All #ourCOG News 5.0
Just saw this and made me wonder ,I use NIV mostly looks like I have been on the wrong
Which then is a safer version ,by the way am starting my Apologetics class next week.Am glad for discovering this group
Discussion
50 comments
-
The reason that verses are “missing” from other versions is the result of more documents being found and those older documents not having that verse in them. If anything, the verse in the KJV should be suspect
-
Kjv all the way , it’s not tainted, its the best English version to read
-
These memes are created by crazy people trying to make others doubt the Bible translations that they can easily read. Your NIV is fine, although I prefer the ESV, NASB, or CSB.
In the NIV (and any other modern translation), Luke 9:51-56 still contains Jesus rebuking the disciples for asking Him to destroy the rebellious Samaritan village, even if it does not contain exactly what He said, and Matthew 18:11 is just a translocation of Luke 19:10, where it actually fits in the context. No change in message.
-
The KJV is a poor translation. The people who assembled it would add things. The ESV and NASB are the best most closely translated to the original text.
-
If you study the original text you will find that the King James actually has added to scripture not taken way. The NIV sticks to what we have in the original text better then what the King James has. Many more recently discovered original manuscripts do not have the verses the King James references.
However the King James is still the Word of God…do not mistake that.
My favorite versions are the ESV and KJV …. textual criticism is a good place to study how different versions came to be…
Definitely some versions are not the word of God…such as “The Message” and others. There are about 5 or 6 translations that are solid -
I recomend James whites book
The king james only controvesty -
I’m ESV and NASB only.
-
The NASB and then ESV are the closest word for word translations. Personally, I like the closest to the actual words on the original documents. NIV was my original study Bible and translation that I used. I then switched to the ESV as it had more original manuscripts than the KJV and NIV.
-
Most theologians, seminaries and commentaries use anything but the KJV. Go figure.
Personally, there are more important things to care about the the difference between Bible translations.
-
I’ve had an NIV for over 30 years and have decided to get an ESV and use both .
-
I heard king James version is more accurate
-
I use them all accept the JW bible.
-
Much better use KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV, now if you have time tos study Greek new testament, you will discover why KJV is different from other english versions. Because these english versions are the translations from Textus Receptus, Byzantine Greek and Nestle-Alland 26 edition and United Bible Society New Testamwnt Greek 5th Edition. If you wonder why atleast read the articles of Daniel Wallace, Greek New Testament Scholars.
-
ESV is your best bet….. Or NASB
-
Matthew 18:11 wasn’t left out of the NIV. It was added additionally to the KJV
-
Use ESV or NASB
-
The reason those are not in the NIV is because they were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
-
The King James Bible is based on the best Greek/Hebrew manuscripts the church had at that time. It’s been a few hundred years now and we’ve found more texts! Many of them MUCH older than the ones used to make the King James. We’re seeing thast older texts DON’T have some of those verses. They were probably but in by edit for various reasons. Our goal is to sift through the texts and find the strongest version that reflects the earliest copies. Kind of like a 1000 pieve jigsaw puzzle that has 1100 pieces. Either way, the message of the word is not changed. Jesus is still Lord and Savior.
-
While I prefer the Textus Receptus over the codexes, the KJV-only insistence is cultic.
-
Not necessarily wrong. It is a matter of which manuscripts were used as the core for translation. This is why I encourage people to use multiple versions. Personally I recommend NKJV or NASB as your primary. The NLT and NIV are good for clarification sometimes.
-
KJV ONLYISM claims are unfounded and wrongfully separating Brethren.
-
ESV also omits that passage. Those omissions are usually due to a lack of early manuscript support and uncertainty that the text actually appeared in the original gospel. The same discrepancy exists with Mark 16:9+
Regardless, the words are true as they can be corroborated elsewhere in scripture (John 3:17).
-
I enjoy all modern translations including the KJV and have a copy of the AV1611 (which can be very difficult to fully comprehend with regards to our modern english). KJV only position advocates in my opinion are very short sighed and rather again than criticize other translations against the manuscript evidence they criticize them against the KVJ (not a good method of scholarly criticism). Anyway, for those that use the KJV only, that’s great, for those that use other modern english translations that excellent as well as long as we feed on His Word and draw close to Him and apply His Word to our lives and mature for being equipped to share the gospel and defend our faith.
-
King James versions added lots phrases and verses. Your niv will probably have a note about ‘missing” verses.
The modern versions have THOUSANDS more ancient documents to pool from than they did in 1611.
