Translations

I have three translations of the Bible, I refer to them to get a broader interpretation of the verse. I have NIV Study Bible, NKJV and a spanish bible.

I know the King James version came out in about 1600, I'm not sure of the NIV. I will say that there are times that the two vary considerably in their interpretations, enough to give very different meanings.
 
KJV. it is the closest to the original and most widely accepted. I compare everything to that and wont do a deep, personal topic study any other way.

Dor, I have a bookmark somewhere that will floor you when you see what they have done to some the newer translations. Some of them are geared strictly for the newage type of religions. i will post it as soon as i find the bookmark.
 
Bandit, I have a few differences Id love to show...frankly Im a KJV all the way type. Me and Faithful have even had a few discussions about her NKJV but I always back off it. Most of the new translations I tend to avoid cause of the changes in meanings of some verses and the complete deletions of some verses.:(
 
hee hee. i thought this was kind of cute:)

the newer versions are actually harder for me to get because i think i have so much of it memorized now. but also the Holy Ghost teaches, so i would think any bible would be a good bible at least to get the big picture.


run_kjv.gif
 
Dor said:
Bandit, I have a few differences Id love to show...frankly Im a KJV all the way type. Me and Faithful have even had a few discussions about her NKJV but I always back off it. Most of the new translations I tend to avoid cause of the changes in meanings of some verses and the complete deletions of some verses.:(
Click to expand...
YES! they completely delete verses Dor.:(

there are some real good conversion charts out there, that really show the truth about how they have changed it to meet certain needs of certain newer religions. i mean...there are like 20 versions in the lsat 20 years:rolleyes:

people say KJV is hard to understand, but it has never been hard for me even when doing memory verses for sunday school.
 
Bandit/Dor-- what has been deleted and what has been modified to suit newer religions. Can you give verses? thanks
 
didymus said:
Bandit/Dor-- what has been deleted and what has been modified to suit newer religions. Can you give verses? thanks
Click to expand...
i cannot give you verse for verse for every translation. But as soon as i come across that website that gives comparisons, i promise to put it up. It is a huge chart that someone took the time to point out how it has been changed.
 
I use a KJV rainbow study bible tho the rainbow colors often only serve to help me remember what page or column the verse is in.

And several different versions on my computer. That and a strongs makes for easy in depth study.

One of the greatest things about my Bible is the use of italics on words that have changed from the original KJV or might have different meanings in Greek or Chalde translations.

One of the nicest things about a strongs is to trace root words in greek alot of times you might find concepts that you would have missed otherwise.

Our view of the NIV. I wonder if readers of greek or latin view the KJV as a loose translation????
 
The NIV just updates the archaic words and makes it easier to understand. Nothing is really changed? FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

verses:
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes.
Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes.
Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.
Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes
Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].

There are a few verses to start with Did!!
 
Yes Basstian I find myself using my computer one as much as my actual book one. My computer has 5 different translations as well as the Hebrew OT and Greek TR-NT.
 
Dor, I haven't checked out all those verses yet but will soon. How do you figure that NIV denies the deity of Christ and the virgin birth. Where did you get that info?
 
In Luke 2:33 The KJV correctly says implies Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, but yet the NIV changes the verse to imply Joseph was the biological parent!
Luke 2:33 (KJV) "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
Luke 2:33 (NIV) "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."
In Luke 2:34 "Joseph and his mother" are replaced with "his parents"
Luke 1:34 (KJV) teaches that Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus because she said, "How can this be seeing I know not a man?" The NIV reads, "How can this be, since I have no husband?"

There is a big difference between not knowing a man and not having a husband.

I will get to the deity soon.;)

Didymus I am in no way saying no one should read the NIV because God can touch anyone using anything he wants to use. I would consider using an older translation to study and check verses against though. I personally use KJV(for reading and studying) but I also cross refrence it against a few other translations.
 
Does anyone know what the Greek says in the verses listed above by Dor?
 
There is a big difference between not knowing a man and not having a husband.
Click to expand...
yes there is a big difference Dor. a lot of translations have taken one verse GOD IS A SPIRIT...and changed it to GOD IS SPIRIT.

that is a definate NewAge teaching..as if we are all God or a god inside.
goofy stuff

People today put more into reading the fine print on a house mortgage. When it comes to the bible it can say anything to day and not many care.:(
 
I use an NIV Study Bible. It was recommended for an interdeonminational study in which I've participated and I like it quite a lot.

Background of the New International Version Bible

The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966.

Responsibility for the new version was delegated by the Palos Heights group to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries. In 1967 the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship for the project - sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars. The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.

How it was made helps to give the New International Version its distinctiveness. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars. Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Their work then went on to one of the General Editorial committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough version. This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style.
Click to expand...

from: http://www.ibs.org/niv/background.php

lunamoth
 
Kindest Regards, all!

I have an old "teddy bear" Gideon's KJV (held together with duct tape) that I've read cover to cover. That is the one I tend to use most. But for study I have an Interlinear Bible, which has the Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee translated underneath verbatim. I also have a Companion Bible, which is a KJV with study notes; a 1611 reprint of the KJV, which includes the Intertestament Apocrypha and the letters from the translators to the King and to the people; and a Peshitta, which is translated from the Aramaic Bible. I also keep for sentimental reasons, my grandfather's KJV, my grandmother's Christian Science and my mother's Catholic Bibles. Besides my Bibles, my Strong's Concordance is my best study tool.

I would like to add one friendly note if I may: when reading the KJV, the italicised words are not in italics for emphasis, they are in italics because those particular words are *not* in the manuscripts. The translators added the italicised words to make it read better (easier) in Elizabethan English. Just a quick little FYI that I find most Christians are not aware of, not to stir debate. Gustavus Paine (Payne?) wrote a very good book about the translators of the KJV.
 
Dor said:
Just out of curiosity...What bible translations does everyone use and why?
Also which do you tend to avoid and why?
Click to expand...
The bible translation that i use the most is the New world translation of the holy scriptures. i find this to be a very good accurate translation , but i also use many other translations for comparison. at one time i was under the false reasoning that this translation was full of falsehoods but after doing my own research found it to be very accurate without any religious traditions interwoven into it to color the thought
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top