Why I prefer the KJV over NIV

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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 ]

 

Oh, so you're promoting false doctrine. Got it.

 

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.

 

WRONG!! It is your FALSE comment.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

"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.