KJV was the first English translation, so why do many Christians accept changes in the NIV? Unicorns/Dragons?

Question

I would think the KJV would be more accurate than recent NIV translations, since it was the FIRST English translation.

So I understand why someone who rejects the Bible as real would ignore certain words in various scriptures, but I can NOT comprehend why a Christian would doubt and change what's in scripture.

For example: the KJV translation mentions Unicorns and Dragons, while NIV versions do not. If the Bible says these animals existed WITHOUT the mythical or magical powers humans have added on, why do those who claim to believe the bible is inspired by God doubt what they read? They're only animals. No more no less!

Job 39:9 Will the UNICORN be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? (KJV)

Job 39:9 Will the WILD OX consent to serve you? Will he stay by your manger at night? (NIV)

Psalm 148:7 Praise the Lord from the earth, ye DRAGONS, and all deeps. (KJV)

Psalm 148:7 Praise the Lord from the earth, you great SEA CREATURES and all ocean depths. (NIV)

Note: The Bible does not give these animals magical powers as humans have done in Mythology. But it does give descriptions and/or speak of them as literal. How a Christian can believe in God whom they can not see, but deny what is in His Word seems hypocritical. By the way, I am a Christian.

Yes the King James Version from 1611 is the translation I use, but I compare it with NIV to see just how many words have been changed.

P.S. Is there anyway to obtain a copy of the 1384 version of the King James Bible by John Wycliffe?

Answer 1

I have studied the Bible in many versions for many years. Yes, the KJV is as you say the first English translation. My remark on this is that through the years some people have had a hard time understanding the KJV so new Bible versions have been written for more understanding for people to read the word more. As far as unicorns & dragons that was man that made them into magical type things in movies & such.

Answer 2

Different versions are based on translations from different sources. Just because the King James was first doesn't actually mean that it's the most accurate English translation, only that it's the one that most people are familiar with. While earlier translations were often not translated directly from the Greek/Hebrew texts, modern translations tend to rely more heavily on these texts. Different translators also work more and less literally from the originals. Some translate almost word-for-word, with no concern for whether readability and contextual information is lost. Others paraphrase for readability but lose some of the exact meanings conveyed by the words.

From a historical standpoint, the King James version wasn't actually the first English vernacular translation, only the first well-known one. There was actually an earlier translation that influenced the King James version. Not only that, but the first King James translation was made at a time when English as a written and spoken language was very divided. It was the publication of the King James translation that first really standardized the English language throughout regions where it was spoken.

Translations are always a little tricky. Often different languages use words and phrases with different nuances and these nuances are hard to capture in a second language. For versions translated not from the original texts, but via an intermediate (often Latin at the time of the King James and French in the case of the Douay-Reims, for example) it can be even more difficult to capture these subtle meanings. Greek, the original language of a significant percentage of the Bible, is especially nuanced with many similar words that all equate to only one English word.

The texts may not also completely agree with one another. Hand copying manuscripts cause differences to appear. Sometimes these are spelling mistakes and sometimes the differences are larger. When multiple early texts exist, comparisions are used to try and figure out which is the least corrupted. Some of the translation differences may also be due to this fact.

Answer 3

Actually the KJV was not the first English translation, it is an update of previous translations, such as the Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, and a few others. During the time that the KJV was written, people did believe in dragons and the like, so that is the reason the KJV translators chose those words. The translators also wanted to make the scriptures in the common language of the people, which is the purpose for today's scriptures. The Hebrew words did not actually mean Unicorns or Dragons.

Hope this helps

UPDATE: In answer to your question about John Wycliff's Bible (it is not the King James Version as that came out in 1611) you can download the Wycliff Bible by going to the following website: http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/ I don't know where you can get a printed one.

Answer 4

Just because it was the first translation, that doens't have to mean it's the best. For one thing, we know a lot more now about ancient forms of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek than we did when the KJV was made.

Also, wasn't the KJV translated from the Latin version of the Bible? A translation from a translation can never be as accurate as a translation from the original.

Besides, if I remember correctly, the KJV was more concerned with the poetry of the words, to get the point across as forcefully as possible, whereas the main focus of the NIV was linguistic accuracy.

Answer 5

The King James Bible was translated in 1611. People living in this time period likely believed in these creatures. It is now known that, in fact, these creatures never have existed.

The KJV is regarded by many Biblical scholars as being filled with errors, which brought about the need for more updated and correct translations.

In the KJV, for example, it is written in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles that Easter was a Jewish festival - talk about mistranslation!

Edit (I thought some more):
In one of John's Epistles in the KJV, it speaks of God as being a Trinity. For most Christians, this is theologically true. The problem? The verse is not found in any New Testament manuscripts. Athanasius would have had plenty of reason to quote this verse to prove Arius wrong, but none of Athanasius' writings suggest he ever had this verse at his disposal.

Answer 6

Changes in the NIV and other translations are accepted because they tend to be easier to understand. Even the "first English translation" was translated from Hebrew, Greek, etc and some words may have been misinterpreted.
Some references are just for irony a technique still used today in non fiction books. For example the reference to UNICORN was basically a reference to a strong, proud creature that is able but unwilling to serve. The NIV decided to remove the irony and replace it with a wild ox which is a strong proud creature that is able but unwilling to serve.

Answer 7

The important point is not what the first English translation says, but what the original Greek and Hebrew says. More modern translations have been trying to get closer to the original meaning.
Then again, the KJV was not the first English translation. The Geneva Bible was the first. King James commissioned a group of scholars to present a translation that would be less controversial, that could please both the Puritan and the neocatholic branches of the Church of England. You could say it was the first Protestant oecumenical translation!!!

Answer 8

The NIV isn't a translation of the KJV - it's actually a more recent and more accurate translation of the original text... the KJV is a 4th generation translation (it is the 4th revision of a translation called the Geneva Bible) while the NIV is a 1st generation translation of the original scriptures making it more reliable and accurate...

The KJV is the most incorrect/inaccurate version of them all

Answer 9

No,it was not the first English translation.There were others before that,and age has nothing to do with accuracy.
If you want the best meaning of the text,read the original Hebrew/Greek.The other,modern,translations,are translated from the Hebrew/Greek as well.
In fact,the NIV is more accurate in that verse.The Hebrew word re’em,was used,in ancient times,to refer to the wild ox.

Answer 10

Translations have been made of the Bible that are better than the KJV. Most biblical interpreters accept the NASB as a closer translation to the original scripts. Language evolves and customs change. For example in 1thes. "and we which are alive and remain shall not prevent those."KJV--IN OLDE ENGLISH prevent meant to 'NOT GO BEFORE" The evolution of language has it in to days language SHALL NOT GO BEFORE--niv.

much of what you are saying is language evolution
a crib is a manger is a place to feed animals.
Try reading on hermeneutics
God bless you in your search.