The NIV , Has it Become the Bible to replace the KJV?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Remember, God has always worked with a REMNANT, not with the majority. Contrary to popular opinion, just because "everybody is doing it" does not make it right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

If God has always worked with a REMNANT, not with the majority as you have said, then why not join those of us who support the shorter readings of the remnant alexandrian text-type mss against the majority byzantine?

Just because the byzantine scribes copied thousands of mss with longer readings did not make the readings right (or original).

I do agree with some of your concerns about the NIV. I actually prefer the more literal NASB.

Chick

[ April 19, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
If God has always worked with a REMNANT, not with the majority as you have said, then why not join those of us who support the shorter readings of the remnant alexandrian text-type mss against the majority byzantine?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please don't distort what I said. You know very well the remnant refers to people and not mss.

 

How exactly did you determine that? Do you have a crystal ball?

Yes, actually.
It must be that influence of Westcott and Hort!

[ April 19, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

Personally, I have read from both KJV and NIV. I think once you stick with KJV it becomes easier to read. The thou's and ye's and thine's are just read over.

I feel like the NIV does take away from the Word a tad.

Of course I know some who won't even consider the Hebrew words and their literal meaning.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Yes, actually.
It must be that influence of Westcott and Hort! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Must be those waskally revisionists from the Ghostly Guild!

[ April 19, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Kiffin, you asked if the NIV is a successor to the KJV? Sadly, I feel many have changed to this version. Successor? Depends on the meaning. I say sadly because I feel if people were changing writs of literature, or Shakespeare, people would be up in arms over it. It's just God's Word so people approach the bible versions as they do God; they tend to try and customize it to fit their style.

As a pastor, I am praying for a country wide revival to sweep through our nation. With the NIV being the version of choice, I don't see it happening.

Tidbit FYI: The 20th century in America did not see a revival across this land. I hope the 21st does.

 

SPAM:

I too, do not like the NIV, and I also believe that many people woudl rather update the Bible translations than Shakespeare.

However, neither the NIV nor any other Bible version is a hindrance to revival. Spritual condition cannot be directly related to one's present translation of use.

And it is not the Bible which initiates revivial, but rather the Holy Spirit of God, who will "put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it," says the LORD.’" Ezek 37:14 NKJV


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPAM:
Kiffin, you asked if the NIV is a successor to the KJV? Sadly, I feel many have changed to this version. Successor? Depends on the meaning. I say sadly because I feel if people were changing writs of literature, or Shakespeare, people would be up in arms over it. It's just God's Word so people approach the bible versions as they do God; they tend to try and customize it to fit their style.

As a pastor, I am praying for a country wide revival to sweep through our nation. With the NIV being the version of choice, I don't see it happening.

Tidbit FYI: The 20th century in America did not see a revival across this land. I hope the 21st does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPAM:
Kiffin, you asked if the NIV is a successor to the KJV? Sadly, I feel many have changed to this version. Successor? Depends on the meaning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that the original post in this thread defined "successor" as most widely used today. By that meaning, the NIV is the successor to the KJV as the most widely used English translation of the Bible. Whether or not it is the best...well, you and I both know that there is a lot of debate over what is the "best."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say sadly because I feel if people were changing writs of literature, or Shakespeare, people would be up in arms over it. It's just God's Word so people approach the bible versions as they do God; they tend to try and customize it to fit their style.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This assumes that people are "changing" the Bible. Your argument is circular because your definition of "change" is anything different than what the KJV says. Perhaps MV translators correct "changes" that the KJV translators or Erasmus made. The only customization being done is updating language to the modern vernacular.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a pastor, I am praying for a country wide revival to sweep through our nation. With the NIV being the version of choice, I don't see it happening.

Tidbit FYI: The 20th century in America did not see a revival across this land. I hope the 21st does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a pastor, you must also know that Bible versions do not cause or prevent revival. It is the humbling of hearts and turning from evil ways (or the lack therof) that brings revival:

2 Chron 7:14 says,

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

This verse was written when there were no translations of the Bible, no NT, no complete OT, and yet, it contains a prescription for revival that doesn't include the KJV or NIV!

