[AndyTheBear]

Have to disagree with his ire. Although I do keep a KJV so that I can cross reference the scripture with my Strong's Concordance, I favor the NIV (conspicuously not mentioned in his comparisons). It is a very good translation done by excellent scholarship with the advantage of more manuscripts, better textual criticism, and a better understanding of the original language than was available when the KJV was translated.

I presume the author is aware the bible was originally in Hebrew, Greek, with a little in Aramaic....but the tone of his article implies he thought it written in the Kings English (or Latin at least).

[tommix2]

What is the NIV? I favor the NIV

[hiho hiho]

“I presume the author is aware the bible was originally in Hebrew, Greek, with a little in Aramaic....but the tone of his article implies he thought it written in the Kings English (or Latin at least).”

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean they are ignorant.

Dr. Peter Mullen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mullen

[Mr. Lucky]

You don't suppose that the editors of one of Great Britain's great newspapers are familiar with the provenance of the King James translation?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“I favor the NIV...”

NIV...Not Inspired Version...

There are other good translations, but I do not consider the NIV to be one of them. The King James is not a perfect translation...but it is a good one. Attempts to ‘downgrade’ the KJV are designed to promote deliberately erronous verses in many of the ‘modern’ translations.