The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'd like to quote a scholar I know of and what he had to say about the NIV version of the Bible.. It is a product of Westcott and Hort having many verses removed based upon their Escatology ideology.
Any way back to the words of the scholar when asked how he felt about the NIV version..... He said and I will paraphrase as this was sometime ago. 'It is not what my opinion of the NIV is but rather, Do the Readers of the NIV version Really CARE?'
The 'THEEs and THOUs in the KJV version have a reason for being there.....Also the KJV has no missing verses like the NIV. By the way those missing verses can be proven to be God's Words but yet Westcott and HORT chose to keep them out..
You seem to be missing the point. When a verse in in the Bible without any question, then it is an integral part of Scripture. However, when it is placed in the footnotes with various comments, the translators are actually CASTING DOUBT ON ITS LEGITIMACY. And that is a very serious matter.
Those are not "fabricated" errors of omission. If the Received Text for either Hebrew or Greek has certain verses, and the NIV omits them, it is the NIV that is corrupting the Word. FYI the NIV is probably one of the worst English translations around.
Those are not "fabricated" errors of omission. If the Received Text for either Hebrew or Greek has certain verses, and the NIV omits them, it is the NIV that is corrupting the Word. FYI the NIV is probably one of the worst English translations around.
Last edited:
You come at this point having apparently made the a priori assumption that the verse (whatever verse it may be) is Scripture... "without any question". The reality is that there is a question! There is nothing wrong with identifying as questionable something the translators find questionable! Your argument is just another nuance on "the KJV is the standard of completeness and accuracy" and it is invalid for the same reason.
The NIV doesn't state that God authored confusion at pentecost, and I cannot explain why it doesn't, other than I don't think God did. I couldn't find a version that does state this, including the kjv. That leads me to continue to believe that God DIDN'T author confusion there. People were "confounded (most popular adjective), amazed, bewildered, yes confused, surprised, agitated, startled" but nowhere does any version say God was the "author" of the confusion, but that confusion was their reaction to what God had done regarding the many languages.
Yes, they are fabricated if the verse is not omitted, but listed in the notes because of questions for whatever reason. The kjv has footnotes too.
Yes, and notated and study bibles are not for everyone, but for folks who want a deeper level of understanding. It helps me to understand what my brothers and sisters see that I maybe missed. (I favor my NIV and KJV study bibles as a pair, and I feel naked without both, but I utilize other versions as well.)
Yes, and notated and study bibles are not for everyone, but for folks who want a deeper level of understanding. It helps me to understand what my brothers and sisters see that I maybe missed. (I favor my NIV and KJV study bibles as a pair, and I feel naked without both, but I utilize other versions as well.)
Only if you want to believe the nonsense that has promoted the NIV. So spend some time in a sober and objective assessent of this paraphrase which uses dynamic equivalence rather than translate word-for -word.
Why did the NIV turn out so badly?
1. We are convinced that the number one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they used the wrong Greek text. From the "Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek text used in the work of translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so much manuscript support as does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make their choice of reading in accord with sound principles of textual criticism." Their "sound principles of textual criticism" should be labeled "unsound principles of textual criticism." We can thank the "unsound textual critics" for the many terrible versions in circulation today. It is clear that the translators have slavishly followed the Wescott and Hort text and textual theories. In spite of all their claims, this theory elevates the Vatican and Sinatic manuscripts above all others. When in fact these two manuscripts are among the most corrupt manuscripts in existence today. They did not rely on the Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from, even though 90 to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in essential agreement with this text.
To prove the above statement we have checked on 151 key corruptions found in the Westcott-Hort text and we have found that NIV either in the text or in the footnotes have agreed 138 times or over 91% of the time. Out of 162 scriptures often corrupted by the new versions we find Westcott-Hort in agreement 93% of the time, and NIV in agreement 92% of the time. On the same basis the New English Version rates 92% and the Revised Standard Version 97%. Some highly recommend the New American Standard Version, but it also rates over 90% in agreement with these corrupt versions. The King James Version and the Textus Receptus rate 0%. The lower the percentage the better.
We do not doubt that some of the translators labored hard and long to produce a good version but they could not do it. Why? They followed modern textual criticism, and we are convinced that even the most fundamental scholars cannot come up with a good version of the Bible if they follow the modern textual theories. The best carpenter will fail if his lumber is rotten and decayed. Skill in any trade will go just so far, but if the craftsman is deceived into working with inferior material he will fail in the end. No where is this more evident than in Bible translation.
