Online at

http://www.temcat.com/niv_kjv.htm

It's an eye-opener, with respect to many things that appear in the King James Bible that simply have been left out of the New International version. In some places the NIV will go from verse 6, to verse 8, and just skip over verse 7. I didn't realize that until taking this test. Some of the omissions are fairly trivial, but some are quite important -- dealing with the trinity, the fulfillment of prophecy, the deity of Christ.

If you don't have a copy of the NIV handy, it can be accessed online at

http://www.biblegateway.com

as can the KJV, for that matter. Taking the quiz with both the NIV and the KJV in hand shows the contrast pretty clearly. We went over this quiz in our Friday evening Bible study last week, and several people were plainly shocked at what they saw. One lady said she was going to give her pastor a copy, since he uses the NIV mostly.

Do you believe that the translators deliberately left out information or that the manuscripts they worked from did not have that information? The former would be a very serious charge.

Fortunately, I don't have to defend the NIV: I prefer the RSV as my secondary reference, after the NAV...

That's the New Authorised Version, which is the 1611 edition of the Authorised Version (the KJV for non-Canadians, here), with the now-obsolete words carefully updated using Webster's 2nd Edition Unabridged Dictionary. It first came out as the 21st Century KJV, available on biblegateway.com....The standard KJV is still the most reliable otherwise, of course; modern translations provide interesting wording alterntives for verses they have in common with the AV.

Yes, the RSV suffers most of the same footnotes as the NIV, but is better quality English for that.

Darius, it boils down to inferior manuscripts upon which the modern versions are based. Copyists in the early centuries A.D. took it upon themselves to edit the manuscripts according to increasingly apostate beliefs, and that's where the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus trees came from. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which accounts for the vast majority of all manuscripts presently in existence -- the one God chose to preserve in the largest numbers. Most modern versions are based on non-TR corrupted manuscripts, which is why we see all these aberrations and omissions.

I do agree that the language in modern versions is easier to read, which is why I like to compare versions at times, especially when the KJV's 17th-century language becomes somewhat murky. But for serious study, overall the KJV is our best bet.

John, is your claim that the manuscripts on which the modern versions are based are inferior a matter of fact or is that only opinion?

Darius, you yourself hinted at the various differing manuscripts earlier...so, you're clearly winding us up as we go along

The differences are fact, the importance attached to those differences is opinion... unless the weakening of the Bible's message by the omissions isn't anything serious. Note, the differences are omissions, not alterations. Everybody will not agree that the differences are important...

The Received Text (engl. title) is the most popular historically, while the complete preserved Bibles of Vatican and Sinai were the disused ones. This customary use by the church should speak volumes for what has value for use in translation. Hence the footnotes are worthy of inclusion with modern translations.

Colin

Colin, I never claimed nor hinted that different meant inferior. This is John's claim.

So the change - okay, this difference is an alteration - in 1 Tim 3:16 in modern translations from 'God' to 'he' isn't an inferior clarity of text?

Take your basic point, of course.

I take as authoritative the comprehensive message of the Bible not a single text taken out on a frozen lake.

The modern versions water down a number of teachings vital to Adventism. That's a fact.