Freethought & Rationalism Archive

nerv111 · 10-10-2001, 03:29 PM

What exactly is the difference between the two?

I have mostly used the KJV in my debates, so I am familiar with it. But for the first time someone has challenged me to a debate, and they are using the New International Version�

cloudyphiz · 10-10-2001, 04:56 PM

the niv is a much newer translation, written by people with an agenda... the apologizers i've dealt with love it.

nerv111 · 10-10-2001, 05:19 PM

Quote:

the niv is a much newer translation, written by people with an agenda... the apologizers i've dealt with love it.

I figured as much� let me guess, they have also removed some of the contradictions from the NIV also.

aikido7 · 10-10-2001, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nerv111:
<STRONG>What exactly is the difference between the two?

I have mostly used the KJV in my debates, so I am familiar with it. But for the first time someone has challenged me to a debate, and they are using the New International Version…</STRONG>

Changes in the neighborhood:

"Hey, didn't there used to be a building on that corner?"

"You know, I don't remember. I DO know that the condo on the corner is new--I just can't remember what used to be there."

"Modern times, I guess. Things change, don't they?"

jordan_tar · 10-10-2001, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cloudyphiz:
<STRONG>the niv is a much newer translation, written by people with an agenda... the apologizers i've dealt with love it.</STRONG>

At the youth group my parents subjected me to last year, they distributed copies of the "NIV for Teens", which features relevant articles for our times, such as "Abortion: the New Holocaust", "The Truth about Evolution", "Does the Devil Exist?" and "Why Generation X Needs to Change". Of course, these are full of ridiculous assertions and non-arguments ("People say religion just causes wars, but it's funny that Attila the Hun, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler weren't religious people." What would this be called - argument from reverse-exception?)

Gotta get to 'em while they're young...

nerv111 · 10-10-2001, 07:42 PM

Quote:

At the youth group my parents subjected me to last year, they distributed copies of the "NIV for Teens", which features relevant articles for our times, such as "Abortion: the New Holocaust", "The Truth about Evolution", "Does the Devil Exist?" and "Why Generation X Needs to Change". Of course, these are full of ridiculous assertions and non-arguments ("People say religion just causes wars, but it's funny that Attila the Hun, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler weren't religious people." What would this be called - argument from reverse-exception?)

LOL, hilarious� For a minute there I thought that the NIV would a little more liberal; oh was I wrong. Just more fundamentalist BS�

Grumpy · 10-11-2001, 05:42 PM

Doesn't Pat Robertson favor the NIV? Maybe he's got a money stake in it.

To its credit, the translation does have footnotes that point out some textual oddities. For example, it delineates between the short ending of Mark and the snake-handling passage in the concluding verses. There are a couple of interpolations in John it calls attention to.

jupstin · 10-11-2001, 09:50 PM

For what it's worth, here's the opinion of a fundie: The KJV seems to be used by two kinds of people - those who are reluctant to part with it because they grew up with it, and those who believe that the translation itself is inspired. The latter group is basically insane (I'm sure I don't have to argue the validity of that point on this board.) There may or may not be merit to the idea that the NIV was translated with an agenda in mind, but at least the translators had the benefit of a greater number of documents to work from. I've personally never been able to resolve any apparent contradictions by consulting the NIV instead of some other translation. In other words, the major problems that apologists deal with can be found in all of the versions.

A Disciple · 10-13-2001, 12:31 AM

Hello, You guys probably don't care but there are major differences between KJV and NIV. Things like many missing verses in NIV eg. Acts 8:37. The word Holy is taken out all over the place in NIV, the NIV actually places Lucifer in Jesus's position calling Lucifer 'morning star' When it is Jesus who is. The KJV was translated by 47 different people over and over and over. The NIV was translated by eight or nine people from the Alexandrian texts. KJV was textus receptus.
All versions except KJV are copyrighted and no more than 200 words can be used before an infringement is made. You can copy all of KJV. NIV is owned by (Forget his name can get it for you if you would like) He owns Fox TV, rights to Bart Simpson, and Star magazine.
If you would like more info, let me know...I'll get you exacts!!!
Thanks
Jay

jre · 10-13-2001, 02:23 AM

Rupert Murdoch.

10-10-2001, 03:29 PM	#1
nerv111 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 421	KJV vs. New International Version... What exactly is the difference between the two? I have mostly used the KJV in my debates, so I am familiar with it. But for the first time someone has challenged me to a debate, and they are using the New International Version�

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-10-2001, 04:56 PM	#2
cloudyphiz Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: rochester, ny, usa Posts: 658	the niv is a much newer translation, written by people with an agenda... the apologizers i've dealt with love it.

10-11-2001, 05:42 PM	#7
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Doesn't Pat Robertson favor the NIV? Maybe he's got a money stake in it. To its credit, the translation does have footnotes that point out some textual oddities. For example, it delineates between the short ending of Mark and the snake-handling passage in the concluding verses. There are a couple of interpolations in John it calls attention to.

10-11-2001, 09:50 PM	#8
jupstin Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 32	For what it's worth, here's the opinion of a fundie: The KJV seems to be used by two kinds of people - those who are reluctant to part with it because they grew up with it, and those who believe that the translation itself is inspired. The latter group is basically insane (I'm sure I don't have to argue the validity of that point on this board.) There may or may not be merit to the idea that the NIV was translated with an agenda in mind, but at least the translators had the benefit of a greater number of documents to work from. I've personally never been able to resolve any apparent contradictions by consulting the NIV instead of some other translation. In other words, the major problems that apologists deal with can be found in all of the versions.

10-13-2001, 12:31 AM	#9
A Disciple Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 30	Hello, You guys probably don't care but there are major differences between KJV and NIV. Things like many missing verses in NIV eg. Acts 8:37. The word Holy is taken out all over the place in NIV, the NIV actually places Lucifer in Jesus's position calling Lucifer 'morning star' When it is Jesus who is. The KJV was translated by 47 different people over and over and over. The NIV was translated by eight or nine people from the Alexandrian texts. KJV was textus receptus. All versions except KJV are copyrighted and no more than 200 words can be used before an infringement is made. You can copy all of KJV. NIV is owned by (Forget his name can get it for you if you would like) He owns Fox TV, rights to Bart Simpson, and Star magazine. If you would like more info, let me know...I'll get you exacts!!! Thanks Jay

10-13-2001, 02:23 AM	#10
jre Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 166	Rupert Murdoch.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.