Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Question about Bible Version....

Louis J

Member
Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?
 
Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?
In most cases, that is the best rendering of what the Greek means, and is not necessarily being “pc.” So it begs the question as to whether translations like the KJV should have translated the Greek as “man” or “brothers” in the first place. The NIV is a good translation, as is the ESV. Some translations, such as the NRSV, go too far and are trying to be “pc,” but I haven’t seen that with the NIV (at least the 1984, which I am most familiar with).
 
Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

Louis J,

By the way, it's International and not Internation.

"Man" in English refers to human beings or someone. Depending on the context, the Greek, adelphoi (plural), refers to brothers and sisters or brothers.

If you want an accurate modern translation, choose the NIV, ESV, NET, NLT, CEV or NRSV.

Oz
 
Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?
Try an older NIV before womens lib caught the lead. The KJV has verses that the modern texts eliminated mostly dealing with the deity or character of Christ. That is pretty suspicious. So I use both as well.
 
Try an older NIV before womens lib caught the lead.
The new NIV is fine.

The KJV has verses that the modern texts eliminated mostly dealing with the deity or character of Christ. That is pretty suspicious.
It would be suspicious if it was true, but it isn’t. The modern versions are more accurate due to the much larger manuscript evidence they are based on.
 
This isn’t actually the case and the continual removal of verses connected with the dirty of Christ are suspicious.
Yes, it is the case. Study actual scholarly material on the issue and forget everything Gail Riplinger says (or anyone who mindlessly repeats what she says), since she has no relevant education for making any of the claims she does. Her claims, like the one about newer versions removing verses about the deity of Christ, are either blatantly false or fallaciously beg the question. You should at least read scholarly material that have proven her claims false, although simply doing some critical thinking and reasoning can prove it as well.
 
Yes, it is the case. Study actual scholarly material on the issue and forget everything Gail Riplinger says (or anyone who mindlessly repeats what she says), since she has no relevant education for making any of the claims she does. Her claims, like the one about newer versions removing verses about the deity of Christ, are either blatantly false or fallaciously beg the question. You should at least read scholarly material that have proven her claims false, although simply doing some critical thinking and reasoning can prove it as well.

Anyone can google missing verses in NIV bible and get themselves a list of the verses and take out your NIV and your KJV or whatever and compare them.

I've been through all of that about the NIV and proven it for myself, so this is a truth that can't be denied. This info has been out for some years now, so maybe it got back to the publishers of the NIV and they have decided to correct those mistakes in later editions? I don't know, I'm guessing.


I have a real good testimony about my NIV Bible if you want to hear it...and it concerns missing verses!
 
Anyone can google missing verses in NIV bible and get themselves a list of the verses and take out your NIV and your KJV or whatever and compare them.

I've been through all of that about the NIV and proven it for myself, so this is a truth that can't be denied. This info has been out for some years now, so maybe it got back to the publishers of the NIV and they have decided to correct those mistakes in later editions? I don't know, I'm guessing.


I have a real good testimony about my NIV Bible if you want to hear it...and it concerns missing verses!
As I pointed out, this is fallaciously begging the question--you are assuming that the verses should be there in the first place, and so concluding that the KJV is correct and the NIV (and other versions) has removed them. Given that the vast majority of manuscript evidence has been found after the KJV came out, it is most likely the case that the newer versions are correct and the KJV has verses added to it.

Anyone can post anything they want on the Internet, including supposed missing verses from the NIV and other versions newer than the KJV, but the problem is that most of them have no relevant education for making the claim that the newer versions have removed verses. And even though this can be searched and reasoned through quite easily without relevant education, many are unwilling to do so, to their shame.
 
As I pointed out, this is fallaciously begging the question--you are assuming that the verses should be there in the first place, and so concluding that the KJV is correct and the NIV (and other versions) has removed them. Given that the vast majority of manuscript evidence has been found after the KJV came out, it is most likely the case that the newer versions are correct and the KJV has verses added to it.

Anyone can post anything they want on the Internet, including supposed missing verses from the NIV and other versions newer than the KJV, but the problem is that most of them have no relevant education for making the claim that the newer versions have removed verses. And even though this can be searched and reasoned through quite easily without relevant education, many are unwilling to do so, to their shame.

It's a good thing that men with experience are not at the mercy of the edumacated ones, Lol! Ok, it sounds like you want to hear my Testimony about this. I'm not asking you to believe it, just recalling what happened to me and the Lord was involved (and I can prove it!) so that testimony is the basis for my belief that the NIV version is not the best version to study from.

