Comparing King James Version Scriptures with New International Version Bible

[Still_Small_Voice]

I am going to do some comparing and contrasting the King James Version Bible with the New International Version.

John 14:2 New International Version:  "My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?"

John 14:2 King James Version:  "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."

Romans 8:1 New International Version: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,"

Romans 8:1 King James Version: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Psalms 85:11

“Faithfulness springs forth from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven.” New International Version

“Truth shall spring out of the earth, And righteousness shall look down from heaven.” King James Version

Proverbs 24:16

“for though the righteous fall seven times, they rise again, but the wicked stumble when calamity strikes.”    New International Version

“For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief.” King James Version

Isaiah 14:12

“How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!    You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” New International Version

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” King James Version

Micah 5:2

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” New International Version

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” King James Version

Luke 4:4

“Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone” New International Version

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” King James Version

Ephesians 3:9

“and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.” New International Version

“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:”            King James Version

I John 4:3

“But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”    New International Version

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” King James Version

I Corinthians 9:27

“No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” New International Version

“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” King James Version

Galations 5:11-12

“Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?    In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.    As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”    New International Version

“And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” King James Version

Revelation 22:14

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.” New International Version

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” King James Version

 

 

[Still_Small_Voice]

New International Version says we get a room.  I will go with the King James Version correctly reads mansions.

Doctrine and Covenants 76 verse 111 reads:  "For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;"

Doctrine & Covenants 98 verse 18 also reads:  "Let not your hearts be troubled; for in my Father’s house are many mansions, and I have prepared a place for you; and where my Father and I am, there ye shall be also."

In my opinion, New International Version Bible waters down the word of God from a more potent form.  Praise the LORD for the King James Version and the Inspired Version of the Bible.  Another Bible version I also like is 21st Century King James Version.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I am going to do some comparing and contrasting the King James Version Bible with the New International Version.

The NIV did the job that the editors promised.  It translated the various ancient translations (Masoretic, Septuagint, Vulgate - both Greek and Latin, etc.) into (more or less) modern English in as succinct a manner as possible.  And for the most part, they did a good job.

The KJV used a different method.  They used the Masoretic for the Old Testament, the Textus Receptus for the New.  And to help them along, they also used previous English translations as a guide (Geneva Bible, Tyndale Bible, and Coverdale Bible).

7 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

New International Version says we get a room.  I will go with the King James Version correctly reads mansions.

The Textus Receptus uses the word μοναὶ /mon-ay'/.  It means "abode" or "dwelling place."  It is neither a mansion, nor a room.  But either one could be inferred.

The D&C uses the word "mansions" because it is to go hand-in-hand with the KJV language.  D&C 1 says that the Lord speaks to man in man's language and according to man's understanding.  At the time of the revelation, the most common version of the Bible (by far) was the KJV.  So, He spoke in reference to the scripture we already had.

Every version has its flaws.  And people will tend to like one version over another. But I think it is wise to take a look at different versions to get a different take on the 

If I were to translate any of these texts into English in different centuries, I promise I'd give you a different translation each time.

[Still_Small_Voice]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Every version has its flaws.  And people will tend to like one version over another. But I think it is wise to take a look at different versions to get a different take on the 

If I were to translate any of these texts into English in different centuries, I promise I'd give you a different translation each time.

This is why I am grateful for modern day prophets.  The work Joseph Smith did with the direction of the Holy Ghost gave us a good translation that is powerful in the Inspired Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.

I feel sad for the large part of Christianity that rejects all of these wonderful modern day scriptures that help us understand mortal life and the Plan of Salvation.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

This is why I am grateful for modern day prophets.  The work Joseph Smith did with the direction of the Holy Ghost gave us a good translation that is powerful in the Inspired Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.

I feel sad for the large part of Christianity that rejects all of these wonderful modern day scriptures that help us understand mortal life and the Plan of Salvation.

