The NIV is copyrighted meaning that is has been significantly altered from the original source.
The KJV is free all day long and accurate. Just like Linux.
I use KJV why anything else (other than original text)?
Something tells me that simply by virtue of the "V" in KJV, it's not necessarily the original text.
-aj
-aj
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
kirk>>
@bugman how can other translations be helpful if they leave out some of the most basic and fundamental verses entirely in many cases leaving a blank space where the verse should be. this is not a case of rewording it is pure outright omission.
I try not to throw out opinion but sometimes it just comes out sorry.
Not sorry about sticking w/ KJV though.
umm...KJV is english, no copyright though. The original translators weren't in it for the money like practically everybody else KJV isn't broken so don't "fix" it.Yes, it's in english.
@bugman how can other translations be helpful if they leave out some of the most basic and fundamental verses entirely in many cases leaving a blank space where the verse should be. this is not a case of rewording it is pure outright omission.
I try not to throw out opinion but sometimes it just comes out sorry.
Not sorry about sticking w/ KJV though.
-
michaewlewis
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon 18 Jun 2007, 22:37
How do you know the NIV omitted anything? Maybe the KJV just added some things. Unless you are trying to say that the KJV (which was "translated" by fallable people) is actually 100% correct in everything. Not to mention that it was only translated from less than ten ancient manuscripts whereas we now have found several hundreds or even thousands of manuscripts that can further help translation efforts to be more correct. Since when were few witnesses considered to be more reliable than many witnesses?
I know of a few verses that the KJV translators have added that were only found in one of the manuscripts they were using (one being in 1 John). These verses cannot be found in any of the other manuscripts! How is that reliable? If you want reliable, learn to read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin and go find the original manuscripts.
The good news however is that most of the versions available today are consistent in the simple message of Jesus Christ and his salvation for mankind. What more do we really need in life than His salvation and His hand guiding us?
I know of a few verses that the KJV translators have added that were only found in one of the manuscripts they were using (one being in 1 John). These verses cannot be found in any of the other manuscripts! How is that reliable? If you want reliable, learn to read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin and go find the original manuscripts.
The good news however is that most of the versions available today are consistent in the simple message of Jesus Christ and his salvation for mankind. What more do we really need in life than His salvation and His hand guiding us?
Re: I use KJV why anything else (other than original text)?
I tried not to enter this "debate", honest. I just couldn't help myself.cb88 wrote:The KJV is free all day long and accurate. Just like Linux.
Apologies in advance if I inadvertently offend any posters here.My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter what Version of the text you read. What really matters is the version of the reader!
If a reader approaches the text with the right Spirit, the words themselves will be inspired (def.) If not, then you will likely get a mere reflection of what you wanted to see in there.
I guess that means I'm not a Fundamentalist? That's ok.
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com
Re: I use KJV why anything else (other than original text)?
that should be your verse. well said.WhoDo wrote:My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter what Version of the text you read. What really matters is the version of the reader!
If a reader approaches the text with the right Spirit, the words themselves will be inspired (def.) If not, then you will likely get a mere reflection of what you wanted to see in there.
i've been reviewing judaism and christianity (as well as some other strange ancient texts).
as the modern main three religions go, the one i am most unaware is islam. now that i've read that page, i feel less unaware.
best wishes to everyone. have a happy 777.
World English Bible
I like the KJV, I like the way it sounds when read, either quietly or aloud. It is not free. There is a bible that has no copyright and is totally free and that is the WEB, World English Bible. Just Goggle it.
There is a copy available that is part of GnomeSword, which I use with the other study helps available.
Next: The KJV is an ENGLISH translation of the real thing. The bible has also been translated by many countries into a language their citizens can explore to their edification.
My GOD is big enough to make his Word available to all who desire to read it, and in their own language translation. His Word will not return void.
Finally, when you all have grown weary of the bible debate(?) you can warm up the Calvin-Arminian quagmire.
Your's in Christ; Donald
There is a copy available that is part of GnomeSword, which I use with the other study helps available.
