kjv or niv

My question was more along the lines of why you aren’t Anglican if you believe they are the best source of God’s word?

Protestant or Catholic, the NIV bible is a terrible translation. I have noticed that it misses a few passages that are found in the regular protestant bible. The language it uses is badly worded, and frankly I can’t stand it. The KJV is good. Since it can be difficult to read with all of the thous etc, the NKJV aka the New King James version is very good. It is readable and I love it. I have also found the NRSV to be great as well.

Sometimes with bible translations, one has to read a version that speaks to them. Catholic or not, they all say the same thing. The only difference is that the Catholic bible has a few extra books that can be purchased separately if the desired bible does not contain them.

Many Anglican churches preach calvinism, the same doctrine of Westboro Baptist Church. I reject the idea that everyone is in total depravity, and is predestined for Hell before even being born. Many of them also don’t follow Sola Scriptura. Third, I don’t know of any near my location.

Despite the gold letters on their fancy leather covers and gold along the edges of their high-quality paper, modern English translations of the Bible, such as the KJV and NIV, are neither inspired nor inerrant. Rather, they are errant products by — giving them the benefit of the doubt — well-intentioned and learned but still very fallible human beings.

None of the original inspired Bible manuscripts is extant. All that is available to work with now are later, man-made copies which differ one from another and whose faithfulness to the originals is not known.

To produce a modern English translation of the Bible many choices have to be made by very fallible human beings. Since the Bible does not come with its own inspired table of contents, the first choice Bible producers have to make is which books to include. The second choice Bible producers have to make, since none of the original manuscripts is extant, is which base text to use, whether to use a later, man-made copy or a modern, man-made reconstruction based on later, man-made copies. The third choice Bible producers have to make is how to translate the material from the original languages into English. As the various English Bible translations available today prove, translation is not simply a mechanical, one-for-one, word-substitution process but rather a subjective process, an art, which requires the fallible translator to have a mastery of all the languages involved and an understanding of the subject matter.

Because of all the choices that have to be made by fallible human beings to produce a modern English translation of the Bible, including the KJV and NIV, I personally don’t see how anyone can in good conscience base their religion solely on it. He has to have a lot of faith in human beings who themselves never claimed infallibility; faith that they chose the right books, faith that they chose the right base text, and faith that they not only understood the languages involved but also the subject matter and faith that those same fallible human beings made the right word choices. Finally, the reader has to have faith that he himself understands the translation. Sounds to me like a lot of misplaced faith in fallible human beings, faith in human beings who never claimed infallibility.

When I was a Southern Baptist I was extremely annoyed by the KJV onlyists. I had an exchange with my professor at a Bible college, who I felt was a little surprised that I was able to hold my own with him on translations. At the time I used the NIV but have gotten to where i feel modern scholarship is highly agenda driven and my confidence in it is low. But as a Catholic I have no interest in non-Catholic Bible translations, the Church has plenty of sufficient versions.

You said many Anglican Churches teach Calvinism. Can you expound of this? I have never heard this accusation levied against them. Westboro has their own special brand of teachings that they arrived upon themselves; I can’t see where they have much commonality with Anglicans. I agree that they don’t follow Sola Scriptura, they never did.

Reason enough for me. If it’s not King James, it’s not Christian, unless there’s a more modern word for word translation.

Why do you think the King James Bible translates word for word? I’ve heard that it is pretty loose in comparison to the Douay-Rheims.

How odd. I was raised that if it IS king james it definitely is NOT Christian! :rolleyes:

The Douay-Rheims introduced corrupted Alexandrinus manuscripts. The Alexandrian manuscripts came from discarded and hidden texts that were put away for about 1500 years, the sinaiticus and vaticanus manuscripts. Thats right, they were taken out of the trash! They contradicted one another, and that’s why the scholars commissioned by King James in 1611 didn’t include them. The revisionists Westcott and Hortt also didn’t accept the resurrection and literal second coming of Christ; I find it hard to give credibility to the work of anybody like that.

Here are two of the forefathers of the Douay-Rheims translation. They perverted the text with arianism gnostic and pagan philosophy -

  1. Clement - Accepted Greek Philosophy and the Apocrypha as divine authority; Accepted the school of thought of salvation through works.
  2. Origen - denied the historical accuracy of the bible, denied eternal punishment, and denied the eternity of The Holy Spirit! He also enjoyed allegories.

When reading KJV, you can be confident that the writings came from manuscripts that were faithfully preserved by the monks during the dark ages, which came from writings directly from the the Textus Receptus, which was translated directly from the Apostle Manuscripts with a 20 year gap.

KJV and Douay-Rheims both are good on some points and bad on others. Both of them as an example really diminish the Divinity of Jesus.

Here is a great read for kjv onlyists and interesting points about Textus Receptus. It’s a long read but well worth the effort.

www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/King-James-version.htm

So if they are in so much error in your opinion, why do you trust their translation of Scripture? Especially since you hold it in higher esteem and to the rejection of other translations.

I explained why. It’s not a matter of what church wrote it, but how it was written. The sources they used… Many churches of different denominations may share their love of the same scripture, it doesn’t mean they agree on everything. If the Jewish are in so much error by not accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, why do we trust Exodus and Mosaic law.


Please remain on topic which is “kjv or niv”. Nothing else is relevant and off topic posts have been removed.

It doesn’t. Just like any translation it changes the syntax and translates words in a way English speakers can easily understand. In some cases they either completely change the meaning or obscure it a great deal.

I love the NKJV as well :slight_smile:

Could you give a few examples?

It’s as bad as the others. Instead of merely an honest word for word translation to more understandable English, it redefines different words and omits a lot of key passages.
jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm

So the word of God did not exist on earth until a secular king proclaimed it 16 centuries after Christ? :confused:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.