The NIV

Both of the churches I most frequently attend have the NIV as their (English) pew Bibles; my personal preference, in English, is for the NRSV. I certainly agree with you that a variety of translations is preferable to only having one, and that a dogmatic insistence on only using any particular translation is legalistic silliness. At our Sunday evening Fremont (Baptist) Bible-study-hymn-sing-prayer-n-potluck thingies (not "services", but only for want of a sermon and a collection plate), where we read/study roughly a psalm a week (and are on 67), we frequently read the same psalm (aloud) in several versions, ranging from KJV to The Message, sometimes with a bit of Hebrew or Esperanto thrown in for good measure.

Haruo

 

Not services? Isn't this liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer?

 

please understand where many of us KJVO are coming from:

1) many feel that that the greek/hebrew texts underlying most of the modern versions are incorrect and that the changes weaken doctrine.

2) many have doubts of the ability of our times to honestly translate any text whatsoever, and feel this would likely lead to a further weakening of doctrine (especially concerning feminst, homosexual and other "modern" issues). many (but not all) modern translations are not sufficiently literal (and the niv in my opinion falls into this category).

3) many go beyond thinking the kjv is the best english translation of the best text, and believe it is somehow endorsed by god / perfect because of it's fruit or other reasons.

personally, i see the kjv/tr as the text god has worked with for hundreds of years, so i accept it and see my job as understanding and obeying it - not criticizing or weakening it. by faith i accept it as god's perfect word.

even though you don't agree with my position, i hope you can see that many of us love the kjv and submit to it's teachings from good motives.

i have enjoyed reading the niv in the past, but feel that even among the modern versions you would be better served, especially for in depth study, by a more literal translation, perhaps the nasb.

[ March 27, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

And hopefully Timothy, you can see that many of us do the same with modern versions, not sharing your view that doctrine is weakened but believing that a more clear translation actually strengthens doctrine and is a way that God works in his church.

 

I think the NIV is a good reading-Bible or a good
Bible for young people or those new to Bible
reading, but I would not use it for study. I think it
definitely has its place.

My children attended a Baptist school in the early
'80s, and while we were attending a church then
that was KJV only at that time, I really appreciated
that this school's chosen Bible was the NIV.

My honest position regarding KJV only people --
not all but those I have encountered -- is that they
really don't see it as so much a special Bible
confirmed by our God Himself as they see it as
more intellectual, misguided though that is.
Somehow, they seem to think that using the KJV
proves them to be more intelligent than readers of
the NIV and other Bibles, when too often in my
experience, the opposite has been true.

 

my personal opinion of the users of modern versions is that they are, by and large, sincere christians with a strong desire to clearly understand what our lord and savior has written for them.

 

The AV 1611 is a comparatively good translation of the Received Text. But, it is not "perfect" in the sense that it does not contain any translational errors or weaknesses or blunders etc. To say "I believe by faith that the KJV is the perfect word of God" does not change the truth and fact of the matter, that this version has its weaknesses. Such faith is not of God, but is some kind of positive thinking which in an ostrich-like manner puts the head in the sand and closes the eyes and ears to the fact of there being imperfections in the AV 1611. Such "faith" is man-made faith, and not of God the Holy Spirit.


Harald

 

with recent immigrants from China, i've used the NIV with some success. they're always bowled over by the lingo of the KJB.

altho i'd prefer the CEV, the NIV is far more accessible to people in an ESL situation. n if they memorise out of it, they'll be abreast of all who do that out of the fastest-selling bible today.

 

harald,

i can just see it when i get to heaven - jesus will rebuke me: "tim, i really expected you to master hebrew, aramaic and greek and then through diligent application of the godless science of textual criticism to have pieced together your own bible for yourself from all the manuscripts i more or less preserved, carefully weighing each variant, and thereby determining for yourself what i really meant to say to you." and i'll reply "lord, i would have been happy to, but why didn't you ever tell me that in your perfectly preserved kjv?"

[ March 28, 2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

Tim. Why do you lump all textual criticism together as "ungodly"? Textual criticism per se is not ungodly, at least I cannot find any biblical backing for such a notion. Without a certain amount of textual criticism the KJV translators would not have had a Textus Receptus from which to translate the NT, nor a Hebrew Masoretic text edition (Bomberg's) for the OT. If you refer to the modern textual criticism a la Westcott and Hort and their imitators you should have specified accordingly. Much if not all of what goes on under the epithet of biblical textual criticism today is quite worthless in that it does not come up with better texts than the Textus Receptus type text and the Bomberg MT. The TR was good enough for professing believers over 350 years, it is good enough for this fool also. Bomberg's Masoretic text was good enough for the same close to 400 years, it is good enough for me as well.

The KJV is good enough for me (if I choose to read the Bible in English) only where it translates these said texts accurately, faithfully and precisely. Any errors or mistakes in it I will not imbibe or condone.

Harald