kjv or niv

  • Thread starter Thread starter nojesusnopeace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

When this verse was penned, there was no canon of Scripture. Each letter or book was independent. Therefore the only possible antecedent for “this book” is the book of Revelation, as written on Patmos by John. If could not have referred to The Bible, the New Testament or the KJV.

As to bias, how can one not understand that a version commission by a monarch during the heart of the Reformation would be more likely to be biased than pretty much anything else? It is an excellent translation, for government work, but it has the deficiency of relying only on a single text, on that had serious critical issues.

The bottom line, our faith should only be in Jesus, not some translation. Bibliolatry is no better than Mariolatry.
 
  1. Douay-Rheims
  2. Knox Translation
  3. Confraternity Bible
  4. Jerusalem Bible
  5. Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition
  6. New Jerusalem Bible
  7. Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition
  8. New American Bible - Revised Edition
  9. New American Bible
And, there are more versions than this. Why a Catholic would even argue NIV vs. KJV is surreal. Both are, by definition, anti-Catholic biased translations, and have only 91% of sacred scripture at that!

My main problem with the KJV is in the spiritual realm. There is something about it - inherent disobedience in its DNA - that lead each and every founder of each and every disagreeing and/or heretical denomination that was spawned in 1800s America to base their movement on the KJV. And, this leaves all of the disagreeing UK denominations out of this.

Mormonism.
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Oneness Pentecostals

To name only a few. All deny the revealed nature of God.

What is it about the KJV that inspires such disagreement and heresy?
 
Kjv or niv? Neither. I am a Catholic convert from Protestant mixture of fundamentalism/baptist/methodism and in the last four years have been through every English translation approved by the Church I could get my hands on. My hope was to find a readable Catholic translation of the bible with faithful Catholic notes. Not a secular scholar’s bible, not a protestant ecumenical bible, excetera. I have had every possible translation I could get my hands on. That includes the GNT, CEV, RSV, RSV-CE2 NT, NAB, NABRE, Christian Community, New Community, Revised English, Douay Rheims, Douay/confraternity, confraternity NT. Here are my recommendations. For children and adults not familiar with the text, I can only recommend the Christian Community Bible - Catholic Pastoral Edition. For study: the Ignatius RSV-CE2 new testament study bible or complete OT/NT RSV-CE2 edition. For the pleasure of reading: Confraternity New Testament or a Douay/confraternity if you can find one. All the those others were worthless to me. I would never give my child a NAB to read.

I forgot to mention, I just ordered a Knox bible and I hope I will be impressed. Also, I have no experience with the NJB.

And I forgot to mention as a Protestant I was greatly familiar with the NRSV, NAS, KJV, Living, and NIV.
 
dmar198 said:
Could you give a few examples?
Click to expand...
Yes I’ll give a couple. I will say this is common to a lot of English translations not just those two. It has to do with Jesus using the Divine Name Ἐγώ εἰμι (I am). Remember that God names Himself to Moses in Exodus. He tells Moses tell them I am (Ἐγώ εἰμι). That name was considered so holy it was only said once a year when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies.

When Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman He calls Himself the Divine Name. Here is how the Douay-Rheims and the KJV translate it. This is John 4:25-26

KJV: The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ); therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.

Douay–Rheims: The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

The original Greek does not include the “he.” Jesus simpy says I am, Ἐγώ εἰμι, clearly naming Himself as God.

The same thing happens again in John 18. When Jesus is betrayed again He clearly names Himself as God. Here are the verses. First the Douay–Rheims then the KJV

Douay–Rheims: Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to them: Whom seek ye?

They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.

As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground.

KJV: Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Again in the original Greek Jesus responds with Ἐγώ εἰμι with no “he.” And if you really think about verse 6 in these translations it doesn’t make any sense at all why the guards fell on the ground. They fell to the ground because Jesus spoke the Divine Name and they were shocked and horrified.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Yes I’ll give a couple. I will say this is common to a lot of English translations not just those two. It has to do with Jesus using the Divine Name Ἐγώ εἰμι (I am). Remember that God names Himself to Moses in Exodus. He tells Moses tell them I am (Ἐγώ εἰμι). That name was considered so holy it was only said once a year when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies.

When Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman He calls Himself the Divine Name. Here is how the Douay-Rheims and the KJV translate it. This is John 4:25-26

KJV: The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ); therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.