FTR, he didn't provide what we'd call a "translation" today.  80% of it was more or less an inspired commentary.  There was about 10%-20% of it that was a restoration of things lost.  But much of it was clarification or commentary.  Some of it was providing the direction/instruction that would be appropriate for our dispensation that didn't apply to the 1st century church.  So, those were flat out changes as inspired by God.

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, the NIV translators weren’t above “cheating” a little to buttress their own (Protestant) theology.  I typically go to the Net Bible, or the NRSV.

But yes, comparing differences between different versions can quickly become a fascinating pursuit.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, the NIV translators weren’t above “cheating” a little to buttress their own (Protestant) theology.

I'd have to see the examples.  But for the most part, we all know how it can be considered a "valid" translation without it being the "correct" translation.

It may have been cheating.  Or it may have simply been what any protestant would consider to be the "obvious" meaning based on their worldview.  I've certainly been a part of debates where that was what they fell back on.  And I absolutely disagreed.  But there was no way to agree because we can interpret anything to mean whatever we want it to mean.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'd have to see the examples.  But for the most part, we all know how it can be considered a "valid" translation without it being the "correct" translation.

It may have been cheating.  Or it may have simply been what any protestant would consider to be the "obvious" meaning based on their worldview.  I've certainly been a part of debates where that was what they fell back on.  And I absolutely disagreed.  But there was no way to agree because we can interpret anything to mean whatever we want it to mean.

Yup.  The issue comes when the NIV suggests certain constructions are in the Bible, that aren’t actually in the source manuscripts—when it presumes to offer clarity where the original is, in fact, ambiguous; leading Christians to a false impression as to what “The Bible” actually says (or, doesn’t say).

As much as I hate to link to BCC, here’s a post by Kevin Barney from 2008 (back in the good old days when they were merely progmo, not full-blown anti) that gives some examples of how the NIV translators’ theological commitments subtly shaped the English text that they produced.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As much as I hate to link to BCC, here’s a post by Kevin Barney from 2008

I'm afraid these weren't very good examples. 

None of them were really earth-shattering.  But one was worthy of note (see below)

 

The examples he gave about "teachings" v. "traditions" didn't support his criticism.  Only one verse was indicative of mal-intent.

Quote

when it has a negative connotation (as in Mt. 15:3 and Col. 2:8), as “tradition,” but when it has a positive connotation (as in 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), as “teaching.”

OK, let's take a look.

Quote

King James Bible
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

New International Version
Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

--Matt 15:3 (Negative - kept as "traditions")

Quote

King James Bible
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

New International Version
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

--Col 2:8 (Negative - kept as "traditions")

************************

Quote

King James Bible
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

New International Version
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

-- 2 Thess. 2:15 (Positive - used "teachings")

****************************************

Quote

King James Bible
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

New International Version
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.

1 Cor 11:2 (Positive - used "teachings")

No, they didn't use "teachings" here.  But for protestants, this is a negative, not a positive as Barney claims.  So, it is still an overall true claim.  But he seems to have mixed it up.

It seems that whenever the paradosis (παρέδωκα) was from other sources, it was "traditions."  When it came from the apostles, it was "teachings".  I don't have a problem with that. 

The sole exception is 1 Cor 11:2.  "ordinances" (KJV).  Obviously from the apostles.  And why, for this one verse, did the NIV use the word "traditions" even though it was from the apostles?  I think this is because they bristled at the use of "ordinances."  So, they wanted to stay FARRR away from that idea.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

Though many Christians (especially Traditional Christians) do not want to admit is that there are problems with the Biblical Scriptures.  There is a whole science called “textual criticism” that deals with these problems.  Up until the advent of the Dead Sea Scrolls (scriptures) most of the problems of textual criticism among the Jews and Christians had been settled concerning the Biblical Scriptures.  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed our understanding of ancient Biblical text.

