I want to know what everyone one thinks on this subjectEveryone knows the KJV to be the best translation in english but why is the NIV and other versions rejected by some christians.Im going to look at the other side of the coin first.if the other bible are bad compared to the KJV then why would people take the time to translate the NIV for example verse by verse and another perspective for those who think the only version worth reading is KJVif other versions are not correct that could mean the devil helped the people who took a painstaking effort to decieve us...and yet I do not believe that because for satan to say good things for the sake of evil would be to contradict himself for he is incapable of doing good things.please replywould be much appreciated
KJV vs. other translations
- Thread starter elmo
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
if other versions are not correct that could mean the devil helped the people who took a painstaking effort to decieve us...and yet I do not believe that because for satan to say good things for the sake of evil would be to contradict himself for he is incapable of doing good things.
You under estimate the enemy very much if you believe this to be true.The KJV is what other English versions are based on. So the NIV ends up being a translation of a translation. It's still the bible but it is watered down and can be misunderstood easier than the KJV.
You under estimate the enemy very much if you believe this to be true.The KJV is what other English versions are based on. So the NIV ends up being a translation of a translation. It's still the bible but it is watered down and can be misunderstood easier than the KJV.
(elmo)
I want to know what everyone one thinks on this subjectEveryone knows the KJV to be the best translation in english but why is the NIV and other versions rejected by some christians.Im going to look at the other side of the coin first.if the other bible are bad compared to the KJV then why would people take the time to translate the NIV for example verse by verseand another perspective for those who think the only version worth reading is KJVif other versions are not correct that could mean the devil helped the people who took a painstaking effort to decieve us...and yet I do not believe that because for satan to say good things for the sake of evil would be to contradict himself for he is incapable of doing good things.please replywould be much appreciated
For Life is correct that the NIV is so much easier to misunderstood than the KJB.Lucy (Satan) knows how to do good and he knows how to do evil. Hence He is called in Genesis 3, not only a serpent, he is also called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.The reason why I can't trust the NIV, NLT, RSV, NASV, Amplied® Version, ESV, etc is because the fact is that they use the Alexandrian Texts and not the Byzantine TextsI can pull off 9 complete missing verses in the New Testament from the NIV, NLT, ESV if you want me too.That right there is good enough why I can't trust a bible with Alexandrian Texts and not the Byzantine Texts.Lucy can create a bible to mimick and deceive us as God can create a bible to give full truth and save us.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
I want to know what everyone one thinks on this subjectEveryone knows the KJV to be the best translation in english but why is the NIV and other versions rejected by some christians.Im going to look at the other side of the coin first.if the other bible are bad compared to the KJV then why would people take the time to translate the NIV for example verse by verseand another perspective for those who think the only version worth reading is KJVif other versions are not correct that could mean the devil helped the people who took a painstaking effort to decieve us...and yet I do not believe that because for satan to say good things for the sake of evil would be to contradict himself for he is incapable of doing good things.please replywould be much appreciated
For Life is correct that the NIV is so much easier to misunderstood than the KJB.Lucy (Satan) knows how to do good and he knows how to do evil. Hence He is called in Genesis 3, not only a serpent, he is also called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.The reason why I can't trust the NIV, NLT, RSV, NASV, Amplied® Version, ESV, etc is because the fact is that they use the Alexandrian Texts and not the Byzantine TextsI can pull off 9 complete missing verses in the New Testament from the NIV, NLT, ESV if you want me too.That right there is good enough why I can't trust a bible with Alexandrian Texts and not the Byzantine Texts.Lucy can create a bible to mimick and deceive us as God can create a bible to give full truth and save us.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
Dear Elmo,I would like to politely challenge what you have asserted. You said you would like to flip the coin and check the other side. I assume you meant, hear from others of possibly opposing positions. That is what I will here, respectfully, attempt to provide you.I will propose to you something you may not be familiar with, and I pray that you do not reject it based on the hardness of the message. It still perplexes me how people can nurture a sense of reverence within them for any translation of the Bible in any language. Regardless, this is the case, thus making this subject a delicate one indeed. While I am trying to muster up what empathy I can, I do ask for forgiveness if what I say comes as hard to accept. The truth always is. I pray that you will, at the very least, hear me out. I present to you only that which you have asked of me, and mean not to produce anything more. To begin, I will direct you to a post made not long ago. While it was rendered useless and disregarded in the thread it was originally written in, it may now serve a new purpose. I ask that you read this and consider it carefully. My hope is that you neither accept it nor reject it, without first considering it.http://www.christianityboard.com/must-read...t-t3640p16.htmlMy post is the second down on that page.In hope, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
A note on the Alexandrian text.Revelations 22:18-1918For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. And the missing verses are good ones too
.
