Posted on 09/01/2009 12:31:33 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Good point. I see where the NIV brings something to the table the KJV doesn’t in this case. Did I miss it, or is the reverse ever the case in your view?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh sure. The KJV is a solid translation. Just don’t fall into the trap thinking it (or any other translation) is a perfect translation.
For example, you can’t do a proper Bible study on the subject of Hell and Hades/Sheol because the KJV translates all these as Hell.
I knew it was something like that, thanks.
I just know I no longer trust the translators of the NIV after they tried to go PC.
Do you know if they ever retracted the British version (which contained the PC changes) or is it still being published?
Hmmm...didn’t know there was a separation. As far as I know the TNIV is still being printed in the U.S.
www.zondervan.com might have some info
I seem to recall when the original spat came up Zondervan withdrew the American version (due in large part because of pressure from James Dobson), but continued to sell it in Britan.
I’ll have to look it up. It was a while ago.
The bible should be in the language of the people.
We speak American. The NIV is in the American language.
BTW, the word “men” often should be translated as “people.”
not this one...
I love the beauty of the KJV, but for daily use, I go with the NIV. Aside from the infuriating gender terms, my absolute favorite translation is the NLT. For comparison, I also use the Amplified, ESV, NASB, NKJV, and even the Message.
I don't necessarily agree that the KJV is the best choice for conservative Christians, though it certainly is a more literal translation than some I've listed above. Remember that it's only about 400 years old, though, and written in English, so not completely accurate. The KJV makes a blatant error in translating 1 Corinthians 13:13: "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." The NIV and others get it right when they translate it faith, hope and LOVE. You need only to look at the original Greek to spot the word for love (agape), not charity. It's been said that the use of "charity" in this verse is part of the reason some people believe that their salvation is works-based, and not simply a free gift of grace.
I guess if you really want to find the conservative Christian's best choice, you have to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts!! :^)
We have a winner.
The best argument I have heard regarding which translation to use, runs back to identify which Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were used as source documents.
The Critical perspective tended to favor the oldest manuscript as the best, which may be counterargued that an older poor copy of a manuscript is less accurate than a newer better copy of a manuscript.
The Westcott-Hort translations opted for the older manuscripts, but many doctrinal issues may arise, as well as loss of emphasis of doctrines discussed in some other translations.
Although I favored the NASB for many years, I’ve found the KJV or KJV+ to be more informative and indicative of doctrines which are worthy semantic word studies in the original languages.
The bottom line is to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ during study and let God the Holy Spirit perform His good wok in us through faith in Christ.
“Most of the modern translators range from Liberals to unbelievers.
Wow. That’s quite a claim. Care to back it up?”
Sure. Read “New Age Versions” by Gale Riplinger.
“Haha awesome. By the way, what’s a “soull?””
That’s a mis-spelling of the word soul.
“In this dating argument, they think that older is more original. However, the newer manuscript may have been copied by better and fewer scribes and plausibly be closer to the original than the older.”
Another thing that happens is the oldest manuscripts being written on papyrus, which doesn’t last long. Later manuscripts were written on a more permanent material. Today they are the oldest available, but much later manuscripts.
So by "sure" you mean "no." "Read this book" does not qualify as backing anything up.
Sir, or madam, as the case may be, I am giving you one of my chief sources. How is that not “Backing things up?
First, you didn't "give" me the book - you just told me to read it. Second, it's not backing it up because you didn't make any argument at all; naming books is not the same thing as making a point.
Besides - and this is going to come as a surprise - I have read that book. A friend of mine in college (several years ago) thought it was the greatest book in the world, and asked me to read it, hoping it would change my mind. It was not credible; in fact it was laughably bad. It amazes me what passes for "logic" sometimes, and what can find its way into print. Rather than changing my mind, it solidified my view that the KJV-only view is pure nutbaggery.
“First, you didn’t “give” me the book “
Aaaaaaaargh. I must be dealing with a Democrat! He or she wants a handout!
Or else an unbeliever. Gail Riplinger is a believer.
Yep, that's always a page in the KJV-only handbook - start calling people unbelievers. Well done.
“Yep, that’s always a page in the KJV-only handbook - start calling people unbelievers. Well done.”
Thank you. I only do that when someone laughs at a thoroughly researched and documented presentation showing whole missing verses and a general denigration of Jesus’ divinity throughout the translation.
Are you sure you really read “New Age Versions” by Gail Riplinger? It doesn’t seem we can be talking about the same book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.