 

Just a trucker's point of view,I don't think the NIV or anyother version will have the life of the KJV, because people in and outside of the church are so fickled today if something or anything new comes out it has to be better. I wouldn't doubt that the NIV has sold more over a period of time.
I became a child of God in 1967 and all I heard was that the KJV was too hard to read and had to be replaced and that was by the people of the world and people in the church.
I prefer the KJV but also have other versions that I read from time to time and the NIV is my least favorite.
I don't know what all the fuss is all about, use what you want but use what the Holy Spirit leads you to use and wear it out with study and prayer and then go buy another, but for me I'll keep buying the KJV first and the American Standard Version second,oops I don't think I can buy the ASV any more so then I'll go with the New American Standard Version next, but I don't wear the other ones out as fast.
But Study the Bible ,"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth"m2 Tim. 2:15

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:

Thomas,

You are distorting your own quote! You used this analogy near the beginning of this thread in the context of English Bible Versions vis-a-vis KJV=Remnant versus Modern Version publishing houses=Majority.

Furthermore, my comments were intended tongue-in-cheek, because your use of that analogy is fallacious. God doesn't always "work with the remnant." Sometimes a minority group is right, sometimes the majority is right. Truth is not determined by democracy.

Chick

 

Whoa, you nailed it brother Bob!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob Alkire:
I don't know what all the fuss is all about, use what you want but use what the Holy Spirit leads you to use and wear it out with study and prayer and then go buy another <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I am the mother of five children . . . four of whom read very well (the youngest only learning to read this year). However, all five of them use a King James Bible. They do not seem to have any particular difficulty with the KJV. Their ages range from 6 up to 12 years old. We homeschool the oldest and youngest. Her homeschool material has Bible verses for her to memorize, and while they are not the most difficult, for a six year old child she does quiet well understanding what they mean when we discuss the verses.

Mypersonal experience has been this: when I was lost, I couldn't understand a word I read. Once I got saved though, things began to fall into place. I have read through the NT several times now, and each time I learn something I didn't know before. In other words, as I grow in the Lord, so does my understanding of His word. If I don't know Him, how can I understand His word?

Also, it has been helpful for me to learn to read the Bible by reading in context, use the puncuation to decifer (sp?) passages, and even knowing who each particular book was written to and why it was written to them. It seems to me that most books in the Bible deal with a particular theme or subject if you will. I think it appropriate for new converts to be discipled on how to read and study their Bibles.

I don't think that one's abiblity to understand the word of God has anything to do with the way it's written. It's all a spiritual matter and must be handled as such.

 

To those of you who feel bible version doesn't help or hinder revival, I not so convinced. I do understand completely The Holy Spirit is the leader of all such endeavors, but in church history, during major revival, the KJV was always a constant.
Now, I've never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I can do my best to use what's proven and what works. The rest is just whistles and bells.

To answer the apostate remark, time will tell.

As the trucker stated, we have become fickle as a people today. I just wonder what version will be next. How many threads of truth are lost each and every time it's "re"-translated. Every time a copy is made from the original, it tends to lose its luster. I say that's pretty accurate to the approach people take to bible versions today. {This one, I can't read, or it's too hard to understand, so let me go to the next.} People, if it was easy, everyone would know it.

To say people today are better because of technology, language break throughs and the like, sorry, the Holy Spirit was the originator to the truth of man. Last time I checked, He's never had a language barrier. The rest of our input is just opinion. And, for those who've read any of my analogies, opinions are too high on my priority list.

I will stay with what I realize Christ has impressed me to use. I don't have any qualms about change, but God has earned the right to make the changes in my life, including the version I study.

For those of you who have actually studied the bible and are not just opinionated during these discussions: you should be completely settled on this issue.

 

The original question was whether the NIV will be (or is) the successor to the KJV. We all need to remember that the KJV has over 400 years of use and history and countless editions and printings have been made over that time. Also in the past 100+ years there have been quite a few translations other than the KJV beginning with the English revised (in 1881 I believe). Today there are scores of different English translations. Kiffin, the question you are asking cannot be accurately answered for quite a few years. Bibles come and go as people read them, like them, use them. The next generations finds another translation and the pattern repeats itself. Frankly we lack the perspective to answer the question you are asking. If the Lord tarries his coming and the year 2101 comes, someone may be able to answer the question. Until then we are merely guessing.

Keep in the Word (KJV - 1769)

 

SPAM:

You are putting the cart before the horse; The KJV (or any other translation)didn't begin a revival; the Holy Spirit did. And the KJV was the popular version of those times.

And the biggest revivial of all time - the Protestant Reformation - occurred 50 years before the KJV was published!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPAM:
To those of you who feel bible version doesn't help or hinder revival, I not so convinced. I do understand completely The Holy Spirit is the leader of all such endeavors, but in church history, during major revival, the KJV was always a constant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SPAM:
I do understand completely The Holy Spirit is the leader of all such endeavors, but in church history, during major revival, the KJV was always a constant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SPAM,

Chris has already beaten me to it, but allow me to resonate his tone: What about the reformation?! There was no KJV then and it was the grandaddy of all revivals!