(Wakka;18764)
A note on the Alexandrian text.Revelations 22:18-1918For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. And the missing verses are good ones too
.
In kindness and with discretion allow me to correct you. First, that verse was written in Revelation, by John. Revelation was not the last book to be written, nor was it written when a Canon was even beginning to come into play for the Church. This verse relates directly to this book of prophesy. Recall that it is not always at the end. It wasn't at the end of Martin Luther's Bible. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the KJV was translated originally largely from the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was Jerome's Translation of the Septuagint. The Septuagint, the Alexandrian text, was a Translation of the ancient Hebrew Maesoretic.I would also like to point out again that all the quotes throughout the New Testament of the Old Testament, with few exceptions, are taken directly from the Septuagint. This indicates that the Apostles reveled in this translation. Even while many Pharisees were against the Septuagint calling it too "Greek" and too "Christian".My friend, it is not that the Alexandrian Text is missing parts of the Bible, but rather that parts have been added over the era's. Allow me give you an example from Jerome, who translated the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, into Latin {the Latin Vulgate}. [url="http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/jerome_letter_120.htm]http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/j..._letter_120.htm[/url]Though this has to do with the New Testament, notice Jerome's critical analytical attitude and approach. He suggests to us in this that Fabrications have been made in the past.The Latin Vulgate itself suffered much corruption at the hands of man, which was the root reason for the Correctories of the 13th century. Tyndale's translation, being based on the Vulgate, was quite good all things considered. However, it does have grave deficiencies. First, that it stretches the Word of God and Makes the scriptures say what the scriptures didn't originally say.Please read my previous post, or rather, the link in my previous post.In respect, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
A note on the Alexandrian text.Revelations 22:18-1918For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. And the missing verses are good ones too
Im not saying whether I agree that other translations are false, but I have been comparing the KJB (the bible I've been raised as a child) to the NIV.Even though they're not totally same, am I confusing myself for comparing to two for clarity and meaning on certain verses...of which I don't have an example at the moment.and by the way, Im not catholic nor islam and do not condemn them because I wish to gain an unbiassed oppinion because Im a christian yet I don't wish to declare which denomonation I come from because Im here only to learn about the Word of God and to build a solid relationship with Jesus Christ, and I use this site to keep me from falling into fleshly desires, or anything that will lead me away from God and it has been working for me! And I want to say that this is the best site on the web for christians to talk the bible!
In kindness and with discretion allow me to correct you. First, that verse was written in Revelation, by John. Revelation was not the last book to be written, nor was it written when a Canon was even beginning to come into play for the Church. This verse relates directly to this book of prophesy. Recall that it is not always at the end. It wasn't at the end of Martin Luther's Bible.
Perhaps so, but as a Christian this logic leaves out the very important detail that I don't think can be overlooked. If you believe in the authority of the Bible, then to some degree or another, the text would be divinely inspired. This is something that all too often logic doesn't account for and arguably cannot. It's a matter of faith, and I'll leave it at that.While not a huge fan of the NIV, I do think it's a respectable translation. I take issue much more with the later translations. Many of the modern ones prefer to summarize over translation & transliteration which can be very detrimental to the original meaning.To know the original meaning, I think you have to go back to the Hebrew/Greek and use the tools that we have available.
Perhaps so, but as a Christian this logic leaves out the very important detail that I don't think can be overlooked. If you believe in the authority of the Bible, then to some degree or another, the text would be divinely inspired. This is something that all too often logic doesn't account for and arguably cannot. It's a matter of faith, and I'll leave it at that.While not a huge fan of the NIV, I do think it's a respectable translation. I take issue much more with the later translations. Many of the modern ones prefer to summarize over translation & transliteration which can be very detrimental to the original meaning.To know the original meaning, I think you have to go back to the Hebrew/Greek and use the tools that we have available.
I always think of the verses that Wakka brings up when I see different versions of the Bible. I would eventually like to study the Greek but in the meantime the KJV will do. I greatly dislike the NIV. I compared some of the scriptures between the two ( I don't remember exactly which ones) and they were completely different. It seems to me that whoever translated the NIV has their own agenda. Kinda like the conditioning going on in public schools. It's not quite enough to freak out about, just enough to make me feel uncomfortable.
