Why I prefer the KJV over NIV

[psr.2]

quote;
Chapter and verse numeric division are not part of scripture. They were added by man to make scriptural referencing easier. Chapter and verse numeric division were not inspired by God.

So then it's fine to leave some out then? Even if it did not belong there in the first place?
Makes sense to me....NOT.
John take some deep breaths and go back to your fight with the other guy.
Once again no scripture.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by psr.2:
So then it's fine to leave some [scripture]out then? Even if it did not belong there in the first place? ... Makes sense to me....NOT.

You're missing the point: The "missing" scripture did not appear until much later in history. Since they were likely added in later manuscripts, and since the NIV translators were using earlier texts as their primary source, the NIV translators decided to include the scripture reference, but in footnote. Otherwise, one would get the impression that this verse was present in all source texts (which it was not).

 

[psr.2]

95% manuscripts agree with KJV
5% manuscripts agree with NIV

Which would you like for me to believe?
NIV from Alexandrian manuscripts which were corrupted by gnosticism, philosophy and a host of other impurities.

Which do you want me to believe?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by psr.2:
95% manuscripts agree with KJV
5% manuscripts agree with NIV

Which would you like for me to believe?
NIV from Alexandrian manuscripts which were corrupted by gnosticism, philosophy and a host of other impurities.

Which do you want me to believe?

Imagine that you and a neighbor were disputing over land that was defined by handwritten, hand copied deeds. You only have a few copies between yourself and relatives of the deed but they are all dated to within the first 1/3 of the time period since the original. He has 20 times more copies than you but most of them were dated in the last 2/3 of the time period since the original.

Whose deeds would you say were more like the original?

For reasons other than simple majority, I believe that the original wording lies between the two families but more toward the Byzantine. However, your 95% vs. 5% argument is a none starter.

For that matter, there may be a manuscript somewhere that is incidentally an exact duplicate of the original NT. In such a case, less than .02% would be absolutely correct over against 99.98%.

FTR, 95% of the mss do not agree with the KJV. There are words and phrases in the KJV that are in 100% disagreement with all of the mss... God forbid...

 

[robycop3]

psr.2:Interesting note; Those foaming at the mouth over my post (which was WHY I PREFER THE KJV...)
have no scripture as to why they are foaming.>

Do YOU?


Apparently you are not willing to let anyone have an opinion that differs from yours.

Free country, free board. However, much of the reasoning you've used is faulty, having been derived from some KJVO writings somewhere. I've seen'em all before, many times.

Could you at least place some scripture with your ranting so I can refute it with scripture.

Actually, since YOU'VE made the statement, YOU have the burden of proof to sustain your reasoning. If you'd said, "I prefer the KJV because I like the archaic English better" or some other reason for personal preference, fine, but instead, your reasons look like party-line KJVO stuff.

Scripture? In the KJV, compare what Jesus read aloud in Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3. Are they the same? Or, did Jesus read from another version?

Now, where's the Scripture supporting YOUR position?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by psr.2:
Which would you like for me to believe?
NIV from Alexandrian manuscripts which were corrupted by gnosticism, philosophy and a host of other impurities. Which do you want me to believe?

That depends. The Dead Sea Scrolls tend to support the NIV source texts for the OT. Do you then discount the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate the KJV's source texts by some 1000+ years?

I would agree with your assertion that the earlier manuscripts were corrupted, if you can find me any early manuscripts that support the KJV's source texts. The earliest source texts we have to date are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which tend to support the OT from Alexandrian manuscrtipts.

However, let's presume for a moment that we should only consider source texts of the KJV to be valid. If that is the case, then what is wrong with bibles that use those same source texts as their sole translational source? Nothing. The MKJV, which I have read, is accurate to those KJV source texts, but has translated them into contemporary English.

 

[skanwmatos]

Hmmmm. I think we may have overlooked something here. The two prevailing OT Hebrew text types, the Ben Chayyim (Bomberg/BHK06-12) and the Ben Asher (BHK37/BHS) disagree with one another in only about a half dozen places which would affect translation. The LXX, on the other hand, is based on an entirely different Hebrew text type from the Masoretic text as represented by BHK/BHS, and is so different that it is not considered a reliable OT text source with the few minor exceptions in helping to clarify Masoretic readings when it follows a Masoretic type reading.

The cause of the differences between the KJV and other later English versions is not due to the text type they are based on but rather due to the translator's philosophy regarding the qere/ketiv pairs. The KJV translators believed the marginal references to be corrections of errors in the text but many of the modern translators believe them to be scribal glosses, notes, or alternate readings. Thus the KJV translators most often followed the marginal reading while many of the modern translators more often follow the reading in the main text.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Please explain why it is a false comment. I looked it up in the NIV myself. You're calling me a liar, when my post is factually correct. Explain yourself, or please apologize for your slanderous implication.

