All About GOD

All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others

I've heard people say they don't understand the Bible so they stop reading. I've responded to that by pointing out the NIV being easier to understand. However I came across something that has me rethinking this. http://www.scionofzion.com/niv2.htm

The most glaring is this:

In Isaiah 9:3, the KJB says:
Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy ...
The NIV says:
You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy...

As the article says, it can't be both. Do you use other versions? If so, have you ever noticed such differences?

Views: 2557

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Were these 2 manuscripts the same verses or were they different? For example: The first one is Isaiah, Ezra, Nehemiah. The older one they found is Genesis, Exodus & Leviticus. 

LT, you said, "Thus, to really call them two sets is not really accurate, but an attempt on my part to simplify the point. What we do know is that at the time the KJV was translated there were "X" number available. After 1611 and the completion of the KJV translation more manuscripts have been discovered. Many of these discovered manuscripts are older than the ones used for the KJV and reveal the likely hood that some of the newer manuscripts had been altered by making subtle changes or even adding extra lines here and there."

You probably mean two categories instead of sets. But do you mean the "majority texts" versus the "minority texts"? There are more manuscripts found from an even earlier time than those in the minority texts category, right? I'm thinking you mean those. Also, aren't more modern KJVs using those older manuscripts now, too, as well as the ones that were used at first before 1611? I might be understanding it wrong.

Basically I am referring to that which was available for the 1611 version and then more manuscripts that were determined to be older manuscripts that we discovered after 1611. As mentioned in another comment my use of two sets was meant to simplify, not confuse, but it did not work :-)

I believe what LT means by there being two sets of manuscripts is the one set that was used before 1611 and then an older set of manuscripts, found later on after 1611, that were/are used in more modern translations of the KJV and other versions. The translation of the KJV I have has a 1970 copyright by Thomas Nelson. It's said to be translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations diligently compared and revised. As he said, " So, basically my reference to two sets is to identify what was available before 1611 and differentiate that from what is available after 1611."

Yes

I was wanting to know if the older version that they've found more recently contain more books? Or is it the exact same books as the ones used in the 1611 version & just the wording is different?

Was wondering myself and did a search. Here's some interesting stuff I found.

http://newlife.id.au/church-history/7-things-about-the-king-james-b...

Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament. Koine Greek had been a dead language for over a thousand years when the KJV was published for the first time in 1611. The translators of the KJV didn’t even know what Koine Greek was. Some people believed that the Greek language of the NT was a unique, Spirit-inspired dialect. It was not until the late 1800s and during the 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyri documents were discovered – many written in Koine, that we could begin to understand the language more fully. Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New Testament are scholars of Koine Greek.


As well as relying on previous English translations, the 1611 edition of the KJV relied on a critically edited Greek text that was “for the most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts (none earlier than the 12th century AD).” These late manuscripts include editions of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus[8], as well as Robert Estienne’s (a.k.a. ‘Stephanus’) edition (1550) and Theodore Beza’s edition (1598). Unfortunately, one of the manuscripts Estienne and Beza used for their Greek editions contained a few “corrections” that downplayed the importance of women in the church.

I personally think it's quite the naive statement when people claim to read the KJV only because it's the true translation. 

I know that the original manuscripts are infallible and inspired. Translations do have errors. I pray always for wisdom and discernment.

I was taught that the more precise translations are the New King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version, but I don't know if that's really true. I only own copies of the older NIV, KJV, and NKJV, but I use the ESV and several others that are available on the internet and on the YouVersion Bible App.

The Revised Standard Version is supposedly too flawed, too, to use for serious study because it's said of it that scholars who doubted the inspiration of the Bible put their own influence into the translation to give doubts. In it, one example is Isaiah 7:14 where the prophecy of the Messiah, instead of being born of a virgin is stated as being born of a young woman.

Interesting about the RSV. Thanks for this info.

I guess you could argue that Mary was a young woman. But a little subtle change here, one there. And there are so many versions now they can make more and more changes.

I always use KJV or NIV on YouVersion. I listen to KJV in the car. And I have an NKJV in the pew at church, my women's study Bible is NKJV and my completely marked up notes in the margin bright yellow highlighted Bible is NIV.

RSS

The Good News

Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate

© 2024   Created by AllAboutGOD.com.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service