different bible versions

[True-believer]

Hi everyone,

I brought this book called,

"Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible"...

Written by Keith Piper.

A study of omissions, changes and causes of corruption in modern Bible versions and evidence for the King James Version representing the preserved original text of the Bible.

"Then cometh the devil and taketh away the word..."--Luke 8:12.

"If any man shall take away from the words...."--Revelation 22:19.

What do you all on this forum think about this?

[Tom Wetmore]

The book would perhaps should have been more correctly - "Serious Additions to Scripture in the KJV of the Bible".

The lapse of logic of this book and others like it is based on the assumption that because the NIV was done later in time than the KJV, that it was the NIV that changed Scripture. It is also based on the flawed assumption that the translators of the KJV were less biased or not serving some agenda than those of the NIV. And finally these critics fail to account for improved scholarship, more complete understanding of the ancient languages, and better and more complete source material.

But if the older translation is to be deemed more reliable these critics fail to apply the same critical analysis to the fact of the source manuscripts of the orginal languages used. The idea is that earlier manuscript sources were less likely to have copying errors or added words and phrases. Older manuscripts would have been closer to the original writing. The oldest of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV were far fewer in number and dated only back to the 1300's and significant portions were not from the original Greek but were re-translated from the Latin Vulgate that had been translated from the original Greek and Hebrew. To say things get lost in translation is only compounded by re-translation using multiple languages.

On the other hand, most modern translations, including the NIV, used more complete original language manuscripts and many more manuscripts dated centuries earlier, some to the 4th Century. Comparing those earlier manuscripts to later copies demonstrate that changes were made in later copies.

Tom

[phkrause]

Well unless we all can read Hebrew will will never really know exactly. I go to this Jewish website, and they really think that the KJV is not a very good translation.

pk

[Planey]

True Believer, you should check out some books written by Gail Riplinger.

Depending on your point of view they could be extremely worrying, or a real hoot...

Graeme

[carolaa]

One thing I really like about NIV is that it has lots of footnotes. If something is missing, there is almost always a footnote to explain why. The footnotes often tell how different original manuscripts are interpreted, etc.

Lots of people like to criticize the NIV, but I think they are mostly just lazy readers, or they are just critical people by nature.

[phkrause]

I had to check my NIV to see if it did indeed had footnotes, because I didn't think it did, but you are correct, it does. My Harper Study Bible, RSV, also has footnotes. Also my NLT has footnotes also, we are reading this version for worship this time through the bible. Not sure which version of the Bible is my favorite.

pk

[GreatLakesGramma]

Right now I am reading the Chronological Bible. I love it. I study and memorize from the NKJV, so many of the verses are worded differently than I'm used to, but I just love having it arranged this way. Not so good for study, but great for reading. You notice things that you never would notice just reading the Bible in canonical order.

[carolaa]

I've never heard of the Chronological Bible. It sounds really interesting.

[phkrause]

I'm also interested to know about this version.

pk

[Joe_in_RP]

Has anybody tried the ESV?

http://www.esv.org/

[carolaa]

I did a little research, and it looks like there are several different kinds of chronological Bibles.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Chronological Bibles at Christianbook.com

The one I have is the One Year Chronological Bible in NIV, with the green cover third from the left, top row. You can use this link to see the various options, then buy one wherever you want.

[Gerr]

Has anybody tried the ESV?

http://www.esv.org/

Yes, and I like it better than any other version so far. I went from KJV to RSV to NASB to NIV TO NKJV. While the ESV is my primary Bible study version (partly because it has a Greek & Hebrew interlinear), I actually regularly consult almost a dozen translations, made possible by computers.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Do you have e-Sword, Gerry?

[carolaa]

Cool. I will add that to my wish list.

[Gail]

ESV- I think that is the one my daughter has.

[Joe_in_RP]

Thanks Gerry.

[True-believer]

Actually, my utmost favourite Bible translation which is excellent to read and also to study is my New Living Translation---I love it....... even though lately I have been referring to my KJV instead currently, I still love my NLT--It is the BEST.

[Tallmark]

People didn't really talk like that, even back then. King James had his most sophisticated writers translate the original Greek and Hebrew into what was called "The King's English". Today, since England has a queen, it's called The Queen's English. I am an actor, and have done some Shakespeare. I don't like it at all. I'm speaking English and haven't a clue was to what I'm saying. I think quoting the KJV alienates people who don't study the Bible. Just my 1.5 cents.

To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause........

Happy Easter everyone!

[Gerr]

No. I have Logos' Libronix Digital Library.

[Gerr]

Actually, my utmost favourite Bible translation which is excellent to read and also to study is my New Living Translation---I love it....... even though lately I have been referring to my KJV instead currently, I still love my NLT--It is the BEST.

I like the NLT translation myself. It is very readable and easy to understand. But I try not to use it for formal Bible study because it is a pretty "dynamic" translation. The translators did not follow the "formal equivalence" philosophy of translation. There are strengths and weaknesses with each school of translation philosophy, but for formal Bible study, I think the "formal equivalence" or literal translation, I believe, would be more accurate. It tends to preserve the wider range of meanings that are in the original, whereas in the "dynamic" translation, it is highly interpretive and therefore more locked in into a particular thought.

[Gerr]

People didn't really talk like that' date=' even back then. King James had his most sophisticated writers translate the original Greek and Hebrew into what was called "The King's English". Today, since England has a queen, it's called The Queen's English. I am an actor, and have done some Shakespeare. I don't like it at all. I'm speaking English and haven't a clue was to what I'm saying. I think quoting the KJV alienates people who don't study the Bible. Just my 1.5 cents.