Testimony:
This was back in the day sort've as opposed to not recently. I was living in Colorado and had a previous co-worker as a friend, Richard and he was also a Brother in Christ. He was married with little kids. I was married with little kids so that situation kept us both close to home, lol. We liked to study the Bible together and so forth, but I had a KJV and he had a NIV Bible so an over the phone bible study didn't go so well. My friend fixed that by gifting me a big new NIV Bible. So that we could have the bible studies over the phone more consistently. It was better. We both had the same Bible.

A couple months later a different friend/previous co-worker, Dave, and also a Brother in Christ knocks on my door to visit. He comes in and I maake coffee and we sit down and my big black NIV Bible is sitting on the table and he says hey, new Bible huh? And he starts to thumb through it and I told him that Richard got this for me as a gift. So Dave starts telling me that this is prolly a bad version for that because this version (NIV) has a lot of missing verses. So I said show me, and we spent a good 45 minutes to an hour looking up missing verses and comparing to my KJV that I have. He knew these missing verses off the top of his head and he showed me and he was right...

But, whatever. I already have that Bible and had even got some markings and highlighters in it and stuff, so onward with what you have, lol. Fast forward a few months andI come to this forum and there was a thread about which version of the Bible is best for studying? And everyone was chiming in with their opinions, this version, that version. And someone said something about they like the NIV....I had just recently learned about the missing verses so I posted hey the NIV has missing verses and I saw them. And, IIRC it was Eugene and he asked me, Edward can you give me a few examples? So I figured sure this should be easy.

My memory is no good and I couldn't remember what chapter and verse was missing. So I calle dup Dave (at work!) and asked him what are those scriptures again that are missing from the NIV. So he gave me a list of about a half dozen I guess and I thanked him and we hung up.

Being a long time poster to this site I was well aware that one needs all his ducks in a row before he posts. So I didn't just post back with the scriptures that Dave gave to me, I looked them all up...and every single one of them was there in my NIV Bible!

I was feeling like the proverbial pinball machine (Tilt) because I know that me and Dave looked up a bunch of missing scriptures!

I didn't know what to do. I had no examples for Eugene. What could I say if they were in fact in there?! I really bit it off this time, but at least I hadn't posted before re-verifying! But I felt the Twilight zone atmosphere because I did have that study with Dave and I knew it. Those verses were NOT on there when me and Dave looked them up. So something is going on here...

So I started to pray and ask God what is going on here? But before I get five words out, my eyes flicked up and I looked at my black NIV Bible on the table and my eyes saw the gold lettering as plain as day...NKJV

That Bible did not start out as a NKJV. It was a NIV Bible. Richard picked out the exact same Bible for me as he has and there was no mistake. We had even Bible studied with them and highlighted some stuff...Hey waitaminute, and so I looked and all of my underlinings and highlighting were still in this new NKJV Bible.

So there is three that can attest to this bible was a NIV before and now, it IS an NKJV! That, my Brothers and Sisters, can only be God.

I can attest to it.
Richard can attest to it.
Dave can attest to it.

That's three. In the mouth of two or three witnesses the truth shall be established.

I do not ask anyone to believe me, so let's not argue if you don't believe it. I merely share what happened to me in my home. And I'm not going to put down or disparage the NIV Bible either. If you like it, read it! But I do think that I can safely say that...to me, this was a seriously good endorsement of the NKJV Bible by none other than Jesus Himself! WHy else would He change it? I still use that NKJV Bible to this day.
 
It's a good thing that men with experience are not at the mercy of the edumacated ones, Lol! Ok, it sounds like you want to hear my Testimony about this. I'm not asking you to believe it, just recalling what happened to me and the Lord was involved (and I can prove it!) so that testimony is the basis for my belief that the NIV version is not the best version to study from.

Testimony:
This was back in the day sort've as opposed to not recently. I was living in Colorado and had a previous co-worker as a friend, Richard and he was also a Brother in Christ. He was married with little kids. I was married with little kids so that situation kept us both close to home, lol. We liked to study the Bible together and so forth, but I had a KJV and he had a NIV Bible so an over the phone bible study didn't go so well. My friend fixed that by gifting me a big new NIV Bible. So that we could have the bible studies over the phone more consistently. It was better. We both had the same Bible.

A couple months later a different friend/previous co-worker, Dave, and also a Brother in Christ knocks on my door to visit. He comes in and I maake coffee and we sit down and my big black NIV Bible is sitting on the table and he says hey, new Bible huh? And he starts to thumb through it and I told him that Richard got this for me as a gift. So Dave starts telling me that this is prolly a bad version for that because this version (NIV) has a lot of missing verses. So I said show me, and we spent a good 45 minutes to an hour looking up missing verses and comparing to my KJV that I have. He knew these missing verses off the top of his head and he showed me and he was right...

