Important Question...

[VineyardGold]

Well, I had no idea that this would turn into a KJV vs. all other translations debate.

I think I'll stick to my NASB, and if my "friend" wants to think "bad" of me, well then, that's his business.

Frank

 

[tnelson]

There are parts of verses left out of the NIV. The KJV and NKJV are the best. It is hard to understand if you have not been studying the Bible. But, keep on reading and studying and God will give you understanding.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Reading from any accurate translation of the Bible in your language will help you to grow in knowledge and understanding of the Lord.

Everyone here has their "favorite" version and rightly so. Some even have "theological" reasons for their choice, but it boils down to a matter of choice.

If you have tried the AV1611 and it didn't work for you, take the next step to a New KJV (NKJV). This uses the same underlying Greek for translation, but not the archaic language.

99% of the folks I have steered that direction have come back to thank me. It is a solid translation and God will bless your heart and life reading it. We're hoping to change all our pew Bibles to NKJV in the next year.

 

[Bible Believing Bill]

J5K,

I have no idea what might or might not be in in the NIV, as I have never read it. My statement was just a thought that hit me. Different versions may very well contain different things depending upon the underlying text and the skill of the translators. I am still working my way through the KJV so I couldn't even tell you everything (or even most) of whats in it.

Bill

 

[DocCas]

The things "left out" of the NIV, and others, are few and usually insignificant when forumulating doctrine. About the only NIV omission I find troubling is Acts 8:37 which gives us the requirment for baptism. Of the rest of the "omissions" - the subject matter is most often covered in other passages dealing with the same topic.

My reasons for not championing the NIV are not due to its "omissions" but for other, to me, very good reasons.

 

[ken]

Well, I am a KJB only kind of guy. I stongly believe the KJB is the only true Bible. The NIV has about 80,000 words taken out or changed from the KJB. How can you say they are the same? All the other versions ( or [edited for inflammatory content: Moderator/Administrator) are excactly the same. Man took the KJB, read it, didn't like it, so they changed it in so many ways so it soothes them. In closing, for now, every single great revival in our country happened when the KJB was being preached, amazing!

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ken:
The NIV has about 80,000 words taken out or changed from the KJB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry, but the above information is incorrect. There are only 181,000 words in the New testament, and of those, less than 6,000 have been deleted or changed so significantly that they teach something different from the KJV. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How can you say they are the same?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did not say they were the same. I said they all teach the same doctrines. Although I too defend the KJV, I do so with truth and facts, not error and hyperbole.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

After learning of these ommissions in the NIV I am very distraught with those publishers. Mine was published by Zondervan Publishing House. I had noticed missing numbers before but had assumed that it was a sentence structure issue or something like that. Who made the decisions to leave these verses out and why? Does the new ESV have the same types of ommissions or the NASB?

I am now very much in the market for a reputable study Bible!

Thanks in advance for any information.

- Clint

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]