NIV-only?

The church we are attending uses the NIV as its primary translation, however, there is no one particular version that is esteemed above another.

I would not attend a church that is KJV only, NIV only, NASB only or that held to any one version exclusively.

This is one of the most difficult things to get the KJV only crowd to understand. It is not the KJV that is rejected; it is the idea that any one translation is exclusively the "Word of God" in English.

 

I've sometimes heard the acronym for NIV being "not inspired version". It is a good translation, but certainly-not the best. It's method of translation does not give the precision that many want, therefore the criticisms. While having copies of the NIV myself, I believe better translations are the RSV, NASB, ESV and even the NRSV. For children, I go with the GNT.

 

I have never heard of a NIV-only crowd before. Most people who are open to other versions besides the KJV are open to just about anything(i.e. other translations). Personally I am KJV-only for my own reasons. I grew up a fundamental independent and that is what i will be for the rest of my life, Lord willing.

 

I do believe that, given enough time, there will be NIVP...NIV preferred only. There will be people who will say that since the NIV was good enough for Paul and Jesus, it's good enough for them, simply because the NIV is all they've ever known. I already know some folks that way. It will happen more and more.

 

I happen to be NASBO, NKJVO, and ESVO based on God's promise to preserve his word in Psalm 12:6-7.

 

This is actually very much untrue. I have found that people who have taken the time to look into the issue are very discriminating about which versions they consider good or bad.

My personal conviction is that the more formal a translation is, the better. The NIV was never intended to be a strictly formal equivalency translation. Hence, strike one with me.

If you are truly a fundamentalists then you cannot be KJVO. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. I don't write this to be overly antagonistic but the whole idea that a translation has been specially chosen, much less inspired, by God is extra-biblical and unorthodox.

Fundamentalism was founded by men who took a stand against liberalism. They defended orthodoxy, including the doctrine of inspiration espoused by those on our side, tenaciously. The offense of liberals was to deny or add to scriptural truth. KJVOnlyism IMO denies the scriptural doctrine of inspiration by adding to it. The writers of "The Fundamentals" quoted from the AV, RV, and ASV without apology as they lambasted real liberals.

KJVOnlyism finds its roots with a 1950's Seventh Day Adventist, not fundamentalism.

 

I'm sorry,but I afraid you are sorley misinformed.KJVOnlyism,in our standards,is what we call Bible believers;IMO there is no such thing as KJVOnlyism.consider the quote I post here to see "KJVOnlyism" 1890;"I will take up the KJB;I consider it to be a perfect Bible."(Talmage,Vol.18,PG.255).
There are MANY more quotes such as this that pre-date the previous;but for time(and bandwidth's) sake I wont post them.

 

Whether or not KJVO's have set up a false standard of truth is not relevant. I am a Bible believer as are TomVols, Dr Griffin, PTW, Pastor Larry, and numerous others. We have practically begged your side to provide proof of your being more of a Bible believer than we are by showing where the Bible (KJV or otherwise) teaches what you believe. You might feel better about calling yourself a "Bible believer" to the exclusion of those who accept MV's but that does not make it an accurate description. KJVO is much more accurate.

I would very much like to follow up on your citation but need more info. What "Talmage"? Vol. 18 of what? Is it on-line? Where did you find this quote?

I doubt that anyone would object to you citing sources of people who believed that only the KJV is the Word of God.

However, the fact remains that the formulation of KJVOnlies as a distinctive group occurred after JJ Ray plagiarized the SDA Wilkerson's book.

Preference for the KJV is not the same as KJVO.

 

NIV-onlyism, or for that matter, any version of "onlyism" is not supported by scripture. Versionology is a mattter of putting a specific translation on a greater par than the texts from which those translations came, which by nature is unscriptural.

 

I'm original-Hebrew-and-Greek-texts only.

The only problem is I don't know Hebrew and Greek and we don't know where the original texts are anyway....so I stumble along as best I can using KJV, NIV, NAS, NKJV, a few interlinears, and some friends who do know Greek and Hebrew...sigh...

 

A few weeks ago I meet a NASB only seminary prof. and now denom. worker. He said that the NIV and translations like it should be thrown in the trash. The KJV, NKJV would be ok but the best was the NASB. I asked him about the ESV and he had not read it. He knew the NASB was sound and found no reason to read others.

 

In my standard, I know people who use the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and NIV who are Bible believers.

Neal

 

Amen!!! So should we all be!!! Oh wait, I'm one too!

 

NIV on Romans 14:10 negated the wording of the autograph. The KJV agreed with it. Why are they different concerning the matching with the autographs?

 

KJV - But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

NIV - You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

KJV says "Christ", NIV says "God". I have one source that says the Greek word is "Christos" (Christ), while another that says the Greek word is "Theos" (God).

Can anyone help??

 

The only thing I know is that the NU texts read "Theos" and the MT and TR read "Christos." It just looks like a textual variation. Kind of like I Tim. 3:16, NU reads 'who' and MT and TR read 'God.'

Neal

 

Helen, the Lord never-intended that most would know Greek/Hebrew anyway, so don't sweat it. Besides, even if one does know Gk/Hb., one still needs an infallible lexicon.