KJV vs. NIV

[Diggin in da Word]

sfiC answered the question as he did a few posts up. He said he believed the 'and yet is' is supposed to be in the KJV.

His belief that God preserved his word in the KJV has been stated over and over and over again.

It is just you do not want to accept his answer.

What are you fishing for,? For sfiC to say the KJV is not God's word and belongs in a trash bin?

I have seen his answer.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
sfiC answered the question as he did a few posts up. He said he believed the 'and yet is' is supposed to be in the KJV.
His belief that God preserved his word in the KJV has been stated over and over and over again.

Thats great. I already knew that. The question was where did this reading come from. Which manuscript. THAT is the question we kept pressing on, and the point where SFiC started evading. He then claimed "I have answered your questions". He had not. Do you need a dictionary?

It is just you do not want to accept his answer.

If you ask me what color the sky is, and I say 5, would you accept my answer? No, you wouldnt, because I did not honestly answer the question.

What are you fishing for,? For sfiC to say the KJV is not God's word and belongs in a trash bin?

I have seen his answer.

This statement of your shows incredible ignorance of my position, and the position of all anti KJVO. How can we discuss with you when you display such ignorance?

Can you define "intellectual honesty"? Would you like to begin displaying it?

 

[Diggin in da Word]

sfiC said God preserved the word. Maybe he believes like me and others that God was able to preserve the word in man's heart.

At any rate, now you say he would not tell you of a manuscript, but kept 'evading.'

Earlier you accused him of saying he named a manuscript. I have looked over the links where he mentioned a manuscript and I have not found one shred of evidence that he said he gave a manuscript as you claimed.

You have proven in your post that sfiC did not lie, by saying he was evading when asked to produce a manuscript.

 

[Hope of Glory]

How is this not lying?

If he did that, then it's certainly lying. I just thought it was William C. who made that claim. However, all these circular arguments presented by them all tend to blur together into one gooey mess.

sfiC answered the question as he did a few posts up. He said he believed the 'and yet is' is supposed to be in the KJV.

If the claim were made that it's in a Greek manuscript, then answering the "KJV" is not an honest answer to the question.

For example, there's not a single major text, and as far as I know, no manuscripts that have the word "believe" in any tense other than aorist in Acts 16:31. If someone were to claim that they had seen a manuscript with it, and I asked them which one, and they answered, "The KJV", that would not be an honest answer.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Hope, nowhere have I made claims that the KJV is a manuscript.

I said I believe God preserved His Word and that He put it in the KJV text. Does that mean I am KJVO? No, as I have stated, I have many versions I read and study from.

The lies directed toward me are unfounded.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

originally posted by DesideroDomini:
You stated you had produced evidence that the reading in question was in a manuscript, then when Doc asked you, you refused to answer.

Hope of Glory, this is the what I am accused of. I have asked DD to produce the link to that supposed statement I made and he will not. Because I never made it.

And then he calls me a liar.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Soulman:
Here is a great article defending the KJV against the NIV.: http://www.av1611.org/niv.html. Please read and respond to the obvious errors of the NIV.

Soulman, the link you provided is not good - I still get the "Not Found" result all the time. However, I did go to the main page of the website and I was not surprised to find more errors from Dr. Gipp and others. Gee, Dr. Gipp must have missed several days of class. I fail to understand how he got his Th.D. when it is so obvious he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

This is on the front page of the www.av1611.org website:

Is "Easter" in Acts 12:4 an error in the King James Bible? This article by Dr. Sam Gipp documents irrefutable proof the King James Bible records the EXACT words of God. This ends the argument once and for all. . .

Nothing that "ends the argument once and for all" is presented in the article. Nothing. The article goes on to present the same old erroneous arguments that the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the correct translation of the word "pascha," totally ignoring the fact that the KJV translators got it right in all the other NT appearances of the word. In his error-filled article, Gipp foolishly claims that the word "Ishtar" is pronounced "Easter." Now why in the world would Gipp make such a claim? Will Gipp and his blind followers never give up their false "doctrines" and stop promoting the KJVO myth? Doubtful...that will probably happen the same day the sun comes up in the west.

It is sad that the KJVO myth is still alive and well even after it has been decidedly refuted and shown to be false not just once, but countless times. Over and over and over again the myth is disproven, yet its followers keep coming back with the same old false and circular arguments. The promoters of the KJVO myth apparently have a block that prevents them from seeing or seeking truth. It is truly sad that such a myth based on lies, errors, false claims and suppositions (aka "guesswork" as Roby calls it

) divides the church.

 

[Eliyahu]

Interesting comparison which I found yesterday:

Luke 22:31-2

NIV
31 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."


Who is "you" in Satan has asked to sift you as wheat ? Simon ?

KJV shows the Answer:

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you , that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.


Not Simon, but 11 disciples all.

 

[Phillip]

Interesting comparison Eliyahu, but what does the Greek ACTUALLY say?

It seems as though any translation that disagrees with the KJV is automatically considered to be in error. When in reality it could be the other way around or they could both be in error.

 

[Ransom]

StefanM said:

I thought the accusation was that MVs "took away from the Word of God". . . now they're supposedly adding?

So in the end, the NIV breaks even!

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Interesting comparison Eliyahu, but what does the Greek ACTUALLY say?

It seems as though any translation that disagrees with the KJV is automatically considered to be in error. When in reality it could be the other way around or they could both be in error.

Problem is the limitation of Modern English itself, not the problem with the method of translation or the matter of basic texts.