Please look for my comment to robycop3.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by psr.2:
95% manuscripts agree with KJV
5% manuscripts agree with NIV

WRONG!!! The 93% MSS supported the KJV. The 7% MSS supported the MVs.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
WRONG!!! The 93% MSS supported the KJV. The 7% MSS supported the MVs.

WRONG! Of the 5255 extant collated Greek manuscripts of the NT, 5205 of them tend, for the most part, to follow the Byzantine readings as found in the KJV and 45 of them tend to follow the Alexandrian readings as found in many of the more modern versions. Do the math! .85% (that is less than 1%) follow what you call the "MV" readings and 99.15% follow the KJV type readings.

However, it isn't quite that simple. Take, for instance, the book of Acts. The book of Acts, in whole or in part, is found in a grand total of 612 manuscripts. Of those 612 13 are papyri, 32 are uncials, and 537 are minuscules (cursives). Add to that number the lectionaries (582) and that makes a grand grand total of 1194 Greek manuscripts containing the book of Acts either in the whole or in part.

Of the total number, 1194, 1119 represent predominately Byzantine readings. Therefore, percentages for Acts would be 93.7% reading as the KJV does with 6.3% reading as the more modern versions do. However, as the book of Acts is under-represented in the Greek manuscript evidence, the overall numbers for the entire New Testament would be much different. 99% vice 1% would be a much closer estimate.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
WRONG! Of the 5255 extant collated Greek manuscripts of the NT, 5205 of them tend, for the most part, to follow the Byzantine readings as found in the KJV and 45 of them tend to follow the Alexandrian readings as found in many of the more modern versions. Do the math! .85% (that is less than 1%) follow what you call the "MV" readings and 99.15% follow the KJV type readings.

However, it isn't quite that simple. Take, for instance, the book of Acts. The book of Acts, in whole or in part, is found in a grand total of 612 manuscripts. Of those 612 13 are papyri, 32 are uncials, and 537 are minuscules (cursives). Add to that number the lectionaries (582) and that makes a grand grand total of 1194 Greek manuscripts containing the book of Acts either in the whole or in part.

Of the total number, 1194, 1119 represent predominately Byzantine readings. Therefore, percentages for Acts would be 93.7% reading as the KJV does with 6.3% reading as the more modern versions do. However, as the book of Acts is under-represented in the Greek manuscript evidence, the overall numbers for the entire New Testament would be much different. 99% vice 1% would be a much closer estimate.

You misunderstand what I said.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
You misunderstand what I said.

That is because, most of the time, you are incoherent.

 

[psr.2]

OK guys I have made my point. I am not staying for the next fifteen pages of bickering .
Good day.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
You misunderstand what I said.

That is because, most of the time, you are incoherent. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I am not.

Go ahead and Click here: Liberty's Stand on the Best Bible Version

 

[skanwmatos]

Yes, you are. You have never posted anything which you wrote yourself which made sense. The best you can do is either cut and paste somebody else's work or offer a link to somebody else's work. When anyone tries to discuss the issue with you all you post is &lt;attack snipped&gt; drivel.

[ July 18, 2004, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Yes, you are. You have never posted anything which you wrote yourself which made sense. The best you can do is either cut and paste somebody else's work or offer a link to somebody else's work. When anyone tries to discuss the issue with you all you post is nonsensical, borderline illiterate, drivel.

Which, quite frankly i prefer
to someone else (not Skan) who quotes
large amounts of unrelated Scripture.

BTW, I prefer the KJV1611 Edition over the NIV.
I prefer the NIV over the KJV1769 Edition(s).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by psr.2:
OK guys I have made my point. I am not staying for the next fifteen pages of bickering .
Good day.

1 Peter 4:7-10 (HCSB):

Now the end of all things is near; therefore,
be clear-headed and disciplined for prayer.
8 Above all, keep your love for one another at full strength,
since love covers a multitude of sins.
9 Be hospitable to one another without complaining.
10 Based on the gift they have received,
everyone should use it to serve others,
as good managers of the varied grace of God.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Yes, you are.

My wife would like to respond to your post. She did not want to register on this board. I hope you will read what she has to say:

Hello, Skan. Askjo's wife here. My husband frequently shows me his and your posts back and forth, in addition to some others on this board. Consequently, I have been encouraging him to leave this board for quite a while. It is a tremendous waste of precious time and energy. But he loves to study and debate issues surrounding the canon of Scripture, and it is somewhat of a hobby for him.