Not that the KJV is bad but it is a fallicy that you NIV is missing phrases and verses
-
Agreed, what KJVO people call REMOVED, may well have been ADDED
and there is no human ability, at this point in time, with extant pragmentary evidence to absolutely know which is correct or if BOTH have some things added and some things removed.What is assured is that the message of Salvation and the Godhood of Christ remaines intact in all
REPEAT ALL,
of them! -
please don’t let memes like that confuse you. NIV is not my favorite, I prefer NASB, and ESV, NET, HCSB all some good as well. The KJV is not the standard for God’s word, the manuscripts are, and in many cases the KJV ADDS to what we have in the oldest manuscripts.
-
Although some translations try to make it simple, they lose the full harmony and completeness! Better to have several to cross reference or a good Side-by-side.
-
The King James Version is just a translation, it is not the golden standard by which every translation must be compared. The translation is not God Breathed, itself is not the literal inspired Word of God. Its just a translation. The NIV is notorious for being far too liberal and I would not let its reputation ruin your view on other translations. Try the ESV, NKJV, or NASB
-
The KJV/NKJV and a few other versions of the bible used the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts as their source when translating into english. The NIV, NLT and most modern versions of the bible use the Alexandrian texts as their source of Greek manuscripts to translate from.
-
Matthew 18:11 is not in the original manuscripts. Scholars in 1611 didn’t know that.
-
Most modern bibles, any version, annotate where verses were added later, or only appear in the Septaguint, or whatever. The point is that we are diligently seeking Him. Broadly speaking, once you’ve accepted Him as savior and follow Him, the rest is just our day by day walk. These discussions are good, but nothing to quarrel over.
-
Don’t get sucked into the KJV only argument. It’s not valid.
-
All I know is if the Catholics are killing you for it you must be doing something right
-
I prefer the NIV over the KJV. The KJV is too archaic to give it a second look. Since its 400 years old, its language is unintelligible in many parts. Also, the “thee” and “thou” put me to sleep. I prefer the NKJV over the NIV,
-
Why do KJVO emphasize one half of the warning regarding Scripture?
-
I USE DIFFER ONES WHEN HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING JUST ONE.
-
It simply means that an update has been made due to more earlier manuscripts have been found that were not available during kjv translation at that time. For literal translation try ESV. But NIV is a great dynamic equivalence translation.
-
Actually KJV adds things that were not in the original.
-
I personally dont find this kind of argumentation persuasive. If the oldest manuscripts do not contain those verses then why have them in a translation? As far as the doctrine taught in those verses, I think you will struggle to argue that they are not taught in other verses of the NIV over and over again.
-
another KJV wolf cult
-
I HAVE A DOCUMENT WITH OVER 900 COMPARISON VERSES… HIGHLIGHTING IMPORTANT CHANGES WITH THE MODERN VERSIONS, EVEN PERVERSION OF GODS WORD.
it is available by right dividers website… The KJV is truly the only version left unperverted.
You can translate yourself and it is very accurate. Some translation errors exist tho still. But it’s the best we have -
The NIV is safer because it can be understood. Different bibles use different manuscripts which can be older than the one the kjv uses. Don’t make a god out of the kjv, remember that you have not read it from cover to cover over and over again because you cannot understand many passages due to the language barrier.
-
I wonder what KJVO people think about Martin Luther and the Reformation?
-
NIV is politically motivated. It reads as gender neutral as it possibly can. It attempts to make the Bible politically correct with today’s gender movements. God is gender specific in the Word, it’s important to Him.
-
KJV is God’s complete word to us.
Go to original Hebrew and Greek for more precise details about any verse. Very very simple family. -
As far as Luke 9:56 the NIV is missing some of Jesus’ words in 9:55 too. This is because early mss do not contain Jesus’ Words. That is the same with Matthew 18:11. The NASB includes the Words of Jesus, however it footnotes the fact that Early mss do not contain Jesus Words or Early mss do not contain this v. The NASB still included it, while the NIV decided not to include the missing text.
-
Some passages are “missing because they are not contained in early mauscripts used for translating the Bible. The kjv came from the latin vulgate. The niv uses older hebrew and greek writings.
-
That King James only teaching does not stand up.. The reasons that some verses are translated differently or “removed” is because the manuscript evidence doesn’t support it. There are interpolations which some well meaning Christians inserted to confirm their beliefs, For example, I John 5:7. I believe in the trinity, but it is not so simple as that inserted verse says. I wish it indeed was in there…but honest scholarship does not support it.
-
I just… Don’t like the NIV….
Comments