[Linux4christians] NIV Bible for Linux (off list topic)
R. Sheng-Chieh Cheng
shengchieh at linuxmail.org
Sat Aug 12 14:11:29 EDT 2006
[Agree with Mike - just further comments]
> > The KJV is a very good translation, but when it was translated many of the
> > only texts available in the NT were Byzantine and Medieval miniscules of the
> > Greek text, and for some sections had to rely on a Greek text that actually
> > was Desiderius Erasmus's back-translation into Greek from the Latin Vulgate.
> > So while the KJV is a very good translation, it is from a very inferior
> > text.
> > Some people argue against newer translations by using the KJV as the
> > autograph and then attempt to show the inferiