 

[McCree79]

Acts 13:26 (NA28) [unchanged from NA27]
Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ γένους Ἀβραὰμ καὶ οἱ ἐν ὑμῖν φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἐξαπεστάλη.

Acts 13:26 (UBS5)
Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ γένους Ἀβραὰμ καὶ οἱ ἐν ὑμῖν φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἐξαπεστάλη.

Acts 13:26 (TR1550MR)
ανδρες αδελφοι υιοι γενους αβρααμ και οι εν υμιν φοβουμενοι τον θεον υμιν ο λογος της σωτηριας ταυτης απεσταλη

That is what figured

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

"I think it is fair to conclude that in terms of translation philosophy the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB." Rod Decker

"While the NIV is generally placed in the functional equivalency camp, it actually, by design, falls roughly in the middle between the two poles of formal and functional equivalence." William W. Combs

"...the exceptional care and seriousness with which the NIV translators have sought to apply a coherent philosophy of translation to the biblical text."

"The result is a sparkingly clear, yet judiciously conservative, English Bible for the 21st century." Moises Silva

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this. Look at the Greek. The KJV seems to correctly translate it, while the NIV adds words to fit into it human understanding.

You can give me all kinds of reasons why the KJV is wrong. But each time I will simply pint you to the fact that the KJV correctly translates it.

Your argument is with the Greek authors.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

By what standard do you claim the KJV is more accurate? It uses formal and dynamic equivalence.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

You have front loaded this test, as you will value ease of reading and understanding over being most accurate to the intended meaning of the original texts, so of course the Niv wins!

The KJV is the "most accurate" based upon what evidence?

 

[TCassidy]

By what standard do you claim the KJV is more accurate? It uses formal and dynamic equivalence.

He was talking about one verse, 1 Timothy 6:10, of which he said:

I'm no KJV apologist or a Greek scholar, but a cursory reading of the Greek there seems to say that the KJV translated it as what it actually said, but the NIV translated it within the framework of human reason.

 

[TCassidy]

The KJV is the "most accurate" based upon what evidence?

I don't think he has ever claimed the KJV is most accurate. In fact quite the opposite.

It might be a good idea to go back and read the entire thread.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

Stop that!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

Yes but it requires retranslation to modern English which becomes over time very tedious.

 

[Rippon]

Yes but it requires retranslation to modern English which becomes over time very tedious.

A translation which requires translation is not a true translation.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

An NIV thread has taken a turn to the KJV. I though I would make a thread concerning the level of accuracy between the KJV and NIV.

Now here are some ground rules:

1) It will not be legitimate to say in 1611 it meant this or that. No, both translations, in order to access their level of accuracy must be judged on the basis of the contemporary meaning of words and phrases. A good translation must be understood by the ordinary ploughboy as Tyndale said. The average unchurched individual of today has to understand it.

You say that's unfair? I say it is perfectly fair. Let's stack em' up side-by-side. And may the best translation win.

2) The meaning of the "accuracy" needs to be agreed upon.

Per Merriam-Webster
2.b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value

This may end up in a debate between various translational methods.

It is faithful to the original as well as communicating to the target audience?

You can come up with your personal view of accuracy. But the bottom line is : Would a typical unchurched American adult understand the meaning of the text?

I know ultimately unless the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind of a person true understanding will not be achieved.

But I mean if a chapter from both versions would be read and a little test was given as to how much a person absorbed -- which translation would come out on top?
_________________________________________________________________________________

So start off with pairing off verses or portions of verses and make your case.

KJV Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
NIV Omitted

KJV Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost
NIV Omitted

KJV Matthew 23:14 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.
NIV Omitted

KJV Mark 9:44 and 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
NIV Both verses omitted

KJV Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV Omitted

KJV Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
NIV Omitted

KJV Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
NIV Omitted

KJV John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
NIV Omitted.

KJV Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
NIV Omitted

KJV Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
NIV Omitted

KJV 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
NIV Omitted

And that is just a small sample.........

 

[Deacon]

KJV Omitted
NIV Psalm 145:13b The Lord is trustworthy in all he promises and faithful in all he does.

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

Yes but it requires retranslation to modern English which becomes over time very tedious.

Uh, it is already in Modern English.

Old English 500-1100
Middle English 1100-1500
Modern English 1500-Present

 

[SheepWhisperer]

That's most likely added, while verse 17 says nearly the same thing, only better.

17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

So God isn't just "trustworthy" in "promises": He's completely "righteous" in "ALL His ways" and He's not just "faithful" in His works: He's entirely HOLY. That pretty much goes above and beyond with no need to leave anything out,

On the other hand, leaving out stuff like "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." and " For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" is pretty serious wouldn't you think?

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Yes but it requires retranslation to modern English which becomes over time very tedious.

Since 1611, the English language has been subjected to something they call "semantic drift", also known by other terms. But there is nothing wrong with having to look up the meanings to words as you have to do it sometimes in "modern" dictionaries anyway. One thing I have learned about the King James is that it uses singular pronouns like thee, thou, thy, thine and plural pronouns like ye, and you and by using the different forms, also tells us whether the pronoun is the subject, or object, Today we only use "you" and "yours" to cover it all. In that respect alone, the King James is more accurate.

 

[Felipe Rios]

After doing a study on bible versions a few years back, I came to the conclusion that the best bibles we have out there are the NASB and ESV.

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV is the "most accurate" based upon what evidence?

Not the most accurate, but more accurate to the originals than the Niv is, as a good formal translation is to be preferred to a good DE one!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think he has ever claimed the KJV is most accurate. In fact quite the opposite.

It might be a good idea to go back and read the entire thread.

More accurate than the Niv version, as formal translation is to be preferred over a DE one, but not the most accurate, as I see both Nas/NKJV superior to the Kjv!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A translation which requires translation is not a true translation.

Like reading Shakespeare.

 

[TCassidy]

After doing a study on bible versions a few years back, I came to the conclusion that the best bibles we have out there are the NASB and ESV.

And what brought you to that conclusion?