Are the NIV and KJV not God's true word?
I heard the King James Version has seven books taken out of it and the NIV version is perverted.
Clarify
•
Share
•
Report
•
Asked September 07 2013
•
Brittney Earl
Supporter
Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
Colin Wong
Supporter
When the KJV first came out, it included a set of books that was placed between the Old Testament and the New Testament. These books are known as the Apocrypha within the Protestant group. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church however believed it is canon (official) and include it as part of the Old Testament. The debate on whether to include these set of books is many hundreds of years old and you can read a bit about it here: What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? What is the Catholic Bible? With reference to the NIV, there are some who believe it is "perverted" because it "removed verses" from the Bible. This is decades long debate but not accurate in its assessment. The point of contention often is, what are you comparing the NIV to, to say that it "removed" verses? The NIV and many of the newer translations today based their translations on ancient biblical scrolls that the KJV and other older translations were also based on. The issue of "verse removal" often comes when one finds that a verse that exist in the KJV is missing from the NIV. However, NIV scholars are not basing their translation on the KJV. They are basing it on the ancient biblical scrolls (the very same ones that the KJV is based on). In ancient times, there were no concept of verse numbers and paragraphs. There were also no periods or full stops. Imagine trying to translation that. Hence this is where scholars differ in (in addition to cultural, language context etc.) You can read more about these ancient manuscripts here: What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? Ultimately the many Bible translations we have today help us, especially when read together, to better understand God's word because most of us today do not have the capacity to understand the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts. Translations are subject to the translator's bias and also the fact that modern languages are in-exact, and no two persons will read any text and comprehend it exactly the same way. These biases do not mean that God's word has become perverted. Merely that we should take great care to study its original context. I have found personally that I enjoy reading multiple translations, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each translation, to get a richer and fuller understanding of God's word.
Kelli Trujillo
Supporter
It's hard to say which version of the Bible is truly the most accurate, and people debate this question vehemently. The King James Version contains all 66 books of the canonized Bible, as does the NIV. What we need to understand about the Bible is that apart from being able to speak, read, and write fluent Greek and Hebrew, the original languages in which the Bible was written, it is very challenging to develop a fully accurate understanding of what's written in the Bible. It's quite difficult to translate ideas and expressions exactly from one language to the next because languages do not consist of and express only words, but they express ideas, values, and ways of thinking that are unique to different cultures. For example, Amy Carmichael (an English-speaking missionary who attempted to learn Japanese) expressed her frustration that she was not able to say in Japanese, "He died." Rather, she had to learn to say something akin to, "He deigned to cease to become." You can see by comparing the English sentence and the Japanese sentence about dying that they express very different ways of thinking about death and the common ways to communicate about death. That's just one example of how different languages can be and why translation is so complex. Those of us that love reading the Bible and want to study it with accuracy must depend on the knowledge, wisdom, and accuracy of linguists, historians, anthropologists, and Bible scholars to bring the writings of the Bible to light in our own languages. This is especially challenging as cultures and languages change and grow through time. For example, many people find that the KJV is very hard to read because it's written in Old English, but others claim that it's the most accurate in the English language because it's such an old version of the Bible. The versions of the Bible that we have today have been carefully researched for accuracy and the writers and publishers take their work very seriously, although there are some perversions being developed, such as versions that mock the Bible or attempt to be politically correct. Beware of these versions, but the NIV and KJV are both solid versions. Here's something that you can do to avoid being led astray as you read the Bible: Do your own word research. EBbible and other websites offer easy access to study tools that allow you to click on and view the original word meanings of all of the words in the Bible, as well as commentaries and other study tools that provide important background information on Bible text. The more you study, the more accurate your understanding of the Bible will become, and the less you'll need to be concerned about which Bible version is the best or most accurate. Happy studying!