2. The second reason for NIV's poor quality may be found in the translators themselves. The Preface to NIV says, "Certain convictions and aims have guided the translators. They are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures, which they believe to be God's Word in written form." There is at least two things wrong with this statement. (1) While it sounds good on the surface, it is entirely too ambiguous to suit us. It is open to a number of interpretations, and this we believe they had to make it that way, in order to make up their 100 member committee. How much simpler to have said that all the translators believed in verbal (word for word) inspiration.
I am sure that part of the committee does believe in verbal inspiration but until they say so in writing, we are going to doubt that they all do. (2) Frankly we are not impressed with the long list of names and the schools that they are associated with. It is very evident that the "New Evangelical" schools are heavily represented on the translation committee. Among others, we find that this committee contains 6 men from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and several from Fuller Wheaton, Dallas, and even Oral Roberts University. Why does Oral Roberts University need to be represented? How sad to see Clyde T. Francisco of Southern Baptist Theological Seminar represented. In the early 60's Dr. Ralph Elliott stirred a furor in the Southern Baptist Convention with his book, "The Message of Genesis."
Dr. Elliott's book denied the historical accuracy of the first 12 chapters of Genesis. Adam meant mankind and Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the tower of Babel is a parable, Enoch was not translated, and the age of men before the flood is doubtful, these as well as other heresies are contained in Elliott's book. And where did Elliott get his ideas? In his introduction he said, "Though the material in this book is mine and I do not wish anyone else to be charged with its deficiencies, I do wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Clyde T. Francisco, my teacher and later a colleague on the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. It was in an elective course in the Pentateuch under his guidance that I first gained inspiration and purpose to attempt a serious study of the Book of Genesis.
Thus, I am sure that many of the insights which culminated in my own mind were placed there in seed-bed fashion by him." To this date we have never heard of Dr. Francisco denying this. Even the Revised Standard Version sponsors chose a better man from among Southern Baptist, when they chose Kyle M. Yates for the translation committee of the RSV. (3) The translators that even believe in verbal inspiration must not believe in the Divine preservation of the word of God, since they are searching for it among the manuscripts. What a mess! Surely God is not the author of such confusion.
3. We question this version on the basis of some of its enthusiastic supporters. Dr. Billy Graham wrote, "The New York Bible Society is rendering a distinct service to the English-speaking world by sponsoring a major new translation of the Bible by the leading evangelical scholars of America." That sounds good, but Billy Graham has endorsed the Revised Standard Version, Good News For Modern Man, and the Living Bible. So his endorsement is not reassuring. The National Association of Evangelicals has been in sympathy with the production of NIV, and many of the translators are members of this group. The NAE is shot through and through with new evangelicalism.
One church leader quoted in a NIV promotional brochure said, "I have read the New International Version and found that it preserves the dignity of the K.J.V. and the accuracy of the R.S.V. and the New American Standard Bible along with the free-flowing readability of the Living Bible." We believe he put NIV in the right class. Need we say more?
If your are interested in more information on the modern versions, we recommend the following books: "Which Bible?" by Dr. David Otis Fuller, "True of False?" by Dr. David Otis Fuller, "God Wrote Only One Bible" by J. J. Ray, "The King James Version Defended!" by Dr. Edward F. Hills.
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/should_we_trust.htm
Why did the NIV turn out so badly?
1. We are convinced that the number one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they used the wrong Greek text. From the "Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek text used in the work of translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so much manuscript support as does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make their choice of reading in accord with sound principles of textual criticism." Their "sound principles of textual criticism" should be labeled "unsound principles of textual criticism." We can thank the "unsound textual critics" for the many terrible versions in circulation today. It is clear that the translators have slavishly followed the Wescott and Hort text and textual theories. In spite of all their claims, this theory elevates the Vatican and Sinatic manuscripts above all others. When in fact these two manuscripts are among the most corrupt manuscripts in existence today. They did not rely on the Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from, even though 90 to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in essential agreement with this text.
To prove the above statement we have checked on 151 key corruptions found in the Westcott-Hort text and we have found that NIV either in the text or in the footnotes have agreed 138 times or over 91% of the time. Out of 162 scriptures often corrupted by the new versions we find Westcott-Hort in agreement 93% of the time, and NIV in agreement 92% of the time. On the same basis the New English Version rates 92% and the Revised Standard Version 97%. Some highly recommend the New American Standard Version, but it also rates over 90% in agreement with these corrupt versions. The King James Version and the Textus Receptus rate 0%. The lower the percentage the better.