Every bible that uses the Alexandrian Texts has their own personal agenda. But the fact remains is that they all have one purpose...That is to corrupt the Word of God and deceived as many as it can.II Corinthians 2:17 - For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.Jeremiah 22:36 - And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.II Corinthians 11:4 - For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.Luke 4:4 - And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.Deuteronomy 4:2 - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.And finally these verses...Psalm 97:10 - Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.Proverbs 8:13 - The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
(Denver;18768)
Perhaps so, but as a Christian this logic leaves out the very important detail that I don't think can be overlooked. If you believe in the authority of the Bible, then to some degree or another, the text would be divinely inspired. This is something that all too often logic doesn't account for and arguably cannot. It's a matter of faith, and I'll leave it at that.While not a huge fan of the NIV, I do think it's a respectable translation. I take issue much more with the later translations. Many of the modern ones prefer to summarize over translation & transliteration which can be very detrimental to the original meaning.To know the original meaning, I think you have to go back to the Hebrew/Greek and use the tools that we have available.
Denver,Perhaps I should clarify. I was not saying that the scriptures cannot be inspired. What I was trying to show is that, first of all, the verse used in revelation, was written so far after the Septuagint, and so long before any canonization, that it was obvious to the early church that this verse applied directly to the work itself. It is also worthy to note that John frequently quotes the Septuagint, so it could not refer to the Septuagint, even if it did, somehow, refer to all of the old testament scriptures exclusively, and not including itself.So, it was speaking directly about itself, as a warning to transcribers to be absolutely careful not to change anything at all, as often times transcribers would change a thing or two, either on purpose or not. Revelation is so packed with meaning, however, that a transcribers error could be detrimental to the reader's chance at understanding what John was saying.In any case, the verse in John, could not refer to the Septuagint, as the Septuagint was used freely by John, and the verse in John didn't refer to the Tenack, and the Septuagint was hundreds of years before that time, and finally the Septuagint did not "take out" anything at all. Our study of the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm this. {The Septuagint is Old Testament only, for those who may not be aware}.The more modern translations having many things which are now missing, is simply more true to the original text. Sure, I can understand that it is hard to part with some favorite verses, but if we are to be honest and study the writings of the Bible, let us study them in their original form.In the end, though, I do agree that going back to Hebrew and Greek is a key. It is at once not the only key, and quite indispensable.
Perhaps so, but as a Christian this logic leaves out the very important detail that I don't think can be overlooked. If you believe in the authority of the Bible, then to some degree or another, the text would be divinely inspired. This is something that all too often logic doesn't account for and arguably cannot. It's a matter of faith, and I'll leave it at that.While not a huge fan of the NIV, I do think it's a respectable translation. I take issue much more with the later translations. Many of the modern ones prefer to summarize over translation & transliteration which can be very detrimental to the original meaning.To know the original meaning, I think you have to go back to the Hebrew/Greek and use the tools that we have available.
Denver,Perhaps I should clarify. I was not saying that the scriptures cannot be inspired. What I was trying to show is that, first of all, the verse used in revelation, was written so far after the Septuagint, and so long before any canonization, that it was obvious to the early church that this verse applied directly to the work itself. It is also worthy to note that John frequently quotes the Septuagint, so it could not refer to the Septuagint, even if it did, somehow, refer to all of the old testament scriptures exclusively, and not including itself.So, it was speaking directly about itself, as a warning to transcribers to be absolutely careful not to change anything at all, as often times transcribers would change a thing or two, either on purpose or not. Revelation is so packed with meaning, however, that a transcribers error could be detrimental to the reader's chance at understanding what John was saying.In any case, the verse in John, could not refer to the Septuagint, as the Septuagint was used freely by John, and the verse in John didn't refer to the Tenack, and the Septuagint was hundreds of years before that time, and finally the Septuagint did not "take out" anything at all. Our study of the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm this. {The Septuagint is Old Testament only, for those who may not be aware}.The more modern translations having many things which are now missing, is simply more true to the original text. Sure, I can understand that it is hard to part with some favorite verses, but if we are to be honest and study the writings of the Bible, let us study them in their original form.In the end, though, I do agree that going back to Hebrew and Greek is a key. It is at once not the only key, and quite indispensable.
(For Life;18770)
I always think of the verses that Wakka brings up when I see different versions of the Bible. I would eventually like to study the Greek but in the meantime the KJV will do. I greatly dislike the NIV. I compared some of the scriptures between the two ( I don't remember exactly which ones) and they were completely different. It seems to me that whoever translated the NIV has their own agenda. Kinda like the conditioning going on in public schools. It's not quite enough to freak out about, just enough to make me feel uncomfortable.
What I would suggest to you, perhaps, is that you not simply study the differences and decide which translation is more noble on that basis alone, but that you study why those differences exist.
