Differences in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthew1624
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthew1624

Guest
I was wondering if anyone else has noticed the differences in the following passages between the KJV, NKJV, and NIV. Are these changes made to push certain theological beliefs?

1 Cor 11:18
KJV - For first of all, when ye come together in the church…
NKJV - For first of all, when you come together as a church…
NIV - when you come together as a church…

Why has “in the church” been changed to “as a church”. Is it possible that “in the church” could imply a physical church and therefore the change to “as a church” (i.e. where two or three are gathered…)

John 9:4
KJV - I must work the works of him that sent me…
NKJV - I must work the works of him that sent me…
NIV - We must do the work of him that sent me…

The footnotes of the NKJV indicate the following “NU-Text reads We” If earlier manuscripts use We why is it not reflected in the passage? Is it possible that this passage could refer to our cooperation in the works of Christ and therefore left as I in KJV and NKJV? Is this a Faith vs. Works issue?

2 Thess 2:15
KJV - stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught…
NKJV - stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught…
NIV - stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you…

1 Cor 11:2
KJV - that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances
NKJV - that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions…
NIV - for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings…

Notice that the NIV uses teachings for 2 Thess 2:15, and also the KJV uses ordinances for 1 Cor 11:2. Is there a fear that the use of the word traditions could support the catholic teaching of Apostolic Tradition?

James 5:16
KJV - Confess your faults one to another…
NKJV - Confess your trespasses to one another…
NIV - Therefore confess your sins to each other…

Again, footnotes to the NKJV indicate that the NU-Text reads “Therefore confess your sins.”. I’ve heard a protestant argue that faults does not translate to sin, therefore confession of sin to someone other than God is not implied here.

1 Cor 1:18
KJV - but unto us which are saved…
NKJV - but to us who are being saved…
NIV - but to us who are being saved…

Notice how the KJV uses “are saved” as opposed to “being saved”. Is the KJV translation used to prove absolute assurance of salvation?

John 19:20
KJV - and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin…
NKJV - and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin…
NIV - and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek…

Why do the KJV and NKJV use Hebrew instead of Aramaic as the NIV does? In the debate regarding which language Jesus spoke, could the passages in the KJV and NKJV be used to support the idea that the Aramaic language was not common at the time?

Again, these are observations I have made in my study of protestant bible translations. What implications can be made due to these changes? Revelation 22:19 says that if any man takes away from the words of this book loses their part in the book of life. In response to claims that we “add” to scripture (i.e. deuterocanonicals), can these passages be used to do the same? Has anyone brought these passages up to a non-catholic before? If so, what were the responses?

Are there any other passages that could be listed as well? I’d be interested in your thoughts and comments on the above passages.

Thanks for your help…God Bless.
 
I use a Douay-Rheims Bible, a photo copy of the originals with the NT printed in 1582 and the OT in 1611.

I own a King Jame’s Version and seldom refer to it.

The Douay - Rheims Bible was possibly the 6th translation of thee bile into English and there are 41 Emprintures ( Bishops & ArchBishops) . It was translated from the Vulgate which was the Bible used for hundreds of years.

I have an NIV that was read by me, but have found the Douay-Rhiems tto be complete with all the Books that the KJV & NIV left out.
 
Hello Matthew1624, citing Rev 22:19 is a very Harold-Camping-sort-of-thing to do. Are you listening to Family Radio down there? I liked listening to Camping and learned a lot on FR, but he is a fundamentalist and a fervent anti-Catholic.

I’m not a scholar, and don’t pretend to be. But, it may help to know that the NIV (like the NAB) is not a literal translation of the scripture. They are paraphrases, and you have diligently noted some differences. The NKJV is an update of KJV and I’m not too familiar with what they’ve done with the wording.

No one ever remarks that these translations are covered by copyrights, and so some variation is to be expected because they don’t want to be accused of plagiarizing from each other or violating copyrights. For that reason alone, I wouldn’t be overly critical of differences in the text. The most scholarly study of the Bible would be done in the original languages.

I agree that the word “traditions” probably causes angst because of its special meanings to Catholics.