Next: The KJV is an ENGLISH translation of the real thing. The bible has also been translated by many countries into a language their citizens can explore to their edification.
My GOD is big enough to make his Word available to all who desire to read it, and in their own language translation. His Word will not return void.
Finally, when you all have grown weary of the bible debate(?) you can warm up the Calvin-Arminian quagmire.
Your's in Christ; Donald
Perhaps the KJV does not translate everything as clearly as it could in fact I know that it does not BUT I also believe that the traslator tried to make it as good as possibe. I am just not conviced that NIV translators even tried to make it accurate not to mention warped the Bible torward thier own objectives(well actually I did mettion it didn't I 
.
I have never found any indication that the KJV is wrong however the NIV is a joke I mean there are already 2 versions of it!
yes i know that we don't use the 1611 KJV any more but that is just a matter of grammar and spelling change
.I have never found any indication that the KJV is wrong however the NIV is a joke I mean there are already 2 versions of it!
yes i know that we don't use the 1611 KJV any more but that is just a matter of grammar and spelling change
Taking Puppy Linux to the limit of perfection. meanwhile try "puppy pfix=duct_tape" kernel parem eater.
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
-
klhrevolutionist
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 10:09
The 1599 Geneva Bible is the closest original translation you will find.
http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva_history.php
http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva_history.php
Heaven is on the way, until then let's get the truth out!
No, It been revised many times to correct minor errors, as well as clean up the spelling and dropped the apocrypha books. Bible collectors identify KJV Bibles by their mis-prints. The KJV was ordered translated to replace the Geneva Bible, perhaps because of the numerous references the Geneva makes to the Pope being the Antichrist. However the Geneva remained more popular for many years. The Geneva Bibile was the fisrt Bible to use verse numbers, the first complete study bible, and the first translated completely from greek/hebrew manuscripts. The Pilgrams brought the Geneva Bible to America and like many who use the KJV thought there was no need for a replacement.yes i know that we don't use the 1611 KJV any more but that is just a matter of grammar and spelling change
Over one hundred translators worked on the NIV using a multi-step review process. To suggest that they were involved in some kind of conspiracy to corrupt God's word is not good.I am just not conviced that NIV translators even tried to make it accurate not to mention warped the Bible torward thier own objectives
Like the KJV the Geneva is a fine translation, but the source manuscripts use to translate both where 8th to 12th century. The source manuscripts used for modern translations are much older. We have complete bibles that date to around 350, and many complete 3rd centrury MS of New Testament books, and parts of New Testament books that date to the second century. A piece of the Gospal of John dates to 125. The source documents that we have today are very very close to the originals. That said there is little difference between the manuscripts used by the Geneva and NIV. Remarkable when you consider the centuries between them.The 1599 Geneva Bible is the closest original translation you will find.
The KJV is not translated in to my language. When I have attended Bible studies where the KJV is used, much of the time is wasted translating the KJV in to modern english. If you read the forward to the KJV the translators wanted to produce a bible that could be easly read and understood. A goal accomplished at the time, but no longer so. The errors in the KJV are trivial. There's nothing that would effect anyone's doctrine in the differences between the KJV and the NIV. If you like the KJV and will read it, DO SO! I fear that many would not read it or understand it due to the change that the language has undergone over the past 400 years.I use KJV why anything else
I hesatated to respond to this post and perhaps should not have. I do not wish to be divisive or descourging. We are quibbling over very minor differences. The Bible has one unifying theam, God's plan to redeam fallen man by Jesus the Christ.
God decreeded that the punshment for sin is death. All have sinned. God is the righteous judge who will not fail to punish sin. But God loved man kind and sent his son to pay the sin debt of all who would accept him. So sin entered the world through God's first son Adam and forgiveness comes through his son Jesus.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
-
darrelljon
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sun 08 Apr 2007, 11:10
- Contact:
I made no such claim. The KJV omits ALL of the Gnostics. Praise God!kirk's right, KJV omits most of the Gnostics.