I always think of the verses that Wakka brings up when I see different versions of the Bible. I would eventually like to study the Greek but in the meantime the KJV will do. I greatly dislike the NIV. I compared some of the scriptures between the two ( I don't remember exactly which ones) and they were completely different. It seems to me that whoever translated the NIV has their own agenda. Kinda like the conditioning going on in public schools. It's not quite enough to freak out about, just enough to make me feel uncomfortable.
What I would suggest to you, perhaps, is that you not simply study the differences and decide which translation is more noble on that basis alone, but that you study why those differences exist.
(thesuperjag;18762)
Lucy (Satan) knows how to do good and he ...
Aaah... now I understand. Lucy = Satan. I was getting really confused by your previous posts. Right, Lucy, as in Lucifer, which was the Latin translation of Isaiah 14:12. Right, got it.
Lucy (Satan) knows how to do good and he ...
Aaah... now I understand. Lucy = Satan. I was getting really confused by your previous posts. Right, Lucy, as in Lucifer, which was the Latin translation of Isaiah 14:12. Right, got it.
are you guys telling me that you can compare the NIV and other versions of the Bible separate from the KJV and Hebrew and Greek versionsto worldly books or even witchcraft books which are also meant to deceive?
What I'm saying is people who rather uses the Alexandrian Text will likely (99.9%) have bibles that removes verses of the Word of God and deceive others. That's why I'm am sticking with the Byzantine Texts because it does not use corupt manuscripts. The other bible (English) I know of that was the Word of God is Geneva (or Genova) Bible which is older than the KJV.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
I just submitted a reply but it didn't get throught so Im sending it againI want to know if the NIV and other versions of the bibles other than the KJV Greek and Hebrew versions, are the same as:worldly books or witchcraft books which are also things meant to decieve.
(thesuperjag;18897)
What I'm saying is people who rather uses the Alexandrian Text will likely (99.9%) have bibles that removes verses of the Word of God and deceive others. That's why I'm am sticking with the Byzantine Texts because it does not use corupt manuscripts. The other bible (English) I know of that was the Word of God is Geneva (or Genova) Bible which is older than the KJV.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
I'm sort of perplexed here Superjag, so please help me out. First, when you say Byzantine, do you mean the Byzantine Greek fragments of the New Testament? When you say Alexandrian, do you think it includes the New Testament? The Septuagint is Alexandrian, but does not contain the New Testament. What "Alexandrian Texts" are you referring to? What Byzantine Texts are you referring to? Where and when were they found, or could you please give me their denotations so that I can look them up? If found in a Codex, could you tell me which Codex? I can look up the rest myself, but I would much like to understand clearly what your argument here is.I'm sure we probably disagree, but please do extrapolate. I want to be sure I understand your point of view.Thank you.in respect, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
What I'm saying is people who rather uses the Alexandrian Text will likely (99.9%) have bibles that removes verses of the Word of God and deceive others. That's why I'm am sticking with the Byzantine Texts because it does not use corupt manuscripts. The other bible (English) I know of that was the Word of God is Geneva (or Genova) Bible which is older than the KJV.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
I'm sort of perplexed here Superjag, so please help me out. First, when you say Byzantine, do you mean the Byzantine Greek fragments of the New Testament? When you say Alexandrian, do you think it includes the New Testament? The Septuagint is Alexandrian, but does not contain the New Testament. What "Alexandrian Texts" are you referring to? What Byzantine Texts are you referring to? Where and when were they found, or could you please give me their denotations so that I can look them up? If found in a Codex, could you tell me which Codex? I can look up the rest myself, but I would much like to understand clearly what your argument here is.I'm sure we probably disagree, but please do extrapolate. I want to be sure I understand your point of view.Thank you.in respect, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
(Biblical Tetragramaton;18765)
In kindness and with discretion allow me to correct you. First, that verse was written in Revelation, by John. Revelation was not the last book to be written, nor was it written when a Canon was even beginning to come into play for the Church. This verse relates directly to this book of prophesy. Recall that it is not always at the end. It wasn't at the end of Martin Luther's Bible. In respect, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
Interesting thats the same arugment I got from Mormans seems this is common excuse for religions of men to add what they please to Gods Word.
Interesting thats the same arugment I got from Mormans seems this is common excuse for religions of men to add what they please to Gods Word.
I feel that the KJV is more accurate than the NIV. However, the "thees" & "-th" endings take some getting used to. So use whatever you find easier to understand. If a text seems unclear, then compare it to other versions.As an aside, I am grateful to those who came before us. They made the sacrifice to translate the Bible into any of the common languages (vs Latin Vulgate.) Most were persecuted for their efforts. We are blessed, that we have easy access to the word, in all it's translations.
Similar threads
