P
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
One word: no.
po18guy
Well-known member
However, neither bible is complete, having suffered the removal of the Deuterocanonical books. The link you provide is apparently a “King James Onlyist” site, whose adherents choose to disregard all other translations and hold that only the King James Version (and only the 1611 edition) is the true and correct translation. This, of course, is silly. Other sites are dedicated to the numerous typographical and translation errors in certain editions of the KJV. Just Google “KJV Translation errors” and see what you get.
None of this relieves the NIV of its own problems - mainly that it is an agenda-driven translation itself, and not friendly to the Catholic Church unless it simply must be. But, neither is the KJV (King James had his own agenda), although I consider it a better translation than the NIV.
But, note that of all the verses in the bible, the KJV Onlyists select out Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 12:47, both verses which they specifically twist to deny Catholic teaching on Mary. In this regard, the supporters of both bibles also disagree with Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, but that does not seem to bother them one bit. As well, the KJV Onlyists’ editorial comments seem rather hysterical, to say the least.
How did you come upon this site?
None of this relieves the NIV of its own problems - mainly that it is an agenda-driven translation itself, and not friendly to the Catholic Church unless it simply must be. But, neither is the KJV (King James had his own agenda), although I consider it a better translation than the NIV.
But, note that of all the verses in the bible, the KJV Onlyists select out Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 12:47, both verses which they specifically twist to deny Catholic teaching on Mary. In this regard, the supporters of both bibles also disagree with Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, but that does not seem to bother them one bit. As well, the KJV Onlyists’ editorial comments seem rather hysterical, to say the least.
How did you come upon this site?
P
PiousTemplar
Guest
Thanks guys, I came across it from a facebook update.
M
melchesidechpio
Guest
I still would avoid both translations and stick to Catholic only translations that bear an imprimatur and nihil obstat.
P
Poco
Guest
Well said!I also agree with po18guy.
:ehh: I’m curious, though. Some of the verses they cited, while phrased somewhat differently, impart the exact same meaning. I don’t see where they have a problem there!?
In any case, I believe the original KJV included the deuterocanonical books although they were put in a separate section.
Sorry for going a little off topic.
M
melchesidechpio
Guest
I don’t take the KJV onlyist that serious. If they did their homework they would know more about both Protestant translations and Catholic translations instead of lies
P
Poco
Guest
Once again, well said!
po18guy
Well-known member
They are a fringe of a fringe. As to just why they have latched onto only the 1611 KJV is anyone’s guess.
po18guy
Well-known member
They claim that the NIV “removes the divinity of Jesus”, in red print, no less. I see a tiny bunch of wild-eyed believers in that group. Rather a hyperbolic sect.
P
PiousTemplar
Guest
Ahahaha, po18guy you seem to know your sects well 
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
Neither the King James Bible, or the New International Version are complete versions of the Bible. Both followed the model of SOME Jewish authors, who ignored what are generally considered to be a part of the "Old Testament. Some Jewish authors stated that there was no record that the Deutrocannonical books did not appear in ancient Jewish texts.
The NIV was written to essentially, “Modernize” the King James version It uses inclusive language, changes a LOT of texts, and essentially is what some folks call a “It feels so Good” Bible. Sadly, it’s translations are more along the lines of, “It says what we want it to say”, than strict accuracy. It also leaves out the same books as the King James does, which makes it even poorer in quality.
It was NOT until the "Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered that this could finally be totally and completely refuted. In fact, ALL of those books do appear in those scrolls, which are the oldest extant version of the old testament that is completely available to all of us (at least those who can read ancient Hebrew).
Even those texts were not widely available until very recent years, because the original translators held them very closely, and refused to share the original manuscripts. These were finally microfilmed by the Israeli’s, and made available to the entire scholastic world. They have led to a massive amount of research, and much better translations than had ever been available before.
The New Testament was also changed in the King James and most subsequent “Protestant Bibles”, to reflect the views of the Protestants.
If you truly want to see an accurate version of the Bible, as accurate as unbiased Biblical Scholars can make it, check out the newest ones approved by the Church.
The NIV was written to essentially, “Modernize” the King James version It uses inclusive language, changes a LOT of texts, and essentially is what some folks call a “It feels so Good” Bible. Sadly, it’s translations are more along the lines of, “It says what we want it to say”, than strict accuracy. It also leaves out the same books as the King James does, which makes it even poorer in quality.