When you talk about nutty translations, why would the NAB render I Co 10:16 as “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” The KJV uses the word “communion” instead of “participation” and this translation by the NAB seems very retro to me. Catholics have traditionally called the Eucharist “Holy Communion.” When I was 9, I made my first “holy communion” not my first “holy participation.” Go figure. Maybe this is the copyright problem rearing its ugly head. No, there you go. I take that back. Strong’s translates koinonia as “participation” or “social intercourse” or “communion”. Probably the copyright problem here; it certainly does not aid communication. What does “participation in the blood of Christ” mean, off the top of your head?

Strong’s concordance can still be purchased for under $20 and gives some background on the underlying original languages, and the origins of words used in the translation.
 
40.png
matthew1624:
Again, these are observations I have made in my study of protestant bible translations. What implications can be made due to these changes? Revelation 22:19 says that if any man takes away from the words of this book loses their part in the book of life. In response to claims that we “add” to scripture (i.e. deuterocanonicals), can these passages be used to do the same? Has anyone brought these passages up to a non-catholic before? If so, what were the responses?
Click to expand...
In Revelation in 22:19, the ‘book’ refers to the book of Revelation, not the Bible as a whole. Remember, the New Testament canon had not been formulated at that time Revelation was written. (Attempts at determining the canon did not start until the middle of the second century A.D., and it wasn’t finalized until the end of the 4th century AD. There’s a similar passage in Deuteronomy (I can’t recall chapter and verse) about cursing those who add to or take away from the Law, but it doesn’t apply to the whole OT (as much of the OT didn’t exist at the time.

As for the various Protestant translations, I’m sure many translators had an agenda, although probably more so at the height of the Reformation than now.
 
All I got to say is that the NIV is a peice of junk bible. They tampered with the word of God so that it will be to their liking. Mmmmm… 2 Peter 3:16 rings a bell.
 
40.png
BayCityRickL:
Hello Matthew1624, citing Rev 22:19 is a very Harold-Camping-sort-of-thing to do. Are you listening to Family Radio down there? I liked listening to Camping and learned a lot on FR, but he is a fundamentalist and a fervent anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of Harold Camping. I was quoting Rev 22:19 simply because this passage is used by non-catholics when referring to the deuterocanonicals. I’m aware that this passage referred to the book of Revelation.
What does “participation in the blood of Christ” mean, off the top of your head?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, it means a partaking of his body and blood. I have no problem with the word participation. As a catholic, I’m not relying on my interperatation of scripture but on what the church teaches. On the other hand, those who are bible alone have to answer to why these changes took place, IMO.

Here’s another for the list…(The Our Father)

Matthew 6:13 (And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.)
KJV - For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
NKJV - For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen
NIV - Nothing after …deliver us from evil.

Again, footnotes for NKJV state the following “NU-Text omits For Yours through Amen.” and footnotes for NIV state “Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”

Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
40.png
RNRobert:
As for the various Protestant translations, I’m sure many translators had an agenda, although probably more so at the height of the Reformation than now.
Click to expand...
That’s the point of my post. I carry a pocket KJV and have encountered areas where it leads me to believe that the translators definitely had an agenda.

God Bless…
 
**
**1 Cor 11:18
**
Click to expand...
KJV - For first of all, when ye come together in the church…
NKJV - For first of all, when you come together as a church…
NIV - when you come together as a church…

Why has “in the church” been changed to “as a church”. Is it possible that “in the church” could imply a physical church and therefore the change to “as a church” (i.e. where two or three are gathered…) **

**First of all the Greek word for Church is **ekklhsia| and that means not just “church” as you may think of it but it is “a body of believers.” So it makes better sense “as a church” because you are coming as a body, not coming together in a body. So the better translation is "as a church."

**
John 9:4
KJV - I must work the works of him that sent me…
NKJV - I must work the works of him that sent me…
NIV - We must do the work of him that sent me…
Click to expand...
The footnotes of the NKJV indicate the following “NU-Text reads We” If earlier manuscripts use We why is it not reflected in the passage? Is it possible that passage could refer to our cooperation in the works of Christ and therefore left as I in KJV and NKJV? Is this a Faith vs. Works issue?
Click to expand...
The differences come from differences of ancient manuscripts. The KJV used a Greek text that uses **eme dei **and the modern versions use a Greek text that uses hmav dei **, so both are correctly translated, but use different Greek texts that rely on different manuscript readings. The modern reading has a better manscript reliabilty because they are older manuscripts.