We do not doubt that some of the translators labored hard and long to produce a good version but they could not do it. Why? They followed modern textual criticism, and we are convinced that even the most fundamental scholars cannot come up with a good version of the Bible if they follow the modern textual theories. The best carpenter will fail if his lumber is rotten and decayed. Skill in any trade will go just so far, but if the craftsman is deceived into working with inferior material he will fail in the end. No where is this more evident than in Bible translation.
2. The second reason for NIV's poor quality may be found in the translators themselves. The Preface to NIV says, "Certain convictions and aims have guided the translators. They are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures, which they believe to be God's Word in written form." There is at least two things wrong with this statement. (1) While it sounds good on the surface, it is entirely too ambiguous to suit us. It is open to a number of interpretations, and this we believe they had to make it that way, in order to make up their 100 member committee. How much simpler to have said that all the translators believed in verbal (word for word) inspiration.
I am sure that part of the committee does believe in verbal inspiration but until they say so in writing, we are going to doubt that they all do. (2) Frankly we are not impressed with the long list of names and the schools that they are associated with. It is very evident that the "New Evangelical" schools are heavily represented on the translation committee. Among others, we find that this committee contains 6 men from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and several from Fuller Wheaton, Dallas, and even Oral Roberts University. Why does Oral Roberts University need to be represented? How sad to see Clyde T. Francisco of Southern Baptist Theological Seminar represented. In the early 60's Dr. Ralph Elliott stirred a furor in the Southern Baptist Convention with his book, "The Message of Genesis."
Dr. Elliott's book denied the historical accuracy of the first 12 chapters of Genesis. Adam meant mankind and Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the tower of Babel is a parable, Enoch was not translated, and the age of men before the flood is doubtful, these as well as other heresies are contained in Elliott's book. And where did Elliott get his ideas? In his introduction he said, "Though the material in this book is mine and I do not wish anyone else to be charged with its deficiencies, I do wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Clyde T. Francisco, my teacher and later a colleague on the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. It was in an elective course in the Pentateuch under his guidance that I first gained inspiration and purpose to attempt a serious study of the Book of Genesis.
Thus, I am sure that many of the insights which culminated in my own mind were placed there in seed-bed fashion by him." To this date we have never heard of Dr. Francisco denying this. Even the Revised Standard Version sponsors chose a better man from among Southern Baptist, when they chose Kyle M. Yates for the translation committee of the RSV. (3) The translators that even believe in verbal inspiration must not believe in the Divine preservation of the word of God, since they are searching for it among the manuscripts. What a mess! Surely God is not the author of such confusion.
3. We question this version on the basis of some of its enthusiastic supporters. Dr. Billy Graham wrote, "The New York Bible Society is rendering a distinct service to the English-speaking world by sponsoring a major new translation of the Bible by the leading evangelical scholars of America." That sounds good, but Billy Graham has endorsed the Revised Standard Version, Good News For Modern Man, and the Living Bible. So his endorsement is not reassuring. The National Association of Evangelicals has been in sympathy with the production of NIV, and many of the translators are members of this group. The NAE is shot through and through with new evangelicalism.
One church leader quoted in a NIV promotional brochure said, "I have read the New International Version and found that it preserves the dignity of the K.J.V. and the accuracy of the R.S.V. and the New American Standard Bible along with the free-flowing readability of the Living Bible." We believe he put NIV in the right class. Need we say more?
If your are interested in more information on the modern versions, we recommend the following books: "Which Bible?" by Dr. David Otis Fuller, "True of False?" by Dr. David Otis Fuller, "God Wrote Only One Bible" by J. J. Ray, "The King James Version Defended!" by Dr. Edward F. Hills.
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/should_we_trust.htm
Last edited:
Please, realize that I am not native English speaker. I use neither NIV nor KJV. Except of English discussions on internet.
So I really do not believe something just because it is somehow related to NIV. I think that NIV is bettern than the KJV, because of many reasons, but I do not use it as "my" bible.
So I really do not believe something just because it is somehow related to NIV. I think that NIV is bettern than the KJV, because of many reasons, but I do not use it as "my" bible.
For someone who only joined CC last month you claim to know a lot about me. The definition of obfuscation is to make something unclear and unintelligible. There is nothing unclear or unintelligible about my last posting or the other 3000 plus postings I have made since joining. I am asking a straightforward question in modern English. As for my memory well this thread has over 100 pages do you really think I have the time to wade through every post? Instead of making assumptions about me how about giving a civil answer as to your position and explain how come the perfect KJV keeps being reprinted in different versions and can include controversial books between its covers.