KJV vs. NIV

What kind of conveluted thinking is this? If the KJV tells you to honor/fear your father and mother it is ok because it really means to honor/fear God and the Church, but when the NIV says the same exact thing that the KJV says, it is an error because it means something totally different according to you. Hogwash, the only error is in your thinking.

 

We gotta use a little common sense. Jesus blasted the Pharisees for replacing a command of God with a tradition of men, for being careful to tithe, while allowing their parents to go begging.

Insteada trying to fob off one version against another, we should THANK GOD FOR ALL OF THEM & use'em accordingly.

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

 

ooooo I like that Robycop3! -- Thank God for all of them!

 

Exactly. Which is why I questioned his weird logic that he used to put down one version while claiming that another version that said the same thing was correct. I have and use many versions that God has provided for me.

It really burns me when someone lies about what one version says in order to put it down.

 

Another little factor is that WE generally define the verb "fear" as "be scared of". Now, while I was never SCARED of my dad or mom, I have always RESPECTED and REVERED them, and even more so after I understood their constant and persistent prayers for me to come to CHRIST.

But in days of yore, "fear" was used as much for "respect, honor, revere" in a thankful manner as it was for "be afraid of".

 

Does " Ye shall respect your mother" teach the same as "Ye shall fear your mother as ye fear your God" ?
Were the translators mindful enough to consider this relationship between God and parents?

 

Yes, and yes. The translators used the words they did because the words convey the meaning they were after right then using the language of the day.

However, the language has not stood still in the time between than and now. Some words have fallen out of usage, new words have emerged, and many, many words have changed meaning... including "fear" as used here.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Hi All,

Just a question...

I've been in debates with Muslims who critize KJV for having verses which appear 'not' to be present in older mss, such as the infamous:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. - 1 John 5:7 KJV

Would you all agree that this is evidence of error in the KJV as well as NASB?

Thanks and God Bless.

 

Yes, this is exactly why I've stayed away from these threads for a long time. I miss civil debate about them, but, alas, it seems that all is the same.

 

I am reading the NIV again this year. I have not read it for several years. So far, I have found nothing that contradicts any other Bible version I have - including the KJV. Maligning it for being slightly different than the KJV is as goofy as maligning the KJV for being slightly different than the Geneva Bible.

 

One problem I have with the NIV is the use of the word capstone in many places where the KJV and all other Bible translation I have say cornerstone. From my study, cornerstone seems to be a much better word to use. Does anyone know why the NIV uses capstone instead?

 

Hi TC,

I get the impression that it is a matter of perspective...

Cornerstone: 1.) A stone at the corner of a building uniting two intersecting walls; a quoin. 2.) Such a stone, often inscribed, laid at a ceremony marking the origin of a building.

One gets the impression, particularly from Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians that Christ was the 'quoin' uniting the two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) under One Covenant of Grace. Thus He is the 'cornerstone' of this New and Everlasting Covenant. I get the impression this perspective is more effectual for a Jewish perspective than Gentile.

Capstone: 1.) The top stone of a structure or wall. 2.) The crowning achievement or final stroke; the culmination or acme.

One also gets the impression, particularly from John's Gospel and Epistles that Christ is the crowning achievement or final stroke or acme of Humanity in which we all draw near to God through Him.

One is a foundational/Covenantual perspective and the other is more of a perspective focused on the Triumph of Christ over Sin and the Devil through his death and resurrection and ascension. I personally don't believe either is wrong but I do believe that the latter is more of a Christian perspective.

 

Bound,

Thank you for posting those definitions! And thank you TC for pointing out the usage.

So, one is the crowning glory and the other is foundational. I need to go do some comparison reading. How interesting.

 

Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into it more. :thumbs:

 

Remember the NT was not originally written in English. The Greek word the NIV translate as "capstone" has several possible meanings: "capstone, cornerstone, keystone" The meaning the translators choose is based on context. And where the NIV translates the Greek word as "capstone" it is a legitamite translation. There are other places where the NIV translates the same word as "cornerstone" because the context demands it (ex: Eph 2.20-22 and 1 Cor 3.11)

​

 

Luke 4:8King JamesAnd Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.NIVAll delete and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan.I can remember my mother praying forme to say Get thee behind me, Satan when I was tempted to . I thank God I remember that, even when I was backslid on the edge of hell.

 

KJV and NIV

For the life of me I never would have guessed that King James ever spoke with Jesus!

But let your heart not be troubled Wll, the passage you remember mama saying is found in the NIV in Matthew.

Rob

 

Attack on the Bible deleted