|
Forums118
Topics9,228
Posts196,141
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74215
05/27/06 12:04 AM
05/27/06 12:04 AM
|
Full Member
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 149
USA
|
|
Quote;
“NIV or KJV?
Sorry for the delay, just finished a 1600 mile move and just got back online.
Quote
The KJV in Hebrews is the only way to translate it according to the Strongs concordance. And it appears that NIV chose its translation from the original psalm. What to do with this I do not know.”
This is what I do with it J
In some KJV bibles in the margin it will read, “If they shall enter my rest” this is the correct translation by the Received Text.
Different KJV publishers have changed the margin readings. I have found so far anyway, that the Cambridge Bible is one of the best I have seen.
I believe that Paul was referring to the people that have hardened their hearts toward Christ and the truth they may not enter into His rest unless they change.”
Quote;
Are you refering to the passage in Hebrews or the one in Psalms?
Both Hebrews and PS 95:11, both are speaking about people who either do not know the ways of God and/ or have hardened their hearts toward the ways of God. They will not enter into the rest that is promised. In Hebrews there is a chance to enter into the rest if they repent. In both texts the RT puts it as “If they shall enter”.
Quote;
“Compare John 3:16.
quote
No, you are right. "Should" indicates a possibility while "shall" indicates a sertainity. Acording to KJV believing in God does not nessessarily mean you will not perish. What to do with that?
If I only believe in God then can this save me? If so, satan believes in God will he be saved also?
There is more to Salvation than just believing in God, is there not? Galatians 2:8-10 for one thing.
I dont quite understand what Galatians 2:8-10 has to do with either the question of salvation by faith or salvation by faith + something else or with the question of assurance of salvation. Again I will add some context:”
From what you had written it seemed as though you were implying that all one had to do was to just believe I God and you will not perish. The Bible KJV explains that there is more to it than that, I used Galatians to point this out as well as James 2:19, for if all we had to do was believe than the devil and his fallen angels will also be saved. There is more to Salvation than just believing.
Quote;
“Did we now move from arguments on content and translation to arguments on tradition? I guess founding ones faith on the traditions created on the lives and practises of the men and wimen of God who went before us is another practise that has stood the test of time. For instance within the walls of Vatican City...”
/Thomas
No Thomas we have not, to me it seems that you feel that the NIV is as good or better than the NIV. I just pointed out some errors of this book called the NIV.
These new “older and better” codex’s that the new versions (NIV, AV and others) are based upon were found in two places, the Vatican catacomb library and in a trash basket at the MT Sinai monastery and taken to the great library of Alexandria. The oldest date on these codexes is around the 6th century.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Peace and Grace
David
The greatest want of the world is the want of men-- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74216
05/27/06 09:43 PM
05/27/06 09:43 PM
|
|
|
The primary difference between the KJV and the NIV is that the KJV is a literal translation of the original manuscripts while the NIV is not a literal translation. We see this in all of the comparisons of the KJV and NIV done above.
Remember there are other English translations of the Bible, the bible that Protestant England used is the Geneva Bible which was translated in Geneva and was the best selling Bible from 1560 to 1644 or there about. For newer translations, the New American Standard Version is very good but sometimes a bit awkward to read. Another new translation, done in 2003 is the English Standard Version both it and the New American are literal translations and thus avoid many of the problems raised by the NIV.
Of the two the English Standard Version is easier to read and thus perhaps the better choice for the average reader. Remember however that no one translation is correct and it is best to read several to understand the specific text that you are reading.
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74217
05/28/06 01:27 AM
05/28/06 01:27 AM
|
Full Member
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 149
USA
|
|
Quote:
The primary difference between the KJV and the NIV is that the KJV is a literal translation of the original manuscripts while the NIV is not a literal translation. We see this in all of the comparisons of the KJV and NIV done above.
Remember there are other English translations of the Bible, the bible that Protestant England used is the Geneva Bible which was translated in Geneva and was the best selling Bible from 1560 to 1644 or there about. For newer translations, the New American Standard Version is very good but sometimes a bit awkward to read. Another new translation, done in 2003 is the English Standard Version both it and the New American are literal translations and thus avoid many of the problems raised by the NIV.
Of the two the English Standard Version is easier to read and thus perhaps the better choice for the average reader. Remember however that no one translation is correct and it is best to read several to understand the specific text that you are reading.
I am not familiar with the English translation, is it the same as the "New English". I am familiar with the NEV and it destroys our beliefs in the moral law and the ceremonial law.
Is this English version taken from the Received Text or the corrupted text from the Vatican?
I would like to have a copy of the Geneva Bible.
Have you used an Interlinear Bible?
Peace and Grace
David
The greatest want of the world is the want of men-- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74218
05/28/06 01:58 AM
05/28/06 01:58 AM
|
|
|
Do you have e-Sword?
If not, you can download it as it is free software, and then add on the Geneva Bible as an add-on to this software.
