1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why I prefer the KJV over NIV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by psr.2, Jul 15, 2004.

  1. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    There are many reasons but here are a few.
    1. KJV Acts 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

    The NIV removes thou art God and replaces it with "sovereign God"

    The word "sovereign" does not appear in my KJV. It is too closely related to calvinism for me.

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

    The NIV says "the Spirit,the water,the blood"

    Thos distorts the context and doctrine of Christ as the Word. It also destroys the cross reference to John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    Another reason that I prefer the KJV over the niv is in Acts 8:37 KJV "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

    I cannot compare it to the my NIV because it has eliminated the verse. Now I know the NIV is supposed to be easier to understand but I don't see how removing the phrase "Jesus Christ is the Son of God " makes it a better version.

    These are just a few reasons why I prefer the KJV to the NIV. Thank you for your time.

    [title and post edited to Capitalize NIV and not demean a translation of God's Word]

    [ July 15, 2004, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  2. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    For all of you who have asked or wondered the psr are initials... the 2 is because psr was already used...not the psr everyone thought...sorry if it's a let down.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    The NIV doesn't "eliminate" or "replace". The NIV uses a different source text as its translational primary source, and the KJV's source texts as a secondary source. Where the source texts vary, the primary source text translation is adhered to, and the secondary source text translation is cited where it occurs, as a foornote.

    For example, the footnote for 1 John 5:7-8 says the following:

    5:7,8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

    And so far as the alleged "eliminated" verse, the NIV has the following footnote:

    8:36 Some late manuscripts baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

    I've found the NIV to be the most complete translation, since it includes all the major source material, including the same source materian as the KJV. However, your concerns are not over translation, but hierarchy of source text authority.
     
  4. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes just another reason why I prefer the KJV to the NIV. In the KJV the verses are where they belong not in a footnote. The NIV even skips the number of the verse in the passage to let you know it left something out.
    I stick with eliminated.
    Thank you so much for your feedback

    [edited to capitalise NIV]

    [ July 16, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    The verse was not "eliminated". Actually, since it does not appear until later manuscripts, it is more accurate to say it was "added".

    Are you attempting to promote the false doctrine of version-onlyism?
     
  6. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you can read the KJV and not notice the sovereignty of God on nearly every page, then you probably need to get a modern version to help you understand God better. God is sovereign -- that's Bible.

    Andy
     
  7. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, psr.2 is promoting that the KJB is the better version.

    I am promoting that KJB is the bible [attack on the Word of God snipped]

    [ July 16, 2004, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oh, so you're promoting false doctrine. Got it.
     
  9. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Ratings:
    +0
    psr.2,

    No, I don't think you're "him". But would you be willing to give us just your first name?

    My first name is Larry.
     
  10. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    WRONG!! It is your FALSE comment. :rolleyes:
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rapture Ready:No, psr.2 is promoting that the KJB is the better version.

    I am promoting that KJB is the bible and the niv is not.


    robycop:Which is simply untrue.


    Originally posted by Johnv:

    For example, the footnote for 1 John 5:7-8 says the following:

    5:7,8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)


    Askjo:WRONG!! It is your FALSE comment.

    robycop:Izzatso? Let's see you PROVE it.
     
  12. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Ratings:
    +0
    The KJV translators highly regarded the Latin Vulgate which is IMO not a very accurate of the greek texts. I like the extended version of John 5:7 its just a great verse to prove the Trinity but it was just not in the original manuscripts. Except for some later TR mss. So it should not be in the Bible. The KJV translators didn't want to leave anything out but the MV'S don't want to add anything.(Revelation 22:18) So if I have to say I believe the MV'S are right because of that verse.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    psr.2:There are many reasons but here are a few.
    1. KJV Acts 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

    The niv removes thou art God and replaces it with "sovereign God"

    The word "sovereign" does not appear in my KJV. It is too closely related to calvinism for me.


    Is God sovereign or not??

    While the KJV is a good and valid version, it's not the most up-to-date version in English. There have been some 5K mss or parts of mss discovered since 1611. Just as the AV 1611 was an update from earlier versions, the versions of today are updates on the earlier ones.

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

    The niv says "the Spirit,the water,the blood"

    Thos distorts the context and doctrine of Christ as the Word. It also destroys the cross reference to John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."


    1 John 5:7 is found in only a few later mss & in none of the older ones. This evidence suggests this versie is not authentic, that it was added by some unknown scribe long after John's death.

    Another reason that I prefer the KJV over the niv is in Acts 8:37 KJV "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

    I cannot compare it to the my niv because it has eliminated the verse.
    Now I know the niv is supposed to be easier to understand but I don't see how removing the phrase "Jesus Christ is the Son of God " makes it a better version.


    If it wasn't in the Scriptures to begin with, it makes LOTSA sense. Remember, God said not to ADD to his word, as well as not to subtract from it.

    These are just a few reasons why I prefer the KJV to the niv.
    Thank you for your time.


    And thanx to YOU for taking YOUR time to post this.

    BTW, do you prefer the KJV to every other version, or are you concerned only w/the NIV as compared to the KJV?
     
  14. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Another reason is because of what the niv did to Col. 1:14.
    The KJV says we have redemption through his blood
    The NIV removes through his blood.
    Changing the doctrine of blood atonement. Removing words also destroys the cross reference to study verse by verse.

    Then again the NIV does not tell me to study.
    That is another word they removed. "Study" is removed from 2 Tim. 2:15

    Just a couple more reasons why I prefer the KJV over the niv.
    Thanks everyone for your input.
    This thread is not intended to offend anyone. I was simply stating why I prefer the KJV over the
    NIV.

    [ July 15, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  15. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Another reason is because my NIV takes out the words "of our Lord Jesus Christ" from Eph. 3:14

    The KJV leaves it in.
    Eph 3:14 "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

    Why would anyone remove the name of my Saviour from the scriptures?

    [ July 15, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  16. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Another reason I prefer the KJV over the NIV is because of John 4:42
    My KJV says Christ.
    My NIV says one.

    [ July 15, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    My NIV does
    not say "One".

    Please use "NIV" instead of "niv" out of
    respect for God's Holy Written Word.
    Thank you for your consideration of the holy
    things of God.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    "Jesus" appears in the NIV in verses 14 and 20.
    It isn't like it has disappeared.

    The criteria by which we should judge
    both the KJV you are using
    (say, would you care to share that with
    us again? which KJV are you using?)
    and the NIV that you are using is their
    fidelity with the source writings.
    Here the NIV is superior.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    My NIV does say one instead of Christ.

    [ July 15, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  20. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Just another reason why I prefer my KJV over my NIV. Like I said before the NIV knows well it omits verses because it omits the number of the verse in the passage.
    If my child counted like the NIV is numbered we would have to work on counting.
    1,2,3,4,6footnote7,8,9,footnote 13,14

    I like my KJV better.

    [edited to capitalise NIV]

    [ July 16, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
Loading...