Food for discussion:

Verses found in the KJV which do not appear in the NIV (nor in other contemporary translations)

The words are in the footnotes, with the note that they occur in later manuscripts. They are entirely absent from the early Greek manuscripts and papyri. So why are these words found in the KJV?

The talented KJV translators worked from 1604 to 1611 and they did a fine job with the very limited resources available to them back then. They had basically twelve ancient manuscripts which the subcommittees shared. Since that time, however, many hundreds of additional manuscripts have been found, and many of them are far older than those available to the KJV team. And of course, more ancient means closer to the originals, closer to the first inspired manuscripts which came from the mind of God to the original authors. Therefore they are also more trustworthy and reliable.

The important fact here is that in these far older manuscripts some of the words and phrases found in later manuscripts are absent. Clearly they were added somewhere along the way. How did this happen?

During the terrible persecution of the Christians under Nero, Decius, and Diocletian, all copies of the Scriptures were ordered to be destroyed. Of course, some did survive and then when Emperor Constantine became a Christian in 312, he ordered that hundreds of copies of the Scriptures should be made. And pious scribes and copyists set to work with great fervor. Occasionally they would add a word or phrase in the margin, and then the next copyist would come along and suppose that these words belonged in the text, and he would insert them. So the later manuscripts got to be a bit longer and contain material not found in the earliest and best manuscripts. And that’s why translators today take those words and phrases out of the text, because they are not found in the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts and codices.

In conclusion, you may be sure that in the NIV you will find all of the inspired text but not the words added by men, however much we might like to have those additional words. Translators must give us the very best and genuine text without any human additions. (...)

Found [url=http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/niv-kjv-verses.php]here [/url]

_________________
Diane

rbanks wrote:

_________________
Christiaan

Diane, your reasoning is faulty. Oldest does not automatically mean best. This is the same false reasoning that the contemporary scholars use in defending the Alexandrian text. The Byzantine and Alexandrian lines departed very early and have separate transmission histories. The Alexandrian family has much less of a "succession line" than the Byzantine family does, and is much more of an eclectic gathering. Which is part of the argument as to why the Byzantine textform has been chosen by many scholars as more reliable.

_________________
Denver McDaniel

Hi walter...

I returned from a trip and just noticed this thread. I don't want to rehash this as a deep seeded argument...but I just wanted to address a couple of things.

First of all, I feel that your questions here are almost pointless. The bulk of the differences between the KJV and the NIV are based upon two things: The sources and the translation method. I agree that the NIV is [u]not[/u] a word-for-word translation of the sources that the translating committee used. However, neither is the KJV! As much as some people want to argue that it is "much more literal," that is just another way of saying that it isn't entirely literal (or word-for-word). When our sister claimed that the important doctrines of the Church are contained within the NIV – let me assure you that they are! The virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the evils of sin, etc… -- they are all there! In fact, any major variation or possible alternate translations of a word, phrase or passage is found in the footnotes (something that the translators did with the KJV, but was forbidden or publication).

I don’t want spend time going over each of your questions (or are they accusations?) with a fine-tooth comb simply to find that my time was wasted because you ignored my answers or had prepared rebuttals that effectively ignored any admission that these important doctrines are found in the NIV. I do apologize if this is not your intent – and if you are honestly inquisitive about finding out whether such doctrines are located in the NIV. However, the past has revealed many [i]KJV-only[/i] advocates who asked questions but ignored the answers. Besides, if you want to find those things, just use an online Bible resource like [url=http://www.biblegateway.com]Bible Gateway[/url]. You can use the search feature to examine any passages or words BEFORE making blanket accusations that do not hold merit.

As for sources: While you claimed otherwise, I am not biased for either set of sources. However, I do understand the arguments for both sets of sources. I understand the arguments presented by the [i]pro-Textus Receptus[/i] advocates (not to be confused with the wild claims of the more staunch [i]KJV-only[/i] advocates). However, I also understand the position of the majority of scholars today who prefer a wider view of all scholarly available ancient text sources. Through my own research, I have not been able to arrive to a final conclusion as to the ultimate superiority of one source over the other.

I don't apologize at all for this opinion. However, I would urge anyone who truly researches this issue to not limit their research to sources that advocate a single side of the argument. If you want to know WHY the translators of the NIV used their sources and methods – contact them! Contact the majority of text and translation scholars and find out why they prefer the sources/methods used for an academic version like the NIV. Research the KJV and its sources (like the Textus Receptus) in its unbiased entirety. Read the preface to each translation and hear what the translators themselves said about their work. Research the life of Desiderius Erasmus (the Dutch Catholic humanist who was only guy who translated the Textus Receptus). If you feel the need to examine the rumors regarding the lives of the NIV committee, then perform similar research on the translators of the KJV and some of their pro-Catholic, “High Church” theological views.