But first we need to understand that there is no translation of the Bible (neither Old nor New Testament).  In fact, there is no Bible in all existence – neither modern nor ancient.  All we have of the Bible are versions.  In essence our Bible is a smorgasbord cheery picked collage from ancient text of what scholars’ think are a “best” representation.   What happened with the Dead Sea Scrolls is that all the effort that had previously thought by scholars to be the best presentations turned out to be proven wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The only logical conclusion was that all versions of the Bible were seriously flawed.

Because of our Book of Mormon, we “restored” Christians of these Latter-days have long known the Biblical narrative was flawed but when combined with the Book of Mormon (combining the stick of Juda with the stick of Joseph) that all the Biblical flaws are mitigated.   But this divine witness of the Messiah in these last-days is somewhat spurious to our Traditional Christian and Jewish cozens.

I like to keep different versions of the Bible for my personal reference.  Outside of the LDS standard works, I personally find the King James red letter version of the Bible the most helpful.  This is because all the questionable words that scholars had disagreement with are printed in italics.   I find this to be most helpful in understanding possible “variants” that need serious (prayer and possible fasting as well as other) consideration.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But first we need to understand that there is no translation of the Bible (neither Old nor New Testament).  In fact, there is no Bible in all existence – neither modern nor ancient.  All we have of the Bible are versions.  In essence our Bible is a smorgasbord cheery picked collage from ancient text of what scholars’ think are a “best” representation.   

This completely ignores what a Bible is.  The very name means "library", i.e. a collection of many books (i.e. specifically chosen books that comport to design of the chooser). 

Specifically, we consider scriptures to be a "divine library".  By its very nature, we cherry pick by having to decide what books are divine and which ones are not.

The true weakness is the method we use to determine which books are truly divine and which ones are not.  The Protestants have decided it thusly:

We already know what the truth is.  So, if we find something we don't believe in, then it is obviously not divine.

So, they specifically got rid of the Apocrypha.  And they specifically reject the Book of Mormon.  That is not "discovery" or "searching".  It is by mortal decree and trusting in the arm of flesh.

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This completely ignores what a Bible is.  The very name means "library", i.e. a collection of many books (i.e. specifically chosen books that comport to design of the chooser). 

Specifically, we consider scriptures to be a "divine library".  By its very nature, we cherry pick by having to decide what books are divine and which ones are not.

The true weakness is the method we use to determine which books are truly divine and which ones are not.  The Protestants have decided it thusly:

We already know what the truth is.  So, if we find something we don't believe in, then it is obviously not divine.

So, they specifically got rid of the Apocrypha.  And they specifically reject the Book of Mormon.  That is not "discovery" or "searching".  It is by mortal decree and trusting in the arm of flesh.

There are thousands of Biblical texts in various languages.  There are no autograph or autogram text (which are considered original).  The text are classified into family texts by category – primarily by language and area.  The may be an exception with the Book of Isaiah but there are concerns about the Biblical Isaiah that remain unresolved.  Of all the texts that exist there is no translation of any single Biblical book text in any version of the Bible.  I will attempt to explain how this works.  Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures the Masoretic texts were considered the most accurate (by expert scholars – many of particular religious stripe but not hierarchical stripes within religious organizations).   These expert scholars would work together to select phrase by phrase form the family of text to determine what would become Biblical.  Mostly the Masoretic texts were used prior to the DDS.  The Samaritan was considered one of the most inaccurate but after the discovery of the DDS the Masoretic was realized to be among the most inaccurate and the Samaritan texts among the most accurate.

In addition, there were two particular versions of all the Biblical Old Testament texts maintained among the Dead Sea Scriptures, with some few exceptions.  The two particular versions were classified as the long version and the short version.  Overall, the sad reality of ancient scripture indicated that there were multiple versions of the ancient Biblical texts maintained by any library that maintained and preserved the Biblical texts.

