KJV vs. NIV

[David J]

and when we stop.............

LOL

 

[Bro Tony]

This just gets more sad and pathetic everyday.

"I feel the ___ version of the Bible is the correct one cause the Spirit told me so and even if there are no copies of manuscripts to prove it, it don't matter cause now the Word of God can be trusted to be written in man's heart" Translation---seems every is his/her own final authority.

Will the insanity ever end? I think not, as long as people don't fear attacking the Word of God and feel that it is the Spirit that leads them to do so, because for some reason God only wants to talk to us in archaic 1611 English. And if that aint crazy enough most of those who believe this way continue to quote not from the 1611 Bible but from a revision.

And the crazinest continues.

Bro Tony

 

[Ransom]

Askjo said:

The Bible warned that every man is a liar, but let God be true.

So why are you so quick to amen every KJV-only statement made on this forum?

 

[robycop3]

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.

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.

I have seen his answer, too. And, while not aiming to diss SFIC whatsoever, I will say his answer is INCORRECT. Why? No one has proven the reading belongs in the Textus Receptus. If it doesn't belong in the TR & is NOT found in any known Scriptural ms, then it doesn't belong in the KJV. Common sense.

However, it's not a bona-fide mistake in the KJV; it's a mistake in the TR that was carried over into the KJV as its translators interpreted the texts before them.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

in kind, robycop3,

one cannot prove that the reading does not belong in the TR.

 

[robycop3]

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

quote:'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. . ......'

Keith, I took down Dr. Gipp's incorrect answers in a little article I wrote called The Gipper Shoulda Stuck To Football. And I used the KJV to make it. If a common steelworker like me, armed with a big ole HS diploma, can prove a man with a Th.D wrong, what does that tell ya about his "Wrong Answer Book"?

I shall be glad to email my article to any and all interested parties. It is not copyrighted, written by me alone, and I give permission to use it, long as it isn't altered.

No digs directed at Soulman, but that entire site STINX ! !

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
in kind, robycop3,

one cannot prove that the reading does not belong in the TR.

All you have to do is look at Greek ms 2814 to see that the TR reading is a typo. As 2814 is the only ms Erasmus had of Revelation, it is obvious the TR reading is wrong.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

robycop, is all the accusations toward another fellow believer necessary? all through God's word we are told we are not to fight amongst ourselves.

There have been so many accusations and name calling in the many threads that I am sure God is not pleased.

Now, from what I read in another thread, C4K said the Rev. 17:8 discussion was to be dropped and another thread about it was not to be opened.

Now, you have brought it into this thread against a moderator's instructions.

Drop the subject, quit blasting those who have professed Christ and are part of the body of Christ, and learn to walk with them.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

TCassidy, drop the subject

 

[David J]

Why should he?

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by David J:
Why should he?

Because, in the minds of some, it is better to obscure the truth and encourage error than to be honest and open about what we believe and why we believe it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//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.

...

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


This is another verse where wrong doctrine is made by
the misunderstanding of the 400-year-track-record KJV.
Note: THis is NOT an error in the KJV; it is about an
error in people's understanding of early Modern English
(people who speak current Modern English) which in
turn causes an error in doctrine.

FEAR - to be afraid of

False logic:
So, the KJB says my children are to 'fear' me.
I'll beat [snipped] 'um everytime I feel like it
and they act like they might not do what I say fast
enough. Then they will be scared of me and fulfill the
law of God.
(note that this philosophy contradicts dozens
of scripture and tranishes the image of God as a Father.)

Back in 1611 and again in 1769 the word fear:

FEAR - to have respect for

Note in this case, the NIV makes GOd's word clearer
for the latter half of the 20th century and into
the 21st century.

[ May 23, 2006, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
//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.

...

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


This is another verse where wrong doctrine is made by
the misunderstanding of the 400-year-track-record KJV.
Note: THis is NOT an error in the KJV; it is about an
error in people's understanding of early Modern English
(people who speak current Modern English) which in
turn causes an error in doctrine.

FEAR - to be afraid of

False logic:
So, the KJB says my children are to 'fear' me.
I'll beat the hell out of 'um everytime I feel like it
and they act like they might not do what I say fast
enough. Then they will be scared of me and fulfill the
law of God.
(note that this philosophy contradicts dozens
of scripture and tranishes the image of God as a Father.)