This board, and your posts and your attitude in particular, are indicative of the mean-spiritedness and hatefulness rampant in certain Baptist circles today. I'm quite curious about the caustic attitude you display.

My husband tells me you are in seminary. Are you planning to go into full-time ministry? You may want to re-examine your plans if this is your goal. I shudder to think that anyone, especially the unsaved, may be steered away from Christ simply by virtue of observing your hateful personality. &lt;personal attack and questioning of salvation snipped&gt;

You seem to think that anyone who does not possess a scholar's command of Hebrew and Greek does not deserve to slither upon the face of the earth. Let me explain a little about my husband's "illiterate drivel." You see, English is NOT his first language. Oh yes, foreigners should become fluent in English if they are going to benefit from living in our great land, but alas, my husband was born and raised in the good old USA. He's not illiterate. He is simply, prelingually deaf. His English grammar skills, I would say, are about average for a prelingually deaf person. We know a few who are much more proficient in English, and many who are much less proficient. His comprehensive skills are better than his expressive skills, hence, he has more difficulty with written expression. His difficulty with English has no bearing on his intelligence, which I believe to be above average.

But unfortunately, I don't think you care what I or anyone else believes. If someone disagrees with you, they are slime. At least that's the impression I get with almost each and every one of your posts, and particularly your responses to my husband's posts.

It's sad that Christians spend so much time communicating in such an un-Christlike manner. Have you ever won a soul to the Lord? Have you ever encouraged a brother or sister in Christ, or prayed for someone or tried to help someone in need? These are the things for which the Lord has left us here on earth to occupy our time. Not calling people names, or communicating with them with a hateful, vicious attitude. &lt;questioning of salvation snipped&gt; I know none of us is perfect, but I suspect, from random viewing of your posts, that your problem is a pervasive habit of your everyday life. Please consider these words before you send out another mean-spirited diatribe to anyone. This is my first and only communication on this board, and I hope you will read it. &lt;moderator snip&gt; Thanks for listening, if you did listen.

You have never posted anything which you wrote yourself which made sense. The best you can do is either cut and paste somebody else's work or offer a link to somebody else's work. When anyone tries to discuss the issue with you all you post is nonsensical, borderline illiterate, drivel.

It is necessary for me to answer this way.

[ July 18, 2004, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[GrannyGumbo]

God bless you, dear lady, for having courage. ~Rom 8:28

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
This board, and your posts and your attitude in particular, are indicative of the mean-spiritedness and hatefulness rampant in certain Baptist circles today. I'm quite curious about the caustic attitude you display.

I hate sin, and lying about the word of God is a terrible sin.

My husband tells me you are in seminary.

I recently earned my Th.M. after serving in the pastorate for about 6 years.

Are you planning to go into full-time ministry?

Already there.

You may want to re-examine your plans if this is your goal.

Why would I want to deny the gifts and calling of God?

I shudder to think that anyone, especially the unsaved, may be steered away from Christ simply by virtue of observing your hateful personality.

I don't have a hateful personality. I just love truth too much to allow lies to be told about the word of God.

I would even doubt, although this is between you and the Lord, that you are saved, yourself.

Of course you doubt my salvation! I disagree with your husband regarding the lies he tells about the word of God! So, either you have to believe &lt;moderator snip&gt;. Figures.

At the very least, you may need psychological help of some sort.

Really? Are you a Doctor? Can you diagnose a neurosis or psychosis via the internet?

You seem to think that anyone who does not possess a scholar's command of Hebrew and Greek does not deserve to slither upon the face of the earth.

Sorry but that is a lie. Many good and godly people have no understanding of any language other than English and still manage to love and serve the Lord. What I object to is someone with no knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, or English, lying about the word of God.

Let me explain a little about my husband's "illiterate drivel." You see, English is NOT his first language. Oh yes, foreigners should become fluent in English if they are going to benefit from living in our great land, but alas, my husband was born and raised in the good old USA. He's not illiterate. He is simply, prelingually deaf. His English grammar skills, I would say, are about average for a prelingually deaf person. We know a few who are much more proficient in English, and many who are much less proficient. His comprehensive skills are better than his expressive skills, hence, he has more difficulty with written expression. His difficulty with English has no bearing on his intelligence, which I believe to be above average.

Wonderful. American English is not my native language either, but I still believe it behooves me to know what I am talking about before I spout off.

But unfortunately, I don't think you care what I or anyone else believes.

You are correct. My only concern is the truth of the word of God.

If someone disagrees with you, they are slime.

Simply untrue.

At least that's the impression I get with almost each and every one of your posts, and particularly your responses to my husband's posts.

Perhaps &lt;snip&gt;?

[ July 18, 2004, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]