Face Off Between The KJV And NIV

[Rippon]

My issue is that I fail to see how the "more accurate reading" is the one that strays from the Greek more.

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 reasoning.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Can rape be blamed on the love of money? How about brutal assaults when no money is stolen?

 

[Sapper Woody]

Can rape be blamed on the love of money? How about brutal assaults when no money is stolen?

This is not a question for me, but for the original authors of the Greek. They made the claim, not me.

I am simply pointing out how "the more accurate reading" seems to actually be "changing it to what I think rather than what was written".

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Reynolds]

Evil predates money.

This is not a question for me, but for the original authors of the Greek. They made the claim, not me.

I am simply pointing out how "the more accurate reading" seems to actually be "changing it to what I think rather than what was written".

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Sapper Woody]

Evil predates money.

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

 

[McCree79]

My issue is that I fail to see how the "more accurate reading" is the one that strays from the Greek more.

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 reasoning.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

The fact that κακών is plural would cause me to side with the NIV. Multiple types of evil seem to be in view. If all evil was in play, I would think the singular would have been used. A singular use would imply evil as a whole was in view....but that isn't what was used.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

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 reasoning.

Well, yes and no.

ριζα γαρ παντων των κακων εστιν η φιλαργυρια ης τινες ορεγομενοι απεπλανηθησαν απο της πιστεως και εαυτους περιεπειραν οδυναις πολλαις

Root for of all of the evils is the fondness for silver . . .

Because the word translated "root" has no article it could be understood to mean "a root" and the word translated "evil" is plural so "evils.

For a root of all of the evils is the fondness for silver . . .

I see no warrant whatsoever for the addition of "types" or "kinds." The word is just not there in the Greek.

Paul is probably quoting a Greek proverb so there is no reason to think the love of silver (money) is the ONLY root of evils.

 

[McCree79]

From Billl Mounce on 1 Tim 6:10

“BAGD shows that πᾶς can designate ‘everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun “every kind of,” “all sorts of”’ (631[1aβ]), listing these examples among others: γέμουσιν … πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας, ‘they are full … of all kinds of uncleanness’ (Matt 23:27); ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους, ‘from every kind of nation’ (Acts 2:5); πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν, ‘[evil] desire of every kind’ (Rom 7:8); and πᾶν ἁμάρτημα, ‘every kind of sin’ (1 Cor 6:18). If this is applicable here, Paul is saying that every different category of sin, but not every specific sin, has a root in the love of money.”

 

[TCassidy]

From Billl Mounce on 1 Tim 6:10

“BAGD shows that πᾶς can designate ‘everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun “every kind of,” “all sorts of”’ (631[1aβ]), listing these examples among others: γέμουσιν … πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας, ‘they are full … of all kinds of uncleanness’ (Matt 23:27); ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους, ‘from every kind of nation’ (Acts 2:5); πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν, ‘[evil] desire of every kind’ (Rom 7:8); and πᾶν ἁμάρτημα, ‘every kind of sin’ (1 Cor 6:18). If this is applicable here, Paul is saying that every different category of sin, but not every specific sin, has a root in the love of money.”

Yes, that is why I translated it "all of the evils." But I didn't want this to deteriorate into an "all means all" debate. Many of the participants refuse to admit "πᾶς" (or in this case "παντων") often means "all of a certain kind or catagory."

 

[Reynolds]

This is not a question for me, but for the original authors of the Greek. They made the claim, not me.

I am simply pointing out how "the more accurate reading" seems to actually be "changing it to what I think rather than what was written".

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

You missed my point. What is the context of the passage? False teachers.

 

[Salty]

I ... seems to correctly translate it, while the NIV adds words to fit into it human understanding.

And I think that is the whole point.

The human understanding! A point could be made, but if it is not understood- it has no value.
and keep in mind as well that- if you have 10 different translators, you may get 12 different translations!

 

[Rippon]

"a root of all kinds of evil." ASV, ESV ,ISV, NRSV, WEB ,CSB (among others)

"a root of all kinds of evils." MOUNCE

"the root of all kinds of evil." CEB, NLT

”a root of all evil." LEB

"a root of all sorts of evil." NASB

 

[Salty]

Certainly, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Gods Word Translation

 

[Bro. James]

Can we discuss "the root" and "a root"? Definite and indefinite articles have caused no small amount of consternation among some Bible students. See John 1:1, "The God and a god" in the NWT from The Watchtower.

Another dumb question: Is there a difference between loving silver and filthy lucre?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[church mouse guy]

I hope that I am not the cause of this thread. I like the NIV but I don't use it. I used to study Shakespeare so the KJV is easy for me and I think that it is beautiful English. It is mostly the work of William Tyndale, apparently. I also like Matthew Henry, who is a little flowery but I like that, also. I also have the complete Alexander Scourby reading the KJV on CDs. I consider the KJV accurate but I don't consider any translation as perfect.

I think the key to the phrase is "the love of money" because I have had a few people try to tell me that it is money itself that is the root of all evil, which is not what Scripture says.

Please read to me Psalm 23 only in KJV. I do have it made and I have been drinking from my saucer for many years in spite of the breach of etiquette.

Psalms 23:1 (KJV) <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD [is] my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Rippon]

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!

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.

 

[McCree79]

Can we discuss "the root" and "a root"? Definite and indefinite articles have caused no small amount of consternation among some Bible students. See John 1:1, "The God and a god" in the NWT from The Watchtower.

Another dumb question: Is there a difference between loving silver and filthy lucre?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

The article in Greek is often used in places where we would not use it in English, and it is often missing from places where English demands it. If "evils" is treated as plural and "all kinds" in view, then weather "a" to "the" is used doesn't make much difference. Nor is there any firm rule I know of that would cause on to choose "a" over "the" or vice versa. John 1 is a different issue, even though it is an article issue (the NWT is clearly wrong) and would require a different thread. Otherwise this one will get way sidetracked.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can rape be blamed on the love of money? How about brutal assaults when no money is stolen?

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!

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.

 

[Bro. James]

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

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[rlvaughn]

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

Isaiah 20:3
KJV: And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
NIV: Then the Lord said, Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush,