[throwback]

I’ve contrasted some passages of the NIV with the KJ or even the NKJ, and although the old style English is difficult, the meaning seems quite a bit different in some cases. Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate. Besides, I still like the KJ just because it uses “Sodomite”. That’s clear and unambiguous to me.

[Brookhaven]

Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That does not follow logically. I’m not sure if there is an official name for the logical fallacy you just engaged in, but it is one.

[ShadowAce]

Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate.

My understanding is that the NIV was translated directly from the Dead Sea scrolls. I'm not putting down the KJV, but I don't think you can base an accuracy claim on the date of the publication.

[WVKayaker]

The King James version is a translation of a translation. they used the Latin Vulgate (see: Roman Catholic translations) and put them into (then) contemporary 16th century terminology.

The NIV is a translation from extant Hebrew, Greek, and other prime sources, rather than a third-party translation. I uses modern words and phrasing to express the Bible's view. It is certainly not evil in any way.

Unfortunately, though many cling to the KJV as THE Bible. The NIV is a more accurate rendition of the original texts available.

John 3: 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. - NIV

[xjcsa]

Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate.

Simplistic and just plain silly. The King James translation came first, but the NIV is translated from earlier manuscripts. From a textual perspective, the NIV is "earlier."

[ziravan]

Since KJ preceded the NIV, I interpret that to mean the KJ is more accurate.

Why would you make that interpretation? The NIV benefits from hundreds of years of discovery of new texts by which to make comparisons. There are some rare translations in the NIV that I would not agree with that particular translation, but more so with the KJV.

The KJV was translated with very limited available resources while the NIV used hundreds of available texts and comparisons. As with any translation, a serious student of the Bible has an obligation to look at discussions and debates on controversial areas of translations to divine for themselves the original intent of the origin language. That would be true and is ESPECIALLY true with the KJV, as well.

I believe - based on extensive personal comparisons - that the NIV is a more clear and more accurate translation than the KJV, and, I believe that the intent behind its creation was less political.

I have my concerns with any "new" translation, but the NIV, including its problems, is well vetted. A quick look at the internet would yield much debate on the subject, for anybody interested. I would hope that any new NIV translation holds firm to the intent to provide an accurate translation of the Bible.

Timothy.

[Nevadan]

The topic of Bible translations is always a volatile one because everyone becomes an “expert” who has ever read the Bible. Many times people hear a pastor they love recommend a certain translation or people are emotionally tied to the version they grew up with.

I am a conservative Christian in doctrine, theology, and in my personal life. I am not an expert in the realm of Biblical manuscripts, but I am pretty well read on the accuracy and dependability of the Bible.

The King James Version is an accurate and dependable translation. Many people don't realize that there was not just “one” King James Version. There were updated versions after the original one in 1611. I'm not sure how many, but there were several.

Part of the argument about which translation is “right” revolves around the manuscripts from which the KJV and other more modern translations were made from.

The KJV was translated from the best existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available in 1600 - these manuscripts are called “Textus Receptus”. They are very good manuscripts. However, as time passed, older New Testament manuscripts have been discovered that allowed for greater accuracy in translation of certain words or phrases. Also, archaeological excavations have revealed historical facts, ancient commercial terms (words used in everyday language), and artifacts that help us understand some Hebrew and/or Greek words/phrases that were obscure.

Let me emphasize that none of these discoveries changed any orthodox doctrinal beliefs. There is no manuscript saying Jesus was born in Jerusalem or Damascus. There are no manuscripts that say he wasn't crucified or risen from the dead - or that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born, etc.

Most of the newer/older manuscript discoveries have clarified some place names or verbs/nouns/phrases that were a bit obscure. I don't have this info at the tip of my fingers right now because I am at work. But, if you are interested, I could give some of these later.

All these things just help “sharpen-up” the Word a bit. In fact, when the Dead Sea scrolls were found, the oldest Isaiah manuscript we had was from around 1200-1300 a.d. The Dead Sea scrolls contained the book of Isaiah that dated back 400 B.C (I may be off some, but I do know it was several years before Christ). When they compared Isaiah of the Dead Sea scrolls with the 1200 a.d. version, they were found to be practically identical. The only variations were a few manuscript errors such as copying a word or letter more than once. This is a wonderful testament to the painstaking procedures the Jewish scribes utilitized in making copies (by hand) of the Scriptures.

My point is, the NIV is a good translation. The KJV is a good translation. The New American Standard Version is a good translation. Some translators tried to make their translation more readable, others tried to make theirs word for word from the Greek and Hebrew. There are some bad translations out there, but most are pretty good. If you read something in one that looks suspect - check it out.