What's the diff between the KJV and NIV version of the bible.?

Question

I rather NIV bible. Cos english has evolved and some english in KJV version is different from NIV which uses modern english. What do u think? Such as charity , jesting etc...

Answer 1

Aside from the differences in the English usage, in which case I would recommend the use of the New King James Version as opposed to the 1661 King James Version and its Old English (which is mostly obsolete in terms of how words are used and how phrases are understood then versus now), there is a translation application difference...

The majority of Bibles, by its nature, are translated from Hebrew & Aramaic texts (for Old Testament) and Greek texts (for New Testament). There are two ways that the Bible is translated: word-for-word (New King James Version) and phrase-for-phrase (New International Version). Both methods of translation produce the same Bible, just that the word-for-word is closer to how the ancient texts are written (making it the favorite of scholars), while the phrase-for-phrase is closer to how the Bible would have been written if it were written using modern speech (making it the preferred choice of those who are new)...

Answer 2

People who don't have a clue to what they say will tell you that the KJV is the only true bible..it was written in 1611..and it was out of the old bishops bible..the modern NIV is a far better translation...and scholar will tell you that. I love the KJV but the NIV is simply a better translation for us. The KJV is only good for "English" speaking peoples anyway, so it can't be the the "ONLY" true version...the ignorant and uneducated are a little stuck here on this issue

Answer 3

The KJV is a literal translation sort of word for word and it is up to you to understand idioms etc. from the time of the original writting. The NIV on the other hand translats them for you, which means the interpretors have free rain to interpret some things that fit into their personal agenda. Example of possible error. Paul uses the word to discrib where some people's god was. This became appetite so there God was their appetite. Fact is the stomach was the seat of a persons will or their own wishes. My thought that was the proper idea for the verse and to me makes clearer. I prefer to find out this stuff for myself and am willing to go the extra mile. One reason for me is that I disagree with what appears to me to be the NIV translators agenda. Here is the thing the really important stuff is quite clear, it is that extra understanding one gets from understanding those passages that your study Bible does not discuss and that your pastors ignor. I want to know all God has for me as clear as I can get it because those little tid bits help me to know God better.. One example of where paraphrases wabble is on who can be elders and who deacons. I think that is important because it is important that the leadership not lead the lazy astray which is very common in this country. I doubt that if we had an accountable clergy that Bush would have served a second term. Aggression is forbidden in the Bible and w/o evangelical suport he would not have been elected. So the little thing can make a difference.

Answer 4

The biggest difference in the two is the fact that the NIV removes many words, phrases, and even entire verses from the Bible. Further, it is not a word-for-word translation and paraphrases most parts. The KJV was translated using the most accurate texts by scribes who had a deep respect for their jobs. (Be sure to research which texts were used for the translations... they are a key factor in why the Bibles are so different.)

Personally, I would do your own research on how the two Bibles were put together, and then decide for yourself which one you want to read. However, make sure that when you do your research, you find authors that aren't biased either way... next to impossible, but it can be done if you look hard enough.

Answer 5

The NIV version is worded to be more understandable by today's society-at-large (and therefore, dumbed down in some areas).

It's like taking original Shakespeare and dumbing it down into modern English. Not only does the literature lose *so much* beauty and grace, but loses a lot in the translation.

Answer 6

A boat load of people will tell you the NIV is bad... they're wrong.

For almost 25 years I have been using GREEK for most of my study. I have translated much of the New Testament, memorized scriptures IN GREEK. That said, I know a little about texts and meanings.

The kjv includes MANY PASSAGES which don't seem to have been in that book when it was written. Things that are not in any copies before a certain date... the kjv pushers claim that NIV left these out when, in fact, they were added at sometime after the Bible was written and most modern translations are trying to correctly relate the ORIGINAL MEANING.

The kjv deliberately MISTRANSLATES several passages. Like Ac 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people... Easter was not ADDED TO CHRISTIANITY until several centuries after the New Testament was written. It was used here to lend credibility to the imported pagan festival. The Greek word used is the same word they correctly translated as "passover" the other 26 times it is used.

I use my computer Bible software rather than a printed Bible 99% of the time. I carry a notebook computer to worship or Bible class and use that instead of a book. This allows me to assist the minister or teacher in many ways. I leave that software configured so that 1 column has original languages and a second column has English. The "home" version for English is the same version I gave my 7 year old daughter to learn. It is called New International Readers Version or NIrV. Its "reading grade level" is 2.9. I have suggested the version to lots of people since I first learned about it. The Bible should NOT BE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. This version makes it almost impossible to misunderstand. While most of the Bibles I have seen using it are children's editions, Zondervan does publish it in an "adult" edition as well.

The Contemporary English Version, Today's NIV, New American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, and New Living Translation are all similar. They use modern language and try to create an easily readable Bible... NASV is a bit more "literal" making sentence structure more complex and slightly raising the grade level, but teens should easily understand it.

I see kendal with his false kjv agenda is here again. He doesn't understand that the same FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE CAN BE USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS in different passages. Both Jesus and Satan are CALLED "Morning Star" and to the best of my knowledge, neither of them ARE PLANETS.. Figurative language doesn't have exclusivity.

Unfortunately, kendal hasn't confirmed his email address so people can't explain his error.

Answer 7

In olden days during the time of King James,people started writing many Bibles in Differesnt ways so King James ordered the people to use only one Bible which shouldnt be changed..which is now King James Version,but i prefer NIV which has modern English and is easy to understand than KJV..SO DO YOUR BEST TO USE KJV..

God Bless You
Bye; )

Answer 8

I was raised on the KJV, so I perfer to read it. When I read NIV, I get confused. KJV is the only version I can understand. I also perfer the interpretatio in KJV, it's slightly different than NIV, but in my opinion NIV diluted the Bible a bit to make it easier to understand.

Answer 9

Brother, the NIV has removed so many verses and words etc, the KJV is the only reliable Bible.

did you know that in Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) calls lucifer the son of the morning, but in the NIV it calls him the bright and morning star !!! Which we all know is Jesus' title, check Revelation 22:16

Answer 10

One uses modern english and the other uses 16th century english.