The so call gnostic writings are largely 2nd century writings and have never been accepted as scripture. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and other 1st/2nd century writers mention the accepted New Testament writings. By the middle of the 2nd century the New Testament was already established, the same time the so called gnostic gospels where being composed.
Let me be clear, the apocrypha books I mentioned are 14 books
who's authority is not clear and are usually not included in any modern translation. They would not be considered gnostic writings. The Gnostics where one of Satin's many attacks on the Church.
I try not to get too involved in KJV only arguments, as they are entirely pointless. However, I am speaking as a seminary student and I must say that there are several flaws with the KJV only argument. One of the less obvious flaws is that of not accounting for more recent discovery of ancient manuscripts. The most current KJV rejects the Isaiah scroll (which is the currenly oldest known copy of Isaiah in existance and may even be the very scroll of Isaiah that Jesus is recorded to have read from in the Gospels, speculative as that may be) that was found in Quoram. This scroll, however, is the primary text used for the ESV, NIV, and NASB. It was also consulted for the Confraternity, RSV, and Jerusalem bibles.
In terms of textual critique, there are still many grammatilogical problems. Let me give just one such example:
Luke 10:13 KJV:
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre or Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
Luke 10:13 ESV:
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
These are from the most recent versions of the KJV and ESV. They are the same verse, but look carefully. The KJV text, just by its very wording implies a repentance that never took place. Please note that this is not the only error. There is also error of wine in bottles rather than wineskins, though I am aware that some publishers have actually corrected that. Also, I have three copies of the KJV and all three have copyrights on them, one from 1911. So, in terms of the copyright argument. I don't think so. I only know of one Bible that is not copyrighted, the World English Bible (though I am not particularly thrilled with how some parts of it are translated at times).
I would agree, if you really want to understand the Bible, it would be worth the endevour to learn Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. One thing you will find is that sometimes things don't translate over very well from one of these languages to our modern languages. There are tenses and prepositions in Greek that simply do not occur in English or Latin. Hence, I must confess that I feel that no English Bible is or ever will be accurate. I do believe that the original manuscripts were accurate, but we don't have those. What we do have are copies of copies of the originals, which may or may contain scribal errors. Yet, when carefully studied, we can be assured that our modern Bibles are relatively accurate insofar as the message being trasmitted is concerned.
Again, I feel such discussions as this are relatively pointless and I do not approve of people making claims that our salvation is based upon which translation we use, as has been the case in similiar threads (first few pages of ChurchPuP). Our salvation is and should rightly be solely based upon the work of Christ Jesus upon the Cross. I have yet to find a Bible that says anything to the contrary.
It is my sincere hope that this thread is not continued much further. I often find that the laity, myself including, lack the full understanding of what is entailed in the translation of scripture from the original languages to our current languages, and I will argue that the KJV is not in the current language of the people.
In terms of textual critique, there are still many grammatilogical problems. Let me give just one such example:
Luke 10:13 KJV:
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre or Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
Luke 10:13 ESV:
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
These are from the most recent versions of the KJV and ESV. They are the same verse, but look carefully. The KJV text, just by its very wording implies a repentance that never took place. Please note that this is not the only error. There is also error of wine in bottles rather than wineskins, though I am aware that some publishers have actually corrected that. Also, I have three copies of the KJV and all three have copyrights on them, one from 1911. So, in terms of the copyright argument. I don't think so. I only know of one Bible that is not copyrighted, the World English Bible (though I am not particularly thrilled with how some parts of it are translated at times).
I would agree, if you really want to understand the Bible, it would be worth the endevour to learn Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. One thing you will find is that sometimes things don't translate over very well from one of these languages to our modern languages. There are tenses and prepositions in Greek that simply do not occur in English or Latin. Hence, I must confess that I feel that no English Bible is or ever will be accurate. I do believe that the original manuscripts were accurate, but we don't have those. What we do have are copies of copies of the originals, which may or may contain scribal errors. Yet, when carefully studied, we can be assured that our modern Bibles are relatively accurate insofar as the message being trasmitted is concerned.