Different from German or French, modern English doesn't distinguish between 2nd Plural and 2nd Singular using YOU for both.

Of course, Greek distinguish between υμασ and συ in this verse.

We know the famous comparison in John 3:7
NIV:
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.

Who should be born again? Nicodemus ?


KJV:
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


You, Nicodemus, don't be marvelled that I said to you, Nicodemus, that Ye all human beings must be born again!


Exodus 16:28

NIV

Then the Lord said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions?


Was Moses refusing to keep the commandments?


KJV answers:

28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

( Ye : Israelites all)


Question is how can we maintain the distinction between plural and singular while we have the Colloquial English in the correct Bible.

[ May 22, 2006, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[Eliyahu]

Another comparison:


Lev 19:3

NIV
3 "'All of you must have respect for your mother and father. You must always keep my Sabbath days. I am the Lord your God.

NASB
3 'Every one of you shall reverence his mother and his father, and you shall keep My R440 sabbaths

KJV
3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.


Exodus 20:12

NIV

12 "Honor your father and mother.


NASB
12 "Honor your father and your mother,


KJV
12 Honour thy father and thy mother


Ex 20:12 is not complicated. Simply NIV, NASB used the modern English for you.

The reason why I compare these two verses between Ex and Lev is because, both gives some special lessons,

1) Ex 20:12 used "khaved" which means Glorify, Honor
while Lev 19:3 used "Yareh" which means Fear when we fear God.

2) Order of Objective is different.
Ex mention father first, Lev mention mother first, which may be related to the equality between mother and father.

3) Intensity is different, Ex Honor, Lev Fear

4) Recipient of the commandments is different,
Ex: thou, Lev : Ye

In terms of 1), NIV is far away as it says "respect"

The lesson from Yareh (Fear) is much more than Respect which is often found in Confucianism too.

I think such FEAR relates to the fact that
- Mother and Father as shadow of God,in terms of creating the children
- Supplying all the needs to the children
- Discipline, teaching
- children need to obey even if there may be errors in parents doing, as they have to fear God.( God is inerrant, but parents are errant but their experience and advice should be remembered and obeyed)
- Admonition to the parents as well.

There could be a lot more teachings in this regard but I would leave it to the commentaries.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, Eliyahu, it's pretty simple. For instance, when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, what other possible antecedent was there for "you"? After all, Nic came alone.

When God spoke to Moses, why would he not be included in "ye"? It's not as if God had said, "Moses, ask all Israel, 'How long will ye refuse to keep God's commandments?' " Moses was part of Israel also, of course.

We were born into a style of English that uses 'you' as both a singular and plural pronoun. Usually, we have the context to tell us which is which. Whether we like it or not, 'ye' fell into disuse. The language changed. Besides adding thousands of new words, the meanings of many old words changed throughout the years, with some falling into disuse. Now, can anyone pinpoint just why many given words fell into disuse or their meanings changed, besides just saying it was God's will?

The AV 1611 was written in the best formal English & spelling of 1611. In fact, the translators added a few words to the tongue & set the tone for the wholesale changes in English that came over the next hundred years. I could be wrong, but the AV and the works of Shakespeare may well have had more effect upon the written language than anything since Chaucer's time. Please note the vast differences between the AV or a Shakespeare work and walton's The Compleat Angler of 1653.

 

[bound]

Hi everyone,

I have always enjoyed the 'language' of the KJV but I have not built my Christian identity or my Christian Doctrine specific on the wording of the KJV so I've never thought of myself as particularly dependent on the KJV.

I believe that modern Biblical Scholarship is the most accurate that we have ever had but of course that doesn't mean individuals and groups haven't use such scholarship to ill-effect mind you. Ultimately I am confident that the conclusions of the evidence through reliable scholarship will win the day and reveal the truth of the matter which is why I don't bury my head in the works of the scholarship of yesteryear as some who are more cynical but understanding the world that we live in, I can appreciate the inclination.

I am pleased with the scholarship of the NIV translation of the Bible and I am confident that future translations by reliable scholars will reveal more and accurate translations of the Bible for our edification.

I guess I'm an optimist.

 

[ccrobinson]

I don't know if this belongs here or in a new thread, but let's try here as a start.

I've heard more than once that "all references to the word 'sodomy' have been removed from the NIV." This is supposed to be a terrible thing and one of the reasons why the NIV is bad. Further, the reasoning is that without the word 'sodomy' in the Bible, the NIV can't be used to preach against homosexuality.

But, why can't it? The NIV still has the first chapter of Romans in it, doesn't it? How about the verses in Leviticus that condemn homosexuality? Those haven't been removed, have they? I haven't looked at the NIV in several years, but if those chapters/verses are in the NIV, it seems to me that that version can be used to preach against homosexuality just fine, even if the word 'sodomy' doesn't exist in it. There may be valid arguments against the NIV, but I don't believe this to be one of them.

What say you?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

When attacking any other version but the KJV, KJVO rarely care about the accuracy of their statements.

Lies are more than acceptable as long as they are in defense of the KJV.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Lies by the MV's must be acceptable, apparently. I have seen more lies and hatred toward those that do not want to read any other version than the KJV than on any other board on the internet.

 

[rbell]

sigh...

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
Lies by the MV's must be acceptable, apparently. I have seen more lies and hatred toward those that do not want to read any other version than the KJV than on any other board on the internet.

The lies changed the world because MORE and MORE modern versions are produced by lying translators. The Bible warned that every man is a liar, but let God be true.

 

[mcdirector]

round and round we go . . .