The issue isnt about which "translation" (or in some cases which paraphrase) we like... it is all about the manuscripts that the translation is based on. The KJV is based on a completely different school of manuscripts than the modern versions (NIV, NASB, NLT, etc). The KJV and the modern versions are NOT translations of the same texts... therefore there is a stark difference between them.

Most people dont know there is a differnce. And thats sad... there is a tremendous amount of deception surrounding this topic.

Krispy

_________________
Ron Bailey

Wow, Ron! Thanks! You are extremely helpful with this sort of thing, I must say.

I didn't know that The Message IS a translation from the Greek (albeit a freer one). Let me clarify that reading The Message is an interesting experience and can be helpful in ways that other translations are not. I guess my problem with it is when pastors PREACH from it. I think it can be confusing to believers looking up things in their Bibles that are worded so differently (even if the overriding thought is the same) from what is on the page of the good old NIV in front of them. Also, for regular study, it is probably better to have a bit more of a literal translation.

Your comments on the KJV are also interesting. It just goes to show that no translation is perfect. I tend to like the KJV when reading the Psalms and Prophets--the poetic translation is really unbeatable--but for the rest, I prefer the NIV. What manuscripts is the NIV based on? It seems to be several different ones, since occasionally the footnotes will note when something is slightly different "in older manuscripts".

Phebe

_________________
Phebe

_________________
Ron Bailey

Okay, this is seriously about to go over my head, so let me just get a couple of things straight before it does. :)

So, Ron, the NIV is from the Western Texts, I assume? And these are manuscripts that were found much later? Hence the footnotes in the NIV about "older manuscripts"? The Byzantine ones are the ones that were copied and handed down, right?

Now, from my own small knowledge of this subject, it is not a point of contention, but a point to prove the trustworthiness of the Bible. We've all heard people say, "The Bible has been handed down for so many generations that it cannot possibly be anywhere close to what the original said." I thought that the more recent discovery of various Bible texts proved the authenticity of the Bible because they were practically the same as the ones we had had for several hundred years. Yes, there were very minor differences (those "older manuscript" footnotes appear very seldom in the NIV), but it was essentially the same. I think that God used the more recent discoveries to prove Himself rather than as heresy.

On a more practical note, I don't see where it makes much difference. I admittedly know no Greek at all, but I have many scriptures memorized in NIV and in KJV that I can think of right now, and they are essentially the same. In fact, I have trouble not mixing the two, as they are so similiar. Are we splitting hairs here?

In my opinion, the main difference to the common reader of the NIV would be the footnotes noting differences or possible other interpretations of certain words. I think this adds to the translation rather than taking from it. Historically speaking, an older piece of writing (more close to the actual event) is usually considered more reliable, so at least a nod in the older manuscripts direction is warranted. Besides, I always took it as the translators were laying it all out in the open and saying that they weren't sure of the exact translation of certain words, etc, when that was the case.

Is the NIV really "half a loaf"?!

_________________
Phebe

Phebe... it can be very confusing at times. Thats why I said there is much deception about the whole issue.

The Alexandrian text claims to be the oldest. We really have no proof of this, only the word of the Roman Catholic Church. We do know they came from Alexandria Egypt... which 2,000 years ago was a hotbed of heretical teaching, especially the gnostic religion.

The Received Text has it's roots with the church in Antioch, which was the church that sent Paul out on his missionary ventures. The Received Text can be traced all down thru the last 2,000 years. It was the basis for the Bibles used by the Waldenses, the Reformers, Whycliff, Tyndale... the KJV.

The Alexandrian Text is cherished by the Roman Catholic Church.

You say there is literally no difference between the NIV & the KJV... I say do a simple internet search on that topic and you will amazed at how different they are.

I highly recommend that you download (it's FREE) a message given by Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel) on this topic. Here is the link: http://www.thewordfortoday.org/kjv/html/sermons.cfm (look under "Topical Messages" and download "The Basis For Our Bible"). It is the most concise and excellent quick explanation of the issue. He doesn't go very deep into it... but deep enough to build a basic understanding of the issue.

There is truth in the NIV... but there are some serious deletions and doubts in the NIV that do drastically effect sound Biblical doctrine. Frankly it is an attack on God's Word, Christ's divinity, the plan of salvation, the existence of hell... and many others.

Hope you check into the link I posted.

Krispy

You are the first person I've seen other than myself to step up to the plate and tell it like it is about the NIV. Keep in mind that you're going to get a lot of flack over you response. Lot's of people love the NIV, error and all. :-o

I'm used to flak... I was a Marine... lol!

Seriously tho, I dont say what I say out of malice toward anyone. I used to be a hardcore NIV supporter. But one day I decided to study and find out why some people really hold to the KJV. I'd always been told "those people" just dont like change... and "what was good enough for grandpa is good enough for me".

Well, I was shocked to find out that there are extremely ligitimate reasons for why these folks hold to it. Once I understood the true issues (and yes, the "thees and thous" change the meanings of verses when changed to "you"), I realized that I had been fed a lie about the modern versions. Frankly, I was upset and angry that no one ever told me about this stuff. THen I was discouraged and concerned because I soon understood that 90% of Christians dont have a clue about any of this... they just assume the NIV and other versions are just updated English language... AND THEY ARE NOT.

So, my motivation in saying what I say is because I love truth... and I want people to know the truth.

If I take flak for it... so be it. I can face God with a clear conscience.

By the way... our salvation is NOT based on which version of the Bible we read. So before someone accuses me of saying if you read the NIV you're not saved... I have never said that, nor do I believe that.

Happy research!
Krispy

dittos, and thanks. God bless you.