Douay–Rheims: The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

The original Greek does not include the “he.” Jesus simpy says I am, Ἐγώ εἰμι, clearly naming Himself as God.

The same thing happens again in John 18. When Jesus is betrayed again He clearly names Himself as God. Here are the verses. First the Douay–Rheims then the KJV

Douay–Rheims: Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to them: Whom seek ye?

They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.

As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground.

KJV: Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Again in the original Greek Jesus responds with Ἐγώ εἰμι with no “he.” And if you really think about verse 6 in these translations it doesn’t make any sense at all why the guards fell on the ground. They fell to the ground because Jesus spoke the Divine Name and they were shocked and horrified.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Confraternity NT John 4:25
"The woman said to him, "I know that the Messias is coming (who is called Christ), and when he comes he will tell us all things. Jesus said to her, “I who speak with thee am he.”

Confraternity NT Luke 1:28
“and when the angel had come to her, he said, Hail, full of grace the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.”
 
Seraphim73 said:
The same thing happens again in John 18. When Jesus is betrayed again He clearly names Himself as God. Here are the verses. First the Douay–Rheims then the KJV

Douay–Rheims: Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to them: Whom seek ye?

They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.

As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground.

KJV: Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Again in the original Greek Jesus responds with Ἐγώ εἰμι with no “he.” And if you really think about verse 6 in these translations it doesn’t make any sense at all why the guards fell on the ground. They fell to the ground because Jesus spoke the Divine Name and they were shocked and horrified.
Click to expand...
The NABRE does have the John 18 “I AM” (in all capital letters even).
 
Yes, they got the translation right in the NABRE,** however**,
look at the notes at [18:5]:

“… I AM: or “I am he,” but probably intended by the evangelist as an expression of divinity…”
[italics mine]

against the notes from the RSV-CE2 18:6 I am:

"Jesus unleashes the power of the divine name, “I AM”, simply by uttering it (Ex 3:14)

Now that is brave, now that is the rubber meeting the road, now that is saying something!

The notes in the NABRE, in my opinion, are cowardly. I wouldn’t read the NABRE for enjoyment because there are better ones for that, (confraternity or douay and some would say Knox), nor would I use it for studying because the notes don’t say anything, they are cowardly, weak, removed for real life Catholicism. Therefore, it is a useless translation other than for reading at mass I guess, but when passages like Luke 1:28 come up it is worthless (grrrr!). WHAT were they thinking?
 
StLudmilla said:
Yes, they got the translation right in the NABRE,** however**,
look at the notes at [18:5]:

“… I AM: or “I am he,” but probably intended by the evangelist as an expression of divinity…”
[italics mine]

against the notes from the RSV-CE2 18:6 I am:

"Jesus unleashes the power of the divine name, “I AM”, simply by uttering it (Ex 3:14)

Now that is brave, now that is the rubber meeting the road, now that is saying something!

The notes in the NABRE, in my opinion, are cowardly. I wouldn’t read the NABRE for enjoyment because there are better ones for that, (confraternity or douay and some would say Knox), nor would I use it for studying because the notes don’t say anything, they are cowardly, weak, removed for real life Catholicism. Therefore, it is a useless translation other than for reading at mass I guess, but when passages like Luke 1:28 come up it is worthless (grrrr!). WHAT were they thinking?
Click to expand...
I will say of all the major translations I’m familiar with the NIV is by far the worst. We could probably fill up a couple of pages of mistranslations and obfuscations in that version. The fact that so many Sola Scriptura Protestants use the NIV is a scandal for them. The translators started with Protestant theology and then completely mistranslated quite a few verses to fit what they already believed. Instead of being transformed by the renewing of their minds they transformed Scripture to fit their minds.
 
Seraphim73 said:
I will say of all the major translations I’m familiar with the NIV is by far the worst. We could probably fill up a couple of pages of mistranslations and obfuscations in that version. The fact that so many Sola Scriptura Protestants use the NIV is a scandal for them. The translators started with Protestant theology and then completely mistranslated quite a few verses to fit what they already believed. Instead of being transformed by the renewing of their minds they transformed Scripture to fit their minds.
Click to expand...
The Holy Scriptures are apart of the written Tradition of the Church, one true holy apostolic. Therefore, the scriptures have their fullest meaning within that Holy Spirit inspired Tradition. Breaking from Tradition creates heresies. Therefore the translation “Hail, full of grace…” is not translating like protestants and schizmatics do, from their innovations, but the continutity of the Tradition that has always been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top