As for translation methods: As a person who is moderately bilingual (and somewhat familiar with the Greek), I understand how some things can be lost in a literal word-for-word translation method. I also realize that there are often more possible phrases into which a foreign phrase can be translated. The greatest and most apparent example of a non-literal translation of the KJV goes with the manner in which they translated the “divine Name” (YHWH) into both “LORD” and “Lord GOD” throughout the Old Testament or through the use of traditional terms accepted by the Church of England (such as “Bishop” and “Church”). However, this has been discussed extensively in the past. There are quite a few variables that go into proper translation. Ironically, there was much trepidation and bias against the KJV when it was first translated because people did not believe that it was “literal” enough. Again, I would urge you to contact the translators of the NIV and ask them just why they used the translation methods that they did. However, don’t go to them in a confrontational manner – because they would probably ignore you or assume that you are yet another [i]KJV-only[/i] zealot.

Walter, in your last post, you claim that I hold a "pre-existing bias" for the minority text -- which is simply untrue and a lie. If you would have read my posts for what was written, you would understand that I am not biased EITHER WAY. Rather, I just don’t see any evidence that would cause me to jump onto a final, ultimate stand for the supremacy of either set of source texts. However, I would urge you to more closely examine just which sources were used for the KJV. They didn’t simply use Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. They used an eclectic set of sources – including many existing English bibles (and even some contemporary French, Spanish, German translations). The translation of the KJV was not an open work: The translators had predetermined instructions for translation that came from the Church of England and its King and Vicar.

Like I have said often in the past, I don’t believe that this is really a question of the supremacy of the KJV over the NIV (or vice versa). I completely discount the theory that the KJV is the only “perfect and preserved” Word of God. It had many (mostly superficial) mistakes that were corrected over 140 years. However, there are still mistakes within it today. However, I feel that it is a faithful rendering from its [u]sources[/u]. A much more healthy debate, in my opinion, is one that discusses the sources and translation methods for which a work is taken. In my experience, I have found that a great many people who argue in favor of the “majority” texts over the “minority” texts (or on occasion, [i]vice versa[/i]) have little understanding of the issues outside of the books and sermons that preach the view for which they adhere. I have spoken with people who assume that the KJV was taken from a single source called the “majority text.” That is incorrect. Like the translators of the NIV, the translators of the KJV used an eclectic set of texts (one of which was Erasmus’ Textus Receptus for the New Testament) by which they examined and derived their translation.

Yet I am amazed that the bulk of discussions regarding the KJV and all of the supposedly “flawed” versions seldom mention the roots of the issue. The roots, in my estimation, are both the [u]sources[/u] and [u]methods[/u] used for translation. While these are usually discussed in these sort of threads, it is usually as support for another argument (such as “[i]the KJV is superior[/i]” or “[i]all modern versions are inferior[/i]”). It would be healthy, I think, if we could have a real discussion that truly examines the roots of this issue – rather than continued debates over just how “perfect” the KJV might be. I have not arrived to a final conclusion on the matter of textual or methodic supremacy. Why? It is because I have researched both sides of this issue extensively that I cannot arrive to an ultimate conclusion. I understand both (and multiple) sides to this debate. However, I am far too fearful of pointing the finger of heresy at a single academic translation or set of sources – when, in fact, I might be wrong. Therefore, I choose to read these versions (the KJV and the NIV) knowing very well the manner, methods and sources by which they were created. I also read them with the understanding that they were produced by flawed men who admitted that their creation was not beyond flaw.

Walter, I asked you a long time ago a question regarding whether or not you believed that the KJV was the “perfect and preserved” Word of God. You never answered the question. However, I urge you to move beyond a question of “end product” perfection or supremacy and consider the issues that made up that version. Consider carefully and honestly the opposing views of the scholars and translators without viewing it as some sort of diabolic conspiracy (as some have insisted). Contact the translators of the NIV. Contact experts in the field of textual criticism and translation methods. Try to understand their perspective BEFORE accepting the conclusion that you might have been handed from a sermon or book. I did this a long time ago – gathering such information from both sides of the aisle. I presented some of this information to these men and asked for their responses. I researched the history of the versions, the sources and the men who were involved. Nothing was off limits to my investigation.

In the end, I did not arrive to an “easy” conclusion. I haven’t seen anything that makes me see one set of sources or translation methods as ultimately superior to the other. This may sound like the “easy way out” of such a discussion. However, I think that I have caught quite a bit of admonition from those on either side – since I have not cast my lot with either. In fact, my position is more of a “neutral” one than it may seem at times. However, I enter these discussions when I find people on either side throwing allegations that I find to be either over simplistic opinions or based upon rumor. This makes me appear to be a defender of “modern” translations like the NIV. In reality, I was only trying to defend fact from allegation. It is possible to reason together concerning these issues, but only if we are able to lay down our preconceived prejudices that may or may not have been placed there by men.

:-(

_________________
Christopher

REALLY!

Roadsign

Regurgitating false information put forward by others trying to discredit the KJV does not help this discussion.


Blessings Greg
:-(

_________________
Greg

Hi Smokey...

What part of roadsign's post consisted of "false information?" Do you have any proof that it is false? How is her "cut and paste" of this article any different than the many anti-any-other-version articles provided by KJV-only advocates?

Her reference link is from the International Bible Society, which provides "credible" information on their website too. I don't think that it "discredits" the KJV, but reveals some information that we can consider. Of course, with all of that information (like all of the gossip, rumor and allegations continually "cut and paste" [often without references] by KJV-only people directed toward ANY other version), we should read it in the knowledge that it is written by opinionated and flawed men.

