1 John 5:7 (KJV)"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8)And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

1 John 5:7 (NIV)"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

I've heard a lot of debate about why one version is better than another, and sometimes I agree with it. But often times, it seems that some of the KJV preferers, in particular, speak of how NIV, and other modern translations are perverted.

Now, looking at the footnote of 1 John 5:7 in my NIV, it says, that in regards to how the KJV translates 5:7-8 is "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century".

So, has something been added to KJV? There are many differences between KJV and NIV, in particular, and NIV always has a footnote explaining how they used the earliest manuscripts, versus the Texus Receptus, which is a much newer manuscript set.

So, without just pouring out personal preference, or rumor, or opinion, does anybody know the history as to why there are so many differences, and which is really more correct?

Grace and Peace...

1 John 5:7 is probably the most debated verse in the Bible so this discussion should be interesting, anyway:

I'm certainly no authority on ancient Biblical text but what i heard about the textus vaticanus (TV) predating the textus receptus (TR) was something like this:

Imagine you've recieved a letter from someone really important and so you want other people to read it, but you want to keep your copy so you copy it out perfectly word for word because you know it's come from someone really important and you dont want to lose any of it's text in copying, so you send a copy to say 4 friends each of which have the same feelings and copy it out word for word.
Now someone else gets a copy of the letter and doesn't like some of it so changes a word here and there now this copy he copies out and sends it to his friends but his original he locks in box and keeps it safe.
Now back to you, you like your letter that you recieved so much that you read it all the time, so do your friends eventually it begins to deteriorate but people are still making acurate copies but eventually all the acturate copies will deteriorate due to much use, the guy who made the dodgy copy now long dead kept his in the box.
Some years later historians discover his dodgy copy and realise that it predates all the accurate copies of the original so the historians decide that because the dodgy one is older it must be more accurate.

do you see the point of my rather poor analogy, like i said I'm not a Biblical historian and to be honest one of the reasons i responded was to keep this thread up so someone far more knowledgable in these things can spot it (thinkin of you Philologos)

matt

_________________
matt

_________________
Mike Androne

There are (as far as I know) two different lines of texts of the New Testament, the Alexandrian and Byzantinian texts.

There are known instances where scribes of the "early" Christian church would take viewpoints of the day and inscribe them into copies in order to better explain a verse or put in what they considered a very valuable insight into God's character. Kind of like sidenotes getting inscribed in. Other than being not quite proper, the actual variations are relatively minor. Throughout the bible, there are fewer discrepencies even in these texts than the most "historically reliable" materials we have ala the Illiad.

As far as use of the NIV, etc., there are a few things to consider. The KJV attempted a literal translation into a modern tongue. The NIV is a more literal translation but was also written to "better explain" (or some might say "dumb down") and so is taken as a partial interpretation as well. This does make it less accurate. The most accurate bible according to modern scholars of language is the NASB '95 edition, which incorporates some of those same Byzantinian text bits with subnotes as well as several other identified discrepincies.

As of note, the Alexandrian texts generally hold more true to each other - there are fewer discrepincies in the texts themselves, but are generally less complete. The Byzantinian texts are quite complete (all together) and we have more of them at our disposal (by far). There are differences in verses, but the vast majority of differences are based on spelling and gramatical errors (someone puts el instead of ed for example).

Although I've been given bits and pieces in several locations, the most accessable and generally what I found to be a good reference would be A Ready Defence by Josh McDowell.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0840744196/103-3628924-0208629?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

If all of my references weren't paper copies from different seminars and classes and all stored a goodly distance away, I'd post some of them for you (and have some really spiffy numbers). I've tried to find a good online source that has these uploaded, but I haven't had much luck yet.

I really should find a graph with a lot of the translations in terms of their respect to language. The lines of "accuracy" are more a distinguishing of "literal" vs. "interpreted" and the balance your bible uses. In that respect, the KJV is more linguistically accurate than the NIV. Like the Message is a complete interpretation (and should be handled as such.) The KJV falls below the "common" translations of the NASB ('95 ed., the older is less accurate) and the ASB.

_________________
David Reynolds

I was once die hard KJV, but for readability and understanding I have diversified. Has anyone come across error in the ESV. When reading in parallel with the KJV, ASV, Amplified and others, I find it to be accurate (or at least as accurate as the others), when compared to the KJV. I for one do not do/use NIV, NLT, the Message.

Anyone familiar with [url=http://www.scripture4all.org/]Interlinear Scripure Analyzer[/url]

_________________
Mike Androne

There is definitely a problem concerning some modern translations. I myself don't like the "interpreted" versus the "translated ones". There's a chart that I've seen that talks about differing versions, and how they were translated. While some, like NAS strive to be a more word-for-word translation, NIV is a little more phrase-for-phrase, while some go so far as to change the names of people, so as not of "offend" readers, like Oxford's Inclusive Language Version, or change the text to interpret what the translator thinks the writer might have meant.

http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/index.php

But going back to the original texts, the fact that there are such differences between translations should speak volumes. If what the NIV translators wrote in their footnotes is true, then KJV should be considered a corrupted version. Likewise, if texts that are used, like the Vaticanus B are corrupt, then translation that use them should be watched a little more carefully when studying doctrine.

I guess on a personal note, I memorize scripture in KJV for two reasons. (1)Most "christian" cults use KJV, (2)The old-time language seems to perk listeners ears, sounding more authoritative.
Outside of that, I like to read NIV, but study using NAS.

Now, I don't know much about the history of translations, but hearing so much speculation and uneducated opinion thrown into the mix, I want to find some truth to stand on.

Grace and Peace...

Grace and Peace...

I have a question: If you are KJV only... what does that mean for non-english countries?

_________________
Eli Brayley

_________________
Jonathan Veldhuis

I'm a bit late to this discussion, although I suspect we have had it several times here on SI.

_________________
Ron Bailey