New International PerVersion
- Thread starter Truster
- Start date
Technically it is a dynamic translation. The meaning of a verse is translated. Dynamic translations tend to more accurately preserve meaning as word for word translations are not possible. Syntax between languages is different and concepts of words and phrases do not translate word for word.
Right Divider
Body part
No translation, including the KJV, is actually a "word for word" translation. As you said, it's not even possible to do that and make any sense.
The NIV is preconceived piece of crap.
everready
New member
I've always used the KJV its the one i started with and its the one I'll finish with. Its been under attack from day one, here's a page called the 1611 King James Bible Defended, one article tells how the modern versions pervert salvation, well, that's what its all about anyhow isn't it, our salvation.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm
everready
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm
everready
HisServant
New member
You have to be an idiot to support the KJV....especially KJV Only people.
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
Hence, i am bowing out of this thread because we are told not to argue with fools.
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
Hence, i am bowing out of this thread because we are told not to argue with fools.
Why stop with just this thread?
1 Corinthians 1:20-23 KJV - Romans 1:22 KJV - Proverbs 28:26 KJV -
Proverbs 26:3 KJV - Proverbs 26:4 KJV - Proverbs 26:5 KJV -
Proverbs 26:6 KJV - Proverbs 26:7 KJV - Proverbs 26:8 KJV -
Proverbs 26:9 KJV - Proverbs 26:10 KJV - Proverbs 26:11-12 KJV
KJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJVKJV
God's Truth
New member
It is also word for word.
If a translator does not consider what is said in the original language, then you will not know what is meant when a person speaks.
God's Truth
New member
Too bad the NIV 1984 was discontinued.
I would not buy the new NIV.
The KJV is needed for the Old Testament, when one studies intently.
However, we are blessed to have the Bible translated into our English.
The KJV is old English to us now. However, since it might be important to some who are bent on arguing about things that do not matter, I will clarify; it is not “Old English”, as in Old English with German features; and, it is not the more simplified Old English called “Middle English”, but it is called “Modern English” or more appropriately called “Early Modern English”, used from 1450 to 1650. The KJV might have been written in what is called "Early Modern English", but it is NOT our English. It is old English to us.
I would not buy the new NIV.
The KJV is needed for the Old Testament, when one studies intently.
However, we are blessed to have the Bible translated into our English.
The KJV is old English to us now. However, since it might be important to some who are bent on arguing about things that do not matter, I will clarify; it is not “Old English”, as in Old English with German features; and, it is not the more simplified Old English called “Middle English”, but it is called “Modern English” or more appropriately called “Early Modern English”, used from 1450 to 1650. The KJV might have been written in what is called "Early Modern English", but it is NOT our English. It is old English to us.
I have no love for the NIV either. It's too rambling.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I don't see anything inherently 'evil' with the translation, as any good bible student considers the best translations with supporting manuscript-evidence that is currently available...and will compare various translations accordingly.
The KJOnly view is problematic for starters, when we have better manuscript supports on the whole, although I prefer the NKJV over the old, especially the Thomas Nelson center-column reference edition which I think is 'tops'. It has footnotes that have the alternative manuscript readings.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Ed Goodrick, professor of NT Greek at Multnomah for decades, advocated it and did the concordance with Kohlenberger.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Does anyone have a problem with Gen 1:2 in NIV either "Now the earth..." or the note "The earth became..." A pre-existing condition is implied in many translations. And 2 Pet 3.
Please, do go on.
lukecash12
New member
Nope, never asked that question. As I pointed out, there are manuscripts earlier than those two. The Ante-Nicene Fathers are also very helpful in this matter.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
KJV Onlyism doesnt hold water.....
KJV Onlyism doesnt hold water.....
We've covered this in some previous threads on the KJV and the KJV-Only controversy. I'm with Dr. James White on this issue, in which he clearly explains why KJV-Onlyism is not a sound, logical or sane position to take, because of the facts of history and the rules of textual-criticism. I share a host of his videos in the 'KJV to NKJV translation problem' thread...here, here, here, here & here.
~*~*~
Also some good older KJV Only resource sites -
The KJV Only Issue
List of articles by author
~*~*~
Anyone can research this issue for themselves and see that the KJV Only position is indefensible.
KJV Onlyism doesnt hold water.....
We've covered this in some previous threads on the KJV and the KJV-Only controversy. I'm with Dr. James White on this issue, in which he clearly explains why KJV-Onlyism is not a sound, logical or sane position to take, because of the facts of history and the rules of textual-criticism. I share a host of his videos in the 'KJV to NKJV translation problem' thread...here, here, here, here & here.
~*~*~
Also some good older KJV Only resource sites -
The KJV Only Issue
List of articles by author
~*~*~
Anyone can research this issue for themselves and see that the KJV Only position is indefensible.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
NIV isnt all that bad,...KJV Onlyish is worse.....
NIV isnt all that bad,...KJV Onlyish is worse.....
I just see a lot of hype here by KJV Only nuts. I say 'nuts' because they have to use 'exclamation points' so much (often over very minor issues or misrepresentations), in their fervor to 'demonize' any version BUT the KJV, which they wrongfully worship because of ignorance.
:idunno: - not much else to say.
Again, whatever religious text you're studying (not just the Bible), be sure to research and study ALL the available texts to get the most accurate reliable translation and comprehension of what's available and what is probably closest to the originals. The KJV translators only used a limited number of manuscripts that they had available at that time in 1611. Since we now have available even earlier texts and texts from other traditions found around the globe, we can get a better picture with all the variant readings within a historical-context comparing earlier with later manuscripts, as well as traditions.
NIV isnt all that bad,...KJV Onlyish is worse.....
I just see a lot of hype here by KJV Only nuts. I say 'nuts' because they have to use 'exclamation points' so much (often over very minor issues or misrepresentations), in their fervor to 'demonize' any version BUT the KJV, which they wrongfully worship because of ignorance.
:idunno: - not much else to say.
Again, whatever religious text you're studying (not just the Bible), be sure to research and study ALL the available texts to get the most accurate reliable translation and comprehension of what's available and what is probably closest to the originals. The KJV translators only used a limited number of manuscripts that they had available at that time in 1611. Since we now have available even earlier texts and texts from other traditions found around the globe, we can get a better picture with all the variant readings within a historical-context comparing earlier with later manuscripts, as well as traditions.
I can only speculate as to why you have chosen Dr. White as your chosen authority concerning the Textus Receptus and the Massoretic texts but I would be more than happy to discuss the matter at length should you be a little more receptive to that offer than you were my offer to publicly discuss the history of Theosophy.