It was NOT until the "Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered that this could finally be totally and completely refuted. In fact, ALL of those books do appear in those scrolls, which are the oldest extant version of the old testament that is completely available to all of us (at least those who can read ancient Hebrew).
Even those texts were not widely available until very recent years, because the original translators held them very closely, and refused to share the original manuscripts. These were finally microfilmed by the Israeli’s, and made available to the entire scholastic world. They have led to a massive amount of research, and much better translations than had ever been available before.
The New Testament was also changed in the King James and most subsequent “Protestant Bibles”, to reflect the views of the Protestants.
If you truly want to see an accurate version of the Bible, as accurate as unbiased Biblical Scholars can make it, check out the newest ones approved by the Church.
P
patrick457
Guest
I like saying this, and I’ll say this again: the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version contains all the 76 books found in the Clementine Vulgate. 76, yes, because you have the 73 canonical books plus the three apocrypha: Prayer of Manasses and 1-2 (3-4 in the Vulgate) Esdras. But because all the deuterocanonical sections are in a separate section (i.e. Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are for example not bound with Daniel), at first glance the KJV would seem to have more books than a Catholic Bible.
To put it more accurately, it leaves out what the King James (or at least the original editions anyway, before those printers found out that thinner Bibles have more market appeal among non-Anglicans and were drawn by the commercial value - the fact that it passed out of copyright in most of the world (save for the UK even today, where you can print it only if you have the letters patent allowing you to do so) didn’t help much IMHO) DIDN’T.
And no, the NIV is a translation in its own right. I think you’re confusing it with the Revised Version (1881-1895) and its relatives the ASV (the RV’s American cousin), RSV (a revision of the ASV, just like the later NASB) and NRSV, which was indeed designed to be a revision/update of the King James. The translators of the RV even stated their aim was “to adapt King James’ version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and vocabulary,” and “to adapt it to the present standard of Biblical scholarship.”
But hey, at least its better than those overtly dynamic translations such as The Message in that it at least tries to keep some balance between literal and paraphrase.
And for the record, AFAIK the NIV really only sold out to the ‘gender-inclusiveness’ disease pretty recently. I’m sure it wasn’t the case with the original edition.
Not exactly. We have five fragments of Tobit (four are in Aramaic and one in Hebrew), three of Sirach (two from Qumran and one from Masada), and one very badly-preserved fragment of the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) in Greek, but that’s it. We do not have copies of 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon (aka Eclesiasticus). By contrast, we do have Psalms 151 (found in the Septuagint as well) and 154-155 (found in the Syriac Peshitta), as well as the Book of Jubilees and 1 Enoch.
P
patrick457
Guest
Of course you wonder why the King James-Onlyists don’t accept the Deutero’s as well, seeing that they were also in the 1611 KJV, but sometimes make complicated reasons as to why it can’t be inspired. Despite them being in the covers. I’ve never seen one who says that 1 Maccabees is inspired Scripture. Or that they have more books than us Papists, who only have 73.
po18guy
Well-known member
Further evidence of man’s tampering with God’s Word. And, the “apocrypha” are included between the 1611 KJV covers as “worthwhile” reading only. The agenda of the reformers becomes clear: they declared the Deuterocanon books “not inspired”, but feared removing them altogether. Some courage, huh? I guess that only those who are motivated to seek the truth even wonder why they were included in the holy book at all.Of course you wonder why the King James-Onlyists don’t accept the Deutero’s as well, seeing that they were also in the 1611 KJV, but sometimes make complicated reasons as to why it can’t be inspired. Despite them being in the covers. I’ve never seen one who says that 1 Maccabees is inspired Scripture. Or that they have more books than us Papists, who only have 73.
M
melchesidechpio
Guest
you do not have all your facts straight.
M
melchesidechpio
Guest
my Aunt and Uncle just happen to a couple of those.
po18guy
Well-known member
Well, since absolutely no one claims that Jesus spoke the English of King James, who arrived 15 centuries later, one does wonder at their obsession with it…
Gives you someone to pray for on a daily basis.
M
melchesidechpio
Guest
yes it does
J
JackQ
Guest
However, the Psalms of the NIV have been approved for Catholic use.
- Status