I am not sure which section to post this in so feel free to move it to wherever it needs to be. I did not see this topic anywhere but I wondered if anyone has a problem with using other versions of the Bible ....other than the King James version. I see that the NIV is being used a lot in the church sermons and in the quarterly. I have done quite a bit of comparing and find this to be a problem for myself. There are a lot of differences in the meaning of the texts in the NIV and others. In giving Bible studies I have found that the answers to the questions are not accurate when using the NIV at times. I wonder why we are using this version.

Take a look at: http://tinyurl.com/lotxg

I'm of the opinion that the comments on the versions will never cease and that's OK so long as participants allow others to have a different opinion.

Personally, I can read either the KJV or NIV; however,I have often found that when there is an alternate translation as given by the SDA Commentary that it often follows the NIV translation.I believe we can benefit by comparing and using the Commentary.

I think the NIV is ok if you want to clarify something in the KJV.....but I have trouble undersanding the NIV! LOL I, personally, use the NKJV. I find the KJV difficult to understand at times, but the NIV and I don't get along at all! I think the NIV is supposed to be closer to "plain English" which is why I probably have problems with it. Does that make sense?

Why the NIV is used is easy to see: it's much easier to understand! In terms of accuracy, I would trust the KJV much more than the NIV. If they two disagree, a large percentage of the time I would suspect the KJV would be more accurate.

Personally I think it's good to use many different versions, the more the better. On line it's very easy to look up an interlinear Greek New Testatament (or Hebrew), so you can take a look at the original language and look at things as closely as you like. But for most cases, it's not so necessarily to look at things to finely. Bear in mind, many of the books in Bibles were origanally meant to be read at one hearing. There's no way the original author was concerned with some fine meaning of this or that word. The author is trying to convery meaning, and comparing different versions is a good way, IMO, to try to get at the original meaning.

Having said that, the KJV is still my favorite.

In 1930, despite opposition from the General Conference, B.J. Wilkinson published 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated'. Wilkinson was Dean of Theology at Washington Missionary College (SDA) in Takoma Park, D.C.

This classic text reveals two distinct manuscript sources for today's Bibles, one relatively pure, from which springs the King James Version. The other is a corrupted stream and the source for Roman Catholic and most modern Bibles (e.g NIV). After reading Wilkinson's book one understands the reason for confusion in the churches. Ellen White corroborates his findings when speaking of the Waldenses - "They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution." GC 65. Perhaps this was a prophetic type for the last days.

All those interested in Bible study would benefit from reading Wilkinson's book. It is reprinted by Leaves of Autumn in Payson, Arizona. When the G.C. responded strongly against the book and its author, Wilkinson issued a companion volume to answer the unfounded charges of faulty scholarship, 'Answers to Objections to Our Authorized Bible'. He may be one of our last truly protestant scholars. Sola Scriptura.

Is God able to protect His Word? Certainly; almost 400 years as our English Bible. Does Satan seek to draw us from the pure stream of Life? Yes, but not with book bonfires of the past. Instead, subtle corruptions which confuse our study.

In my opinion the more versions, the more confusion, and this by design. I can safely recommend the King James Version. As well, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, published 1890. Available at any Christian bookstore and most public libraries. Verify that the Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries are included. Avoid abridged versions of Strong's.

Serious Bible students will be blessed to own the New Englishman's Hebrew and Greek Concordances, by George V. Wigram. (Published 1843 & 1844). (Hendrickson Publishers)

The Bible is our Great Treasure House. We must mine it to the depths. "None but those who have fortified the mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict" GC 593.

Tom may be correct that the original human writer was unaware of the significance or depth of the inspired words he penned. While Daniel faithfully recorded the Word of God, he 'fainted, and was sick certain days..and..was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.' Daniel 8:27. From your posts Brother Tom I am sure you recognize the Original Author as He 'Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.' 1 Timothy 6:16.

Let us remember the awesome infinite power of the Word of God. "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast." Psalm 33:6,9. At this Word the dead are raised. By this Word the evil heart of man is recreated. Redemption is in the Word.

'The whole Bible is a manifestation of Christ'. Signs of the Times, March 26, 1906.

'If you would become better acquainted with the Saviour, study the Scriptures.' Signs of the Times, April 18, 1906.

'Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth' 2 Timothy 2:15. 'For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little' Isaiah 28:10.

Gordon

One reason why reading several different translations is a good idea is that our western languages are quite different from anicent greec and even more so from anicent hebrew. To give one example, one word (shalem) can either be translated "complete", "safe", "peaceful", "perfect", "whole", "full", "at peace". But it can only be translated into one of these at any one time in english while it may include several or all of these meanings in hebrew, even at the same time. To the limit oneself to just one english translation would possibly cut of 6/7 of the meaning.

As for the history of the KJV, it is said that its translators had much help from the Tyndale translation which in turn had help from Erasmus of Rotterdams translation which in turn was accepted by the See in Rome. For instance it is told that there is one passage where Erasmus had made his translation out of the manuscripts aviable. He was then approached and asked to add two additional verses that he hadnt found in the greek texts he had and therefore he refused to ad those texts. Some time later one suitable greek manuscript was suddenly "found" and Erasmus had to stay at his word. That new find is dated to that very time and was probably manufactured in some monastery suitably far away. This text by the way is part of KJVs foundation..

/Thomas

NIV or KJV?

Well this is interesting, has anyone taken the time to compare the Book of Hebrews from both books?
The NIV, waters down the Sabbath so much that one would ask why we need to keep it if they did not know better.
On top of that, there are many text left out of the NIV which are in the original text. The “scholars of the NIV claim that the text was not really there in the original manuscripts. For example in the NIV, one cannot learn how to have the faith of a mustard seed, for the “scholars” deemed it un-necessary to add, claiming that it was not in the original text. But here it is for you to compare.

Matthew 17:20-21(KJV) “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
Matthew 17:20-21 (NIV) “20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.”

Footnotes:
· Matthew 17:20 Some manuscripts you. 21 But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.
By not teaching how you can receive this kind of faith that Jesus talked about and said was there for us, they weaken and deprive the people of this very important passage. Why?
Compare John 3:16.
KJV “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
NIV “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Notice the word “should” in the KJV and then compare that to the word “shall” in the NIV. Is this the same meaning?????
How about Revelation 14:12, this is a hallmark of Adventism what do the two teach?
KJV “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
NIV “This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.”
Please notice that the KJV teaches what the Saints have “patience” and what they do, they keep the Commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus. What kind of Faith do the saints have? Why the same faith that Jesus had when He walked this earth some 2000 years ago. Total faith and dependence upon the Father, for every breath, every heart beat, a total faith that the Almighty God who is in charge this is what the Saints will have. Is this what the NIV teaches? NO.

Peace and Grace
David

David
I would like to remind you that if you are to compare translations to see which one is best, you compare each of the translations to the original and not to eachother. If you compare one translation with another translation all you can produce is your likes and dislikes. Only if you compare to the original and can say that one or the other is closer to it you will have a case which goes beyond mere opinion.

/Thomas