Also, among the Dead Sea Scrolls there were texts preserved with the scripture texts that are not included in the Bible that predate standards texts that indicate translations were made incorrectly.  It should be obvious that the Book of Mormon is the most significant contribution to sacred Christian library scripture available based on the claims of validity and divine authorization.   

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

On 11/23/2024 at 11:31 AM, Traveler said:

There are thousands of Biblical texts in various languages.  There are no autograph or autogram text (which are considered original).

Traveler, buddy.  Please try to communicate your thoughts better.  You wrote "there is no Bible."   Now you're saying that none of the texts of individual books are original.  These are two very different thoughts.

If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Traveler, buddy.  Please try to communicate your thoughts better.  You wrote "there is no Bible."   Now you're saying that none of the texts of individual books are original.  These are two very different thoughts.

If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say.

This should not be difficult to understand.  Not every collection of books is called a bible – not in modern time nor in ancient time.  Usually when we talk about a collection of books, we are referring to a library.   If one studies the science of textual criticism of our modern Bible, we will discover many things.  Perhaps I should list a few.  There is no standard modern Bible – rather there are several different kinds of Bibles (not to be confused with versions).  For example, there is the Catholic Bible that contains different books than the Protestant Bibles.  I used the term Bibles for the Protestant because the King James Version is just one of several.  The King James Version is the most common English Version and is one of the oldest English Versions.  The oldest English Version is the William Tyndale Version.

Besides the Catholic and Protestant Versions there are the Orthodox, Nestorian, Coptic and others.  All of the Bibles that exist currently (or since Christ and the Apostolic era) rely on the same ancient texts.  All of these ancient texts fall into two categories and are called Biblical texts and non-Biblical texts.  Which ancient texts fall into which category gets a little dicey depending on which version of the Bible one is talking about.  Please note that the ancient texts referenced are not given the title of Bible. 

It is also interesting to note that various collections of ancient texts that were kept in an individual private library are not called a Bible but rather a collection.  For example, the sacred texts by Clement of Alexandria are not called a Bible because the early Church (and others since then) have not used all of his collection in their Bibles.

Many modern Christians that get involved in Biblical textual criticism get very confused as to what a Bible really is.  The more I have studied the origins of the Bible the more I am convinced that the Bible is unreliable – especially for anyone attempting to determine doctrine.  Both in regard to Jewish as well as Christian doctrine.  I have attempted to summarize and highlight just a few reasons for my concern.  If I were to complete and answer your question or explain in detail my concerns it would take at least a pamphlet or even a book or a few books.

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls – even among the leading scholars there is great concern, discussion and even argument concerning the validity and accuracy of the Bible or any particular version currently published.

I will be glad to answer any questions but in order to keep the length of my responsive posts reasonable we will need to make our discussion and questions much more specific.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

On 11/22/2024 at 12:13 PM, Traveler said:

• But first we need to understand that there is no translation of the Bible.
• In fact, there is no Bible in all existence. 

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There is no standard modern Bible

Please, try to dig deep into your English skills.  Can you look at these two quotes from your posts and realize that they do not say the same thing?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Please, try to dig deep into your English skills.  Can you look at these two quotes from your posts and realize that they do not say the same thing?

It is a all matter of definitions, standards and semantics.  For example, you mentioned that all that the bible means is a collection of books.  But that contradicts almost every use of the English term Bible.  I would submit that the correct term in English to reference what is called “The Holy Bible” is the term “version” regardless of what language the volume is represented in.   Do you understand why “version of” is used instead of “translation of” or “copy of”? 

Can you tell me what unique and only ancient text was used to translate any book of any Bible?  Can you tell me where I can obtain whatever it is that you think is the unique and only Bible?  If it is a collection of books – what collection is the correct collection that you use?  If you do not know the answers to the above questions – I do not believe we have anything to discuss.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is a all matter of definitions, standards and semantics.

If that's the route you're going, you're basically saying that you don't speak English.

After all, it's all a matter of semantics.