Back in 1611 and again in 1769 the word fear:

FEAR - to have respect for

Note in this case, the NIV makes GOd's word clearer
for the latter half of the 20th century and into
the 21st century.

Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Just which "FATHER" and "Mother" are being referenced for us to "Fear/Honor, Mom/Dad, or God/Church???

Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:

Pr 6:20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: (commandments/Church/Bride of Christ)

You can honor Mom/Dad without honoring God/Church, but you can't honor God/Church without honoring "Mom/Dad.

Translators sometimes change words of scripture without realizing they are changing the whole meaning of the verse, Father=Dad contradict calling anyone on earth father, and hide the true meaning of the verse.

The NIV has several errors of this nature, other version I don't know, I don't use them, I stay with the KJV, so far, I haven't found any word within it that I can't crossreference by the words not being changed, to find it's true meaning.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

I find the unrepentantness of the KJVO on this board simly amazing for anyone claiming to be a Christian.

Doc even asked you guys AGAIN and you still wont answer him.

Your legalism is wrong, and you know it. You better BEG to have it dropped.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
//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.

...

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

False logic:
So, the KJB says my children are to 'fear' me.
I'll beat the hell out of 'um everytime I feel like it
and they act like they might not do what I say fast
enough. Then they will be scared of me and fulfill the
law of God.
(note that this philosophy contradicts dozens
of scripture and tranishes the image of God as a Father.)

I don't think you understood what the problem is here in this verse.

NIV translate " Yareh" into Respect in 19:3,
then translate "Yareh" into Revere in 19:32

KJV translate "Yareh" into fear in 19:3
then again translate "Yareh" into fear in 19:32.

In other words, KJV gives us the lesson that one should fear his mother and his father as he should fear God. The same word used for God was used for the parents.

NASB translate both "Yareh" into Revere or reverence in 19:3 and in 19:32

NASB maintain such principle as KJV, and I feel NASB is far more accurate translation than NIV, even though both are based on the defective texts.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Are "respect" and "revere" both legitimate English words to translate "Yareh"? If so, using various English words to translate a Hebrew or Greek word, even in the same chapter, is not uncommon in ANY translation.

UMNSHO they are BOTH light year better word choices for man today than "fear".

 

[mcdirector]

I'm not a big fan of the NIV, but I am a big fan of modern English. The English language is dynamic and changing. I want to use a version that is appropriate to understand God's Word and to share with nonbelievers. In my case, that would be a more modern version than the KJV.

 

[Eliyahu]

Check these verses in NIV and in other Modern Versions:

1) Matthew 17:21
2) Matthew 18:11
3) Matthew 23:14
4) Mark 7:16
5) Mark 9:44
6) Mark 9:46
7) Mark 11:26
8) Mark 15:28
9) Luke 17:36
10) Luke 23:18
11) Acts 8:37
12) Acts 15:34
13) Acts 28:29
14) Romans 16:24

Mt 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away. But my words will never pass away. (NIV)

 

[jw]

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.

I wasn't aware the NIV was "attacking" the KJV.

Does that mean Matthew 14:26 is "attacking" John 6:20 because Jesus didn't say the exact same thing described on that occasion? Or is Mark 5 attacking Matthew 8 describing the encounter with the demoniac because they are slightly different? Does the KJV attack the KJV?

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by mcdirector:
I'm not a big fan of the NIV, but I am a big fan of modern English. The English language is dynamic and changing. I want to use a version that is appropriate to understand God's Word and to share with nonbelievers. In my case, that would be a more modern version than the KJV.

WELL SPOKEN!

As I said in another thread, I THANK GOD every day for both providing His word in MY language, and for keeping the old versions before us. As you know, many Hebrew and Greek words & phrases have multiple valid meanings in English, and without sure contextual indicators of which is applicable in a given sentence, the translator must use his/her opinion. I am happy to read God's word from the views of several translators or groups of translators insteada just from one viewpoint.

You may have noticed that interest in the older versions such as the Bishop's Bible & the Coverdale Bible has perked up.

I don't believe the KJV & NIV are 'fighting' at all. I believe each one is part of God's parcel of gifts to the English-speaking people. I am told that there are more FRENCH versions than there are in any other language.