You commit a common logical fallacy that I see among many KJVOs. They typically say that since the introduction and use of MVs, the world has become more apostate, or that the KJV 'caused' revival, but the MVs aren't causing it. This is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc argumentation (after this, therefore because of this; coincidental correlation). Because the MVs came on the scene in force starting around the 1950s or 1960s (the RSV was around, but I am speaking to the NASB, NIV, and others), that doesn't mean that they are the cause for the sinking moral standards of our times. We also went to the moon around the same time, perhaps that caused it. Maybe it was the Korean war. KJVOism also started around that time! Who knows? All have as much merit as the other for being the cause according to this line of argumentation.

This is also a dangerous line of reasoning in that it can be taken a step further (by those less careful than yourself) to make the KJV a requisite ingredient for revival. Not to ski a slippery slope, but what is next-making the KJV requisite for salvation?! Oh, I forgot, some have done that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How many threads of truth are lost each and every time it's "re"-translated. Every time a copy is made from the original, it tends to lose its luster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would venture to say that no "threads of truth are lost" whenever a new translation is made, so long as it is made with a sincere intent to translate and not to push some theological agenda.

The original is the original. It does not lose its luster when copied, only copies of copies do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say that's pretty accurate to the approach people take to bible versions today. {This one, I can't read, or it's too hard to understand, so let me go to the next.}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you think of the following statement?

"...variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures..."

I couldn't say it better myself. Thank goodness the KJV translators of 1611 did not seek to limit Christians to one version as you do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>People, if it was easy, everyone would know it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am interested to hear your scriptural evidence for this conclusion as it relates to Bible versions. I already have an idea what you will cite.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To say people today are better because of technology, language break throughs and the like, sorry, the Holy Spirit was the originator to the truth of man. Last time I checked, He's never had a language barrier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People aren't any different than they were in 1611. We do have modern technology as our aid and "language break throughs" that give us better understanding of the Greek.

BTW, last time I checked, the Holy Spirit (who you pointed out to be the originator of truth) never gave us a command to use only the KJV and denounce all other English versions as inferior or heretical.

Sincerely,

[ April 20, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
You are distorting your own quote! You used this analogy near the beginning of this thread in the context of English Bible Versions vis-a-vis KJV=Remnant versus Modern Version publishing houses=Majority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My exact words were "Remember, God has always worked with a REMNANT, not with the majority. Contrary to popular opinion, just because "everybody is doing it" does not make it right." If you will read that you will see I am talking about the "everbody is doing it" argument to support any position. It is patently clear that I am refering to people and not bible versions nor publishing houses.

[ April 21, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

SPAM said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Chris has already beaten me to it, but allow me to resonate his tone: What about the reformation?! There was no KJV then and it was the grandaddy of all revivals!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Every bible of the reformation was based on the Traditional texts. No bible of the reformation was based on the Alexandrian text type. That is a fact of history. Zwinglie preached from a bible based on the Traditional text. Luther was reading a Greek copy of the Traditional text when the words "The just shall live by faith" jumped out at him. Every bible translated as a result of the preaching of these men, to be used in the churches being formed, was based on the Traditional Texts. Tyndale's 1525, Luther's 1525, Calvin's Geneva 1557, Olivetan's 1535, Biestken's 1558, Danish Christian III 1550, Diodati 1607, Swedish Uppsala 1541, Czech Bible 1607. The only possible exception would be Wyclif's Bible of 1382, which was based on the Latin Vulgate, but no historian suggests the Wyclif bible was instrumental in the English reformation.

[ April 20, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
My exact words were "Remember, God has always worked with a REMNANT, not with the majority. Contrary to popular opinion, just because "everybody is doing it" does not make it right." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy,

For roughly 250 years (or more), the KJV/TT texts weren't the "remnant," they were the majority. How do you explain the revivals that occurred during this period if God "always worked with a REMNANT...?" This line of reasoning implies that God never worked with a MAJORITY, and is about as sound as the old "nothing good ever came from Egypt" argument used to malign the Alexandrian tradition of text.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Every bible of the reformation was based on the Traditional texts. No bible of the reformation was based on the Alexandrian text type. That is a fact of history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate the historical sidenote; however, my point to SPAM was that the reformation occurred without the KJV. As you aptly pointed out in more detail, the reformation occurred with translations different than the KJV. Thank you.

Also, you once again invoke the TT (which is a MAJORITY) as something that God worked with. How can this be consistent with your previous statement?

Sincerely,