Is it true that they mistranslate the King James Version of the Holy Bible? Thanks!
God Bless!
2007-03-08 11:52:35 · 9 answers · asked by Apfel 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I have two rules and two rules only for the people that choose me as their Spiritual Director.
1) Get a Bible.
2) Anything but the NIV (the "nearly inspired version")
Actually the "translators' of the NIV used different source documents and codices than those used for the 1611 Authorized Version.
2007-03-08 11:59:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The NIV translates directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but it also paraphrases things somewhat. It is what is called "dynamic equivalence," where they both literally translate and paraphrase at the exact same time, it is kind of weird but it works. They translate it using more modern english, as opposed to the KJV using 16th and 17th Century english with all kinds of "thees" and "thous" and what not. Therefore, the NIV is not a mistranslation of the KJV, it is an update on the english language.
2007-03-08 12:37:07 · answer #2 · answered by Me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any time that you translate something from it's original language, some things will get "lost in translation". The bible has been translated and lost meaning down the line because it has lost it's original language for most people. This is why Islam claims that the bible has been changed. If you get a translated Qur'an, it will have both the english and arabic writing in it. The bible loses parts because in the original language, some words mean more than one thing. Like now the question of Noah's flood is whether it was local or global because the same word in the original language is used for world and land.
2007-03-08 11:58:54 · answer #3 · answered by mrb1017 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel that the NIV is a very ambiguous translation lacking detail and feeling that is much more apparent in other modern day translations.
Also, remember that the KJV is just that.....a "Version" of a Translation.
There have been many of spurious Scriptures that had to be corrected in it as well.
And no small detail is how the KJV translates the word HELL.
Hebrew is Sheol, Greek is Haides.........then they manage to translate Gehenna (Valley of the Son of Hinnom) Hell as well.
Also, the Divine name is located at Psalms 83:18 in older versions of KJV, but has been removed from the newer editions. Now, I ask you why??
2007-03-08 12:00:55 · answer #4 · answered by Livin In Myrtle Beach SC 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The NIV was translated directly from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It was translated into contemporary language instead of 1611 speak. That's the only difference.
2007-03-08 11:55:44 · answer #5 · answered by nancy jo 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The had access to much better manuscrips and texts when translating the NIV compared to the KJV. However the people who translated the NIV recognized the "difficult" passages to explain, and simply changed them to what they seek their beliefs, instead of what the texts actually say.
2007-03-08 11:58:05 · answer #6 · answered by kmsbean 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is. Stick with the KJV. It is the only trusted translation for the English Language....
2007-03-08 11:57:30 · answer #7 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its just dif words but the same thing but like the ten comandents(i did not spell that right) srry but thats it
2007-03-08 12:00:28 · answer #8 · answered by Drew 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, they do.
2007-03-08 11:56:49 · answer #9 · answered by the pink baker 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