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

    My KJV
    Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

    Notice "of Christ"

    Not in the other version mentioned in this thread.
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    psr.2: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.


    From"Is the Niv a perversion?" by Jason Dulle:

    "The NIV does not remove the blood of Jesus. The exact phrase, or something very similar is found in the NIV in Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 13:12; and I Peter 1:2. The reason for the difference in Colossians 1:14 is due to a textual variant. The evidence for the reading of the KJV is very late (13th century), and is not very strong. Because of this, the translators of the NIV did not believe that it was in the original autograph of Colossians, but that it was added by a scribe to harmonize it with Ephesians 1:7. Even though the NIV takes this phrase out here because they did not see the textual support for it, they obviously were not trying to take this truth out of the Bible, because they used the phrase elsewhere.

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


    Actually, the NIV renders a MODERN definition of the greek 'spoudazo', which means, "work diligently" in English. However, in 1611, "study" could also mean "work diligently", especially in the sense it's used here in Scripture. The truth is, both the KJV and NIV are correct here; the problem arises when one applies only the current meaning of "study" to the 400-year-old rendering and declares the modern rendering wrong.

    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.


    And I'm not intending to offend YOU; my intent is to simply point out the unsoundness of many of the reasons you've presented us. It appears many of them have come straight out of the KJVOs' collection of false reasoning.

    While I'm not encouraging you to replace the KJV as your fave version, I WILL recommend you check out the veracity of the supposed faults with the NIV before you accept them as true. For example, some really brilliant KJVO started the stupid notion that the NIV denies the Deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph Jesus' father. This is total bunk, and is discussed at length in other threads here, but let it suffice to say that the KJV does the VERY SAME THING in Luke 2:27, 41, & 48.

    I encourage you to study the matter on your own and...

    BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE KJVOS!
     
  3. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Believe me I have studied from A to Z. That is why it's the KJV for me. I dislike the new age slant of the other versions. I dislike the catholic harmony of the other versions. I dislike the gnostic input of their manuscripts.
    I do appreciate all of the feedback and I would like to invite all of you to my topic on mystery.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just letting our Florida brother (and all others) that if you demean a translation of the Word of God, you will lose posting privileges in a hurry.
     
  5. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnv said " NOT FOUND in any Greek manuscript BEFORE the sixteenth century." He is incorrect!!!! This verse was there BEFORE the 16th Century.
     
  6. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Without the phrase in MVs, how is this verse telling us the redemption? Their comment on Col. 1:14 in MVs is NONE of the Salvation! [​IMG] :rolleyes:
     
  7. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rapture Ready wrote....
    How does this blantant attack on the Word of God stand without being called to account by the moderators?

    Bro Tony
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Please use the "Report Post" button. Moderators are not omnipresent. By quoting the offending post publicly you have perpetuated it.
     
  9. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I apologize, I did not know of that process. In the future I will do so. You may delete my post if it will help.

    Bro Tony
     
  10. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW,

    Not that I would use that button much, but where is it?
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Tony,

    Check your PMs please.
     
  12. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    The MV's definetly do not have a New Age slant that is stupid. They don't have a catholic slant. If anything the KJV would be cause it was done by the Church of England an exact copy of RC church under a differant name. So you don't have much grounds to stand on.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bro.Tony:BTW,

    Not that I would use that button much, but where is it?


    At the bottom right of every posted message, a "whistle" figure w/the words, "report post".
     
  14. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    It often happens that those who see themselves as appologists for a cause often do more harm than good and sadly, I believe our poor AV has suffered far more at the hands of it's friends than it's enemies.

    Personally, (according to the moderator's scale) I would be a 2 & a half. IE: With a couple of exceptions, I'm pretty much with Jay Green when it comes to the manuscript authority of the TR. Whilst I realize that coining the term "Received Text" was not entirely without commercial and political considerations, nevertheless, it echoes a Biblical principle (Ps.12:6-7, etc). When folk refer to "better manuscripts", I cant help wondering if, in light of future discoveries and scholarly opinions, the penknives will once again be used to improve our Bible.

    When I was young, it was very fashionable to treat the AV with distain, and as something no longer suitable for serious Bible study. Yet as the years have passed, my respect for the precision of the work done by those men has grown immensely. Modern wiseacres may love to mock their rendition of Jas.1:21, but anyone who knows anything about translation work knows that there are some difficult choices that must be made, and there is no question that they did an excellent job. Perhaps most importantly, the ambiguities that exist in the Greek & Hebrew are generally well preserved as they should be, rather than being removed according to a decision made by a faceless editor, as is usually the case with the NIV in particular. Though the AV is not entirely faultless in this regard (EG: Phil.2:7), the translators generally avoided playing Holy Spirit in this way.

    My advice, for what it's worth, is to buy an Authorized Version Bible, then take the trouble to get to know the richness of the English language.

    - Paul
     
  15. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Interesting note; Those foaming at the mouth over my post (which was WHY I PREFER THE KJV...)
    have no scripture as to why they are foaming.
    Apparently you are not willing to let anyone have an opinion that differs from yours.
    Could you at least place some scripture with your ranting so I can refute it with scripture.
     
  16. Bro.Bill

    Bro.Bill New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear PSR2,
    I think I understand this right.You strongly prefer the KJV. You regard the NIV as God's Word.I think we call that here KJV preferred.I think that's ok , a lot of folks here are KJV preferred myself included.
    I have a New Scofield,NASB,NIV,RSV,& ESV.My two favorites are KJV and ESV.My daily Bible study is done primarily with the KJ Study Bible.I'm not into a lot of versions and consider these the most reliable (or what I prefer).
    I've seen your posts in a couple of other places and it took a little to pick up on your style.Do you have seminary training?You seem to go in a teaching direction. Do I pick up on this correctly?
     
  17. psr.2

    psr.2 Guest

    Hello Bill,
    As for the KJV , it is all I use. The only time I look at other versions is to see how they contradict the KJV. Then I can know how to correct a verse when someone throws it at me from
    a different version.
    Thanks for your post.
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please explain why it is a false comment. I looked it up in the NIV myself. You're calling me a liar, when my post is factually correct. Explain yourself, or please apologize for your slanderous implication.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chapter and verse numeric division are not part of scripture. They were added by man to make scriptural referencing easier. Chapter and verse numeric division were not inspired by God.
     
  20. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that you're making mistakes in your factual assertions, which several people, like myself, are attempting to discuss with you. For example, the assertion that the NIV "omits" from the KJV. It is actually the KJV's source texts that have "added" certain phrases. This is evidenced by the fact that the primary NIV source texts predate the primary KJV source texts by hundreds of years. Also, the KJV translation was not a source text for the NIV (nor should it be), so to say something was "removed from" the KJV by the NIV is an incorrect assertion. Your comments are incorrect, but it is throught no fault of your own. It simply from an innocent misunderstanding of the details surrounding the origins of the KJV/NIV. No harm in that respect.

    BTW, for you to simply prefer the KJV because you prefer the later source texts is perfectly fine for you to do. As an owner of two editions of the KJV myself, I support that 100%. I just want you to understand the nature of the translational origins. The only thing that would be of concern is if you asserted that the KJV should be the sole translation for everyone to use. You don't appear to be saying that, so KJVOnlyism not an issue with you in this discussion. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that one translation is superior or authoritative over other translations.
     
Loading...