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74219
05/30/06 07:58 AM
05/30/06 07:58 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Quote:
Now on the otherhand making a statement that every SDA should be using the KJV doesn't ring to well with me since I am of a Hispanic background, in fact Hisoanic background,foreground, inside and out  A Bible translation that came out before the KJV was called Reina Valera, and there is a 1960 revised edition of this Bible, and it is a Protestant Bible translation. When my autn reads verses to me over the phone while discussing deep things, it brings memories of my childhood where we used that Bible, the words are very powerful. Anyways something to think about considering not every SDA speaks English, or prefers the English language.
God Bless,
Will
I agree with this point. What do you do with the bilions of people who where not born and raised in the 6 anglosaxon nations and therefore have some other language as mothertounge? For those who are tempted to answere, "learn english", Ill ask: why english? why not bible hebrew or koine greek and get right to the source without someone else to translate for you. Since you have to learn a language anyways...
/Thomas
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74220
05/30/06 08:25 AM
05/30/06 08:25 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Quote:
Quote;
“NIV or KJV?
Both Hebrews and PS 95:11, both are speaking about people who either do not know the ways of God and/ or have hardened their hearts toward the ways of God. They will not enter into the rest that is promised. In Hebrews there is a chance to enter into the rest if they repent. In both texts the RT puts it as “If they shall enter”.
But the 1611 version says "Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest." Do you by mentioning the RT argue that the first version acctually needed revising?
Quote:
Quote;
“Compare John 3:16.
I dont quite understand what Galatians 2:8-10 has to do with either the question of salvation by faith or salvation by faith + something else or with the question of assurance of salvation. Again I will add some context:”
From what you had written it seemed as though you were implying that all one had to do was to just believe I God and you will not perish. The Bible KJV explains that there is more to it than that, I used Galatians to point this out as well as James 2:19, for if all we had to do was believe than the devil and his fallen angels will also be saved. There is more to Salvation than just believing.
You will like this passage:
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Quote:
No Thomas we have not, to me it seems that you feel that the NIV is as good or better than the NIV. I just pointed out some errors of this book called the NIV.
These new “older and better” codex’s that the new versions (NIV, AV and others) are based upon were found in two places, the Vatican catacomb library and in a trash basket at the MT Sinai monastery and taken to the great library of Alexandria. The oldest date on these codexes is around the 6th century.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Peace and Grace
David
One use of these other manuscripts, both those with scripture and others is that they help linguists know what the meaning of long forgotten words are. There are words in the manuscripts that noone has remembered the meaning of since the time of Jesus that can now be translated.
/Thomas
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74221
06/17/06 02:55 AM
06/17/06 02:55 AM
|
|
|
Interesting discussion, but I think it perhaps started with the wrong question. Start with a faulty premise, end with a faulty answer. Perhaps a better question for English speakers/readers would be "What is the best translation to use in modern english?". We all know the language of the KJV is becoming out of date, and we don't want to be like that church of the middle ages where only a small number like the clergy & monks could understand the language. We also all know that all translations are imperfect. So pointing out that one translation has a problem here or there in itself may not be helpful, since this can be done at least some with all translations. I would assume all readers here would want a translation that is as true to the original Greek/Hebrew (and maybe Aramaic) as possible. So we want a literal translation, and not a paraphrase or a translation that uses “dynamic equivalency”, at least for our primary study Bible. That of course immediately eliminates the NIV, as it uses a lot of dynamic equivalency and then some. Take for example the NIV text that probably causes the most TSDA’s to get heartburn, Heb. 9:12. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” KJV The NIV uses the phrase “Most Holy place” instead of “holy place”, making it seem as though Christ went into the 2nd compartment of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension. This of course is not in the original Greek or Latin texts that we have copies of. Some may also want to stay in the tradition of translation of the “received text” only. So what Bibles meet these criteria? I found this quick guide which seems helpful: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/compare.htmFollowing the above guide, there is only 1 Bible in common use that meets all criteria: The NKJV. I have only heard 1 argument that seems at least somewhat reasonable to me against it vs. the KJV: the issue of copyright. Of course any copyrights on the old KJV are long gone and it may be freely copied by anyone. The NKJV on the other hand is copyrighted, and though the publishers allow for generous quoting, it may not be republished in whole without permission. What do the rest of you think?
|
|
|
Re: NIV vs KJV
#74222
06/17/06 12:35 PM
06/17/06 12:35 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,009
Ohio
|
|
I find some problems with the NKJV as I do others, but I always compare everything I read back to the original languages. For me, the best modern version is the NCV. I have used it in many sermons, while teaching Sabbath School, and having bible studies, and two things jump right out at me: firs, everyone agrees that it is the most clear and easy to understand text they have heard. Second, they all agree that it is very accurate to the original text. Check it out if you like. It is far superior to the NIV. Crosswalk Bible Choose the NCV from the dropdown and look up a text.
Oh Happy Day!
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