**
**2 Thess 2:15
**
Click to expand...
KJV - stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught…
NKJV - stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught…
NIV - stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you…

The word traditions is by far the better rendering! paradoseiv is used here, and is best translated out as traditions, but tradtions are teachings that are passed down.
 
**
**
1 Cor 11:2
KJV - that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances
NKJV - that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions…
NIV - for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings…

Notice that the NIV uses teachings for 2 Thess 2:15, and also the KJV uses ordinances for 1 Cor 11:2. Is there a fear that the use of the word traditions could support the catholic teaching of Apostolic Tradition?

The NIV translators never impress me very often, but I doubt that the KJV translators were trying to avoid sounding Catholic in this verse, even though I am not a big KJV fan.
James 5:16
Click to expand...
KJV - Confess your faults one to another…
NKJV - Confess your trespasses to one another…
NIV - Therefore confess your sins to each other…

Again, footnotes to the NKJV indicate that the NU-Text reads “Therefore confess your sins.”. I’ve heard a protestant argue that faults does not translate to sin, therefore confession of sin to someone other than God is not implied here.
**** The Greek word used in that verse is in the Greek text used by the KJV translators is paraptwmata does mean faults or tresspasses. But the Greek word used in the better manuscripts is the word amartiav which means sins. So both translations have translated correctly but are using different Greek texts.
 
**
**1 Cor 1:18
**
Click to expand...
KJV - but unto us which are saved…
NKJV - but to us who are being saved…
NIV - but to us who are being saved…

Notice how the KJV uses “are saved” as opposed to “being saved”. Is the KJV translation used to prove absolute assurance of salvation?

sw|zomenoiv are being saved is correct because it is dative plural middle passive.

**
**John 19:20
**
Click to expand...
**KJV - and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin…
NKJV - and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin…
NIV - and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek…

Why do the KJV and NKJV use Hebrew instead of Aramaic as the NIV does? In the debate regarding which language Jesus spoke, could the passages in the KJV and NKJV be used to support the idea that the Aramaic language was not common at the time?

Either rendering is correct, but Hebrew is most accepted among translators. I think the NIV translators just tried to be different then all the rest by using Aramaic. Even Chaldee could have been used in that passage.
Again, these are observations I have made in my study of protestant bible translations. What implications can be made due to these changes? Revelation 22:19 says that if any man takes away from the words of this book loses their part in the book of life. In response to claims that we “add” to scripture (i.e. deuterocanonicals), can these passages be used to do the same? Has anyone brought these passages up to a non-catholic before? If so, what were the responses?
Click to expand...
All these variants are nothing to be alarmed about. You would be amazed of all the variants there are among ancient manuscripts. There are over 5000 ancient Greek manuscript of the NT alone, and out of all the ancient manuscripts there are only about 5% difference between the ones that vary to most. That is very good considering all the ancient scribes did not have a Xerox machine!

The main reason why there are differences between some translations is because not usually an error of the translators, though sometimes that happens, but it boils down to different manuscripts that were used in translation.

Within the last 100-150 years some of the greatest manuscript discoveries have been made. The oldest ancient NT and OT manuscripts are now available, which is something that many translators never had for the last 600-700 years. The oder a manuscript is the closer it is to the original because of less times a text has passed through the hands of scribes to be copied. **
 
**My Greek font has cause one of my posts to mess up, let me try to correct it.
James 5:16
KJV - Confess your faults one to another…
Click to expand...
NKJV - Confess your trespasses to one another…
NIV - Therefore confess your sins to each other…

Again, footnotes to the NKJV indicate that the NU-Text reads “Therefore confess your sins.”. I’ve heard a protestant argue that faults does not translate to sin, therefore confession of sin to someone other than God is not implied here. **The differences again lie between differences in Greek texts used by the translators. The KJV used a Greek text (Textual Receptus) which relied upon some Greek manuscripts that only date back to the 10th and 12th centuries. The modern translations usually rely upon a Greek text the rely upon manuscripts that date back to the 2nd century and after. So the translators did translate the words out correctly but just used a different Greek text.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top