But, whatever. I already have that Bible and had even got some markings and highlighters in it and stuff, so onward with what you have, lol. Fast forward a few months andI come to this forum and there was a thread about which version of the Bible is best for studying? And everyone was chiming in with their opinions, this version, that version. And someone said something about they like the NIV....I had just recently learned about the missing verses so I posted hey the NIV has missing verses and I saw them. And, IIRC it was Eugene and he asked me, Edward can you give me a few examples? So I figured sure this should be easy.

My memory is no good and I couldn't remember what chapter and verse was missing. So I calle dup Dave (at work!) and asked him what are those scriptures again that are missing from the NIV. So he gave me a list of about a half dozen I guess and I thanked him and we hung up.

Being a long time poster to this site I was well aware that one needs all his ducks in a row before he posts. So I didn't just post back with the scriptures that Dave gave to me, I looked them all up...and every single one of them was there in my NIV Bible!

I was feeling like the proverbial pinball machine (Tilt) because I know that me and Dave looked up a bunch of missing scriptures!

I didn't know what to do. I had no examples for Eugene. What could I say if they were in fact in there?! I really bit it off this time, but at least I hadn't posted before re-verifying! But I felt the Twilight zone atmosphere because I did have that study with Dave and I knew it. Those verses were NOT on there when me and Dave looked them up. So something is going on here...

So I started to pray and ask God what is going on here? But before I get five words out, my eyes flicked up and I looked at my black NIV Bible on the table and my eyes saw the gold lettering as plain as day...NKJV

That Bible did not start out as a NKJV. It was a NIV Bible. Richard picked out the exact same Bible for me as he has and there was no mistake. We had even Bible studied with them and highlighted some stuff...Hey waitaminute, and so I looked and all of my underlinings and highlighting were still in this new NKJV Bible.

So there is three that can attest to this bible was a NIV before and now, it IS an NKJV! That, my Brothers and Sisters, can only be God.

I can attest to it.
Richard can attest to it.
Dave can attest to it.

That's three. In the mouth of two or three witnesses the truth shall be established.

I do not ask anyone to believe me, so let's not argue if you don't believe it. I merely share what happened to me in my home. And I'm not going to put down or disparage the NIV Bible either. If you like it, read it! But I do think that I can safely say that...to me, this was a seriously good endorsement of the NKJV Bible by none other than Jesus Himself! WHy else would He change it? I still use that NKJV Bible to this day.
Okay, that is your subjective experience, and of course I don't believe it. At the end of the day, the newer versions are better than the KJV and NKJV because they don't have words added.
 
Okay, that is your subjective experience, and of course I don't believe it. At the end of the day, the newer versions are better than the KJV and NKJV because they don't have words added.

I've heard before that some was added to the end of Mark I think it was, but that's all. And I've never heard anything bad about the NKJV.

All I know for sure is that I can enough faith in my God to think that, He put which version into my hands that He wanted me to have. Such a small thing. I don't say any version is good or bad for anyone. I just say what He has seen fit to put into my hands. It was a KJV for a long time, and I like the language of the KJV. But I like the NKJV now also. And I use a NLT version a lot online, that's a good version.
 
Hi Edward
Anyone can google missing verses in NIV bible and get themselves a list of the verses and take out your NIV and your KJV or whatever and compare them.
Yes, that's correct. You can compare the two translations side by side and see that there are verses that are different. However, comparing the two translations side by side isn't really proving anything as far as the accuracy of either translation. To determine the accuracy of either translation, you have to take the individual translations and compare them...wait for it....here it comes...pay careful attention here...TO WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE MOST ACCURATE MSS.

Please, if you understand nothing else about the translation of any version of Scriptures that one chooses to read, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS!!!!!! We have copies and among those copies there are about as many variations and supposed additions and supposed deletions as we have today in any argument as to whether or not some modern translation has additions or deletions.

The KJV translation wasn't produced until 1611. It was produced from what were believed to be the most reliable translations in that day, but there is ample evidence that there are places where it is known, let me repeat that for understanding, where it is known that the translator did some 'filling in' here and there. So please be mindful that even the KJ translation was brought to you by translating older translations, but none were the original MSS.



So the argument that any translation is invalid merely because it doesn't align with the KJ translation, that wasn't produced for some 1600 years after the events that it speaks of, is just an invalid argument. Unless and until one can prove that any issue of discrepancy was actually in the original MSS that Mathew or Paul or Luke or John sat down to write on the parchment used in that time, then we don't really know whether one translation is more or less correct than another.