I have read quite a bit of information about the KJV that is worth considering or contemplating. I don't post it in many of these threads, because a defense of a modern, academic version like the NIV is not supposed to be an attack on the KJV (like is often typical regarding the other way around). I still read the KJV and regard it as my primary text for studying God's Word. However, I know the history of the translation. Much of this is recorded by its translators. That information is not meant to "attack" the work, but it does raise a few interesting points. In fact, some of the same criticism used to attack modern academic translations can be redirected at the KJV (if someone wanted to). This doesn't lessen the work of the translators, but it demonstrates the nearsighted reasoning of some ardent KJV-only advocates.

For instance, I made a list some time back that raised a few questions about the KJV. I didn't verify all of these issues, but most of them have checked out. Here it is:

_________________
Christopher

ccchhhrrriiisss

As usual you choose to bring forth “evidence” for your stand that make outlandish claims against the KJV from obscure, questionable sources that can not be checked. I have tried to steer clear of these discussions, however due to the ongoing assault on this translation, I have to challenge some of your statements. You have listed several statements in your post, and have not revealed your source in any of them. In the following statement that you have posted, please document at least 10 of these differences.

“Between the original 1611 edition of the King James Version and the 1769 standard Oxford edition, there were differences in text present in over 24,000 places“.

Blessings Greg

_________________
Greg

Hi Smokey...

_________________
Christopher

When we open our Bibles today, we are opening up one of the two” types” of Bibles. Eventhough today we have [b]many[/b] Bibles to choose from, we still only have [b]two “types” of Bibles[/b]. One of the Bibles has been passed down from the Christian Church, from the very beginning, and is the Protestant Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, the [b]King James Bible.[/b]

The other Bible that could be in our hands today has been passed down from Gnostic’s who revised God’s Word to conform to their own beliefs- it is the[b] Catholic Bible[/b] The Catholic Bible , has relied on the minority text, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

In 1881 the Westcott & Hort used the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce their new Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament is not the same as the one used for the King James Bible during the Reformation. All of the newer Bible Versions since 1881 have relied on the Greek New Testament created by Westcott & Hort, relying on the faulty Vaticanius and Sinaiticus text.

So, to clarify the issue, today, if you study the NIV, NASB, American Standard, or any of the other “newer” versions, you are actually studying the Catholic Bible.

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6,7

The following can be found at: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjv_controversy.htm

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE BIBLE ISSUE:
I. A Biblical Starting Point.
"So then faith cometh by hearings and hearing by the word of God." —Rom. 10:17

A. The Starting point for this issue must be Scripture! "...let God be true, but every man a liar;" —Rom. 3:4

1. God's word is infallible, without error (John 17:17; Acts l:3). In His infallible word, God promises to keep His words (note: W-0-R-D-S, not messages).

Not one word was to be in error.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:6-7

For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." —Matt. 5:18

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." —Matt. 24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." —I Peter 1:23

2. Man was not to add to or take from God's word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

3. Therefore, the keeping of God's word is God's job, not fallible man's.
"...Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:7

4. This was the view of the translators of the King James Bible (KJB).
Note how they concluded their preface to the A.V. 1611:
"...we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, that we may love it to the end." (See enclosed information, "Appendix 2")

If you start with Scripture, your finishing point is confidence in God's word.
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." —I Thess. 2:13

B. [b]The starting point of modern translations.
1. First the student must study Hebrew and Greek.
2. Second he must learn the major points of textual criticism.
3. Then he makes a translation of the Bible, presents it to a translational board for review and revision by scholars.
4. The outcome is a reliable translation, but not one free of error. Note how the preface to the New International Version (NIV) reads:
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals."[/b]
5. This view is also seen in the statement of Dr. William Shedd:
"Why did not God Inspire the copyists as well as the original authors? Why did He begin with ABSOLUTE inerrancy and end with RELATIVE inerrancy?"
Psalm 118:8— "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

[b]II. The Question of Final Authority. [/b]
A. If you have two authorities and they differ, you need a third authority to tell you which one is correct. (Such as in the courtroom). The same is true of translations. If the KJB says one thing and the NASV (New American Standard Version) says something else, you need a third authority to tell you which one is right (such as a pastor, teacher, scholar, etc.). When you do, then they become your final authority, not the Bible (Psalm 118:8).

B. To say there is no difference between modern translations and the KJB is not correct. The modern translations are based on Roman Catholic manuscripts and differ from the Greek text of the KJB 5,788 times! Translations such as the NASV differ from the KJB 36,000 times in the N.T. alone! (See enclosed information, "A Brief History of Modern Translations:" and "A Brief Comparison of Bible Translations.")

C. Modern translations have no real authority other than the view of some scholars. Scholarship is not a deciding factor in relation to the preservation of God's word. Our Lord does not say kind things concerning scholars. Note what Malachi 2:12 says, "The Lord will cut off the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts."

D.[b] We should take heed In how we judge God's word, for one day God's word will judge us.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." —Heb. 4:12-13 [/b]

Part one of 6 parts