Ron Ray
Supporter
The NIV and KJV are perfectly acceptable versions of the Bible. The NASB, ESV, NLT, and NKJV are also acceptable versions. When considering a version of the Bible, you need to keep a couple of things in mind. First, an older translation like the King James Version is written in old English and could be difficult to understand. We don't speak Victorian English in this day, and as such, you may have difficulty understanding words that are no longer used. You could also have trouble understanding the sentences because the order of words was much different 500 years ago. Secondly, the different translations exist because of the type of translation that was intended. The NASB is more of a word for word, translation. The problem with this is that the text doesn't flow very well and may be harder to understand. Other versions are a thought for thought translation. This meant that the scholars looked at a group of words and tried to interpret what the phrase or sentence was trying to say. The problem with this is that you don't always get the individual words used in the original texts. The best Bible is going to be the one you'll read everyday. If you will use a concordance along with your Bible study to help you understand the text, and include commentaries from God gifted Bible teachers, you will find your Bible study to be very rich and rewarding. WARNING: Stay away from the RKJV - Revised King James Version. this was the Mormon version perverted by Joseph Smith in which a man with zero knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek retranslated, removed and changed verses in the original KJV. Smith even wrote himself into the book of Genesis. Stay away from the NWT - New World Translation. This is the Jehovah's Witness version perverted by The Watch Tower Society. The JWs don't accept Jesus as the Son of God and as God himself. As such, this version removes any and all references to the deity of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the onus is on you to do your research. In the same way the Bereans were commended by the apostle Paul for researching the scriptures each day to verify what He said was true, be like minded and verify what we tell you as truth. You'll be the richer for it.
Chuck Reynolds
Supporter
It is my contention that ALL versions of The Holy Bible have been altered in some way. We will know exactly how much and in what ways upon the return of Christ, our Lord and Savior!!!
Win Alme
Supporter
I do not believe the translation is important. The key is having our hearts open so the Holy Spirit can speak to us. Our goal for reading the word should not be personal knowledge, but to get the know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit better. If we know them and yield ourselves totally to them, great works will follow.
Anonymous
As a historian, I find that some of the difficulty even within members of my own church is the lack of a basic knowledge of history and concept of time. To many people, the KJV (1611) seems very old, even ancient. Yes, there are even some people who don't know that the NT was originally in Koine Greek, (NOT English), that the KJV wasn't even the first Bible in English, and that the KJV we may read today isn't exactly the same as the 1611 version. Thus, many people feel about the KJV the way some people once felt about the Latin Vulgate. The bible had been in Latin so long that people almost felt that that very version, and even the language itself, was somehow holy. Thus people who tried to translate the Bible into English sometimes met grisly fates. I believe your question about the two versions has been answered. The advice that stands me in good stead is to compare different translations if there's some confusion about an issue. If you are fluent in another language (i.e. Spanish or French) read a Bible in that language as well. I have tried to learn Koine Greek myself, and can read the simplest passages, but you can always get a Greek interlinear Bible. I know these are available for at least one version of the Greek text. Of course, you can also look up Greek words. There's a Strong's concordance online that's really great for this. The major doctrines of scripture (deity of Christ, virgin birth, the crucifixion, faith, etc.) should all be clear no matter what the version. If you're reading a version that disputes a basic doctrine, check that that version isn't a cult "translation."
julian johns
Supporter
KJV and NIV (with every other translation) have different (2) greek texts - Textus Receptus for the KJV, Nestle-Aland for the NIV - it depends on which one wants to depend on the more.As far as rhemas are concerned, it does'nt matter.
Arek Petrosian
Supporter
I personally don't like the NIV. I think it changes far too many passages, altering their meaning, and contradicting established Christian doctrine. Why, I don't know, but here are a couple of examples that should make one wonder. John 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was not "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "only begotten son". Colossians 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins: "The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "through His blood" redemption is ONLY "through His blood", for as Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." There are many other examples of the NIV's changing verses, or altering the meaning of many of them. Due diligence and a modicum of research will reveal them all.
Dailo KULLAI
Supporter
Words of the Bible (KJV/NIV) transformed, feed/nourished, sanctified, sustained and lead lives to Christ. All this, are the work of the Spirit who acts only on God's word. Infact God Himself approved of its uses by giving His Spirit. Thus, we can safely say, although differrent in version, they were the true words of God. So, just use the one you prefered, and it will be the better one.
Add your Answer
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.
- Adhere to the eBible Statement of Faith.
- Your answer should be complete and stand-alone.
- Include supporting arguments, and scripture references if possible. Seek to answer the "why".
- Adhere to a proper tone and spirit of love and understanding.
- For more info see The Complete Guide to eBible