However, if, as I do, we approach any translation of the Scriptures with a mind to seek what it attempts to convey to our wicked hearts about 'who' God is and His plan and desires for us and all that He has done that we may find His salvation, then pretty much any 'good' translation will do that. So, my position is that the best translation for any individual is the one that opens his heart to the truth of God. Nit picking over exact phraseology or words is just an argument that hinders the work of God and compels the work of Satan to bring distrust to the word of God, just as he has always attempted to do. "Did God really say, 'For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost'"?

God bless,
Ted
 
So the argument that any translation is invalid merely because it doesn't align with the KJ translation, that wasn't produced for some 1600 years after the events that it speaks of, is just an invalid argument. Unless and until one can prove that any issue of discrepancy was actually in the original MSS that Mathew or Paul or Luke or John sat down to write on the parchment used in that time, then we don't really know whether one translation is more or less correct than another.

That was never my assertion. There was a conversation already going on about missing verses from the NIV and Free said that is false. Which I know to be true because I have compared the scriptures between KJV and NIV versions and the KJV has more verses.

I had began using the NIV at one point because one was gifted to me. But then one day I woke up and discovered that God would rather that I read a NKJV. He must've because He changed my NIV into a NKJV. That's all.

Nobody has said the NIV is bad. Nobody has said that this or that version is better than any other one.

But that was a very curious thing which happened to me and my NIV Bible so I thought I should share it with you all.
 
There was a conversation already going on about missing verses from the NIV and Free said that is false. Which I know to be true because I have compared the scriptures between KJV and NIV versions and the KJV has more verses.
Seriously? I explained to you that this very argument is fallacious, it is an error in reasoning called begging the question. Just because the KJV has more verses doesn’t mean that the NIV is missing them. What it means, based on manuscript evidence, is that the KJV most likely has verses added to it.
 
Seriously? I explained to you that this very argument is fallacious, it is an error in reasoning called begging the question. Just because the KJV has more verses doesn’t mean that the NIV is missing them. What it means, based on manuscript evidence, is that the KJV most likely has verses added to it.

I don't care if it is a fallacious argument. Mine was to tell my experience and nothing more. So believe as you wish and I also will.
 
I don't care if it is a fallacious argument.
Of course you don’t and that is always the problem. You just want to believe what you want, even when it is pointed out that it isn’t the truth. If what you believe is based on an error in reasoning, and is therefore not the truth, then the only reasonable thing to do is correct your belief. Doubling down on it is irrational.
 
Of course you don’t and that is always the problem. You just want to believe what you want, even when it is pointed out that it isn’t the truth. If what you believe is based on an error in reasoning, and is therefore not the truth, then the only reasonable thing to do is correct your belief. Doubling down on it is irrational.

Ok so then you convince me!

That Brother, Dave walked ito my house saying the NIV is "missing" verses and Dave did not say, hey the KJV has extra stuff in it. So what was I supposed to do? Think the opposite of what he was telling me?! Big deal.

Now if you have updated information and heard me make a mistake, then by all means, I like to learn. So show me what you know about, the NIV is not missing anything and the KJV has a bunch of added verses to it...and convince me.

You haven't yet. I think you just like to argue. The onus is upon you here to show your work. (Lol).
Sooooo.....? Correct my mistake Bro so that I can comprehend this new information.


Somebody asked me once how come I don't believe in hare krishna (or something?) because the American Bible is wrong and how would I know it unless I study it blah blah blah?

I don't need to read hare krishna Bibles or Hinduism Bibles or anythig like that because without asking for any, I had a KJV Bible put into my hand as a youngster.
SO it is on God's responsibility to get the right Bible into my hand that will be sufficient to lead me to Him. I have to believe that God put the right Bible into my hand. God can't miss that. I have more faith than that.
 
Hi Edward
My apologies. That's one of the problems with jumping in to a running conversation in mid course. Carry on.

Not speaking of yourself, but I have been in conversation with KJVO folks and they use your argument to try and prove that the KJV is superior to the NIV, and I'm confident that isn't the case. The two translations just used different source materials for their translating work and we really can't say with any degree of certainty which source is more accurate than the other because we don't have the original MSS's with which to compare.

However, the work of the Scriptures, for which God gave them unto the original writers was so that we would have His testimony concerning the things that He has done and how much He cares for us and that He wants us to return to Him for the everlasting life that we were created to enjoy before sin tore us apart from Him. I find that pretty much any good translation is able to do that if the heart that is reading the words of the Scriptures is open to what they say about our God and Father, His Son, our Savior and His Spirit, our guide to all truth.

God bless,
Ted
 
Back
Top