Again, I feel such discussions as this are relatively pointless and I do not approve of people making claims that our salvation is based upon which translation we use, as has been the case in similiar threads (first few pages of ChurchPuP). Our salvation is and should rightly be solely based upon the work of Christ Jesus upon the Cross. I have yet to find a Bible that says anything to the contrary.
It is my sincere hope that this thread is not continued much further. I often find that the laity, myself including, lack the full understanding of what is entailed in the translation of scripture from the original languages to our current languages, and I will argue that the KJV is not in the current language of the people.
The only windows I have are those on my home.
-
darrelljon
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sun 08 Apr 2007, 11:10
- Contact:
So what? The Bible has no less authority than the Gnostics apart from being selectively chosen by mortal fallible men and being older than the Gnostics. If the authenticity of religious texts is based on age, then note that many predate the Bible (such as the Rigveda of Hinduism).kirk wrote:I made no such claim. The KJV omits ALL of the Gnostics. Praise God!kirk's right, KJV omits most of the Gnostics.
The so call gnostic writings are largely 2nd century writings and have never been accepted as scripture. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and other 1st/2nd century writers mention the accepted New Testament writings. By the middle of the 2nd century the New Testament was already established, the same time the so called gnostic gospels where being composed.
Let me be clear, the apocrypha books I mentioned are 14 books
who's authority is not clear and are usually not included in any modern translation. They would not be considered gnostic writings. The Gnostics where one of Satin's many attacks on the Church.
[quote="darrelljon"]If the authenticity of religious texts is based on age, then note that many predate the Bible (such as the Rigveda of Hinduism).[/quote]
Yes and no. When it comes to the Bible, textual authenticity based upon age must be established on a book by book basis. Likewise, insofar as age of the particular Bible/text with regards to the English language is concerned, neither the KJV nor the Geneva is the oldest of English language Bibles available. The Tynsdale and the Wycliffe are considerably older than than the Geneva, and then there is the proto-germanic Gothic/Wuliffa Bible of 450AD. I dare not make an argument one way or the other regarding those as being more authentic simply because of age. I honestly think that what should be the litmus test for the authenticity of the Bible is that of its primary, central message. Any Bible that presents the simply truth of humanity's utter depravity and need of God's grace through Christ's sacrifice on the cross of Calvary is a good Bible for personal edification. I do use the KJV for personal reading as I like its poetic styling. However, I would not think to use it for serious acedemic work. For such tasks, I usually use the ESV and NIV as my primary resources. I will only consult the KJV when I have need for a variant text, and even then I find I must frequently include a modern translation of the same verse for the sake of accounting for grammatilogical errors or to correct otherwise poorly understood theological concepts.
Note: I am not opposed to the KJV for personal use, but I am opposed to forcing somebody to use a text that they can not plainly understand.
Yes and no. When it comes to the Bible, textual authenticity based upon age must be established on a book by book basis. Likewise, insofar as age of the particular Bible/text with regards to the English language is concerned, neither the KJV nor the Geneva is the oldest of English language Bibles available. The Tynsdale and the Wycliffe are considerably older than than the Geneva, and then there is the proto-germanic Gothic/Wuliffa Bible of 450AD. I dare not make an argument one way or the other regarding those as being more authentic simply because of age. I honestly think that what should be the litmus test for the authenticity of the Bible is that of its primary, central message. Any Bible that presents the simply truth of humanity's utter depravity and need of God's grace through Christ's sacrifice on the cross of Calvary is a good Bible for personal edification. I do use the KJV for personal reading as I like its poetic styling. However, I would not think to use it for serious acedemic work. For such tasks, I usually use the ESV and NIV as my primary resources. I will only consult the KJV when I have need for a variant text, and even then I find I must frequently include a modern translation of the same verse for the sake of accounting for grammatilogical errors or to correct otherwise poorly understood theological concepts.
Note: I am not opposed to the KJV for personal use, but I am opposed to forcing somebody to use a text that they can not plainly understand.
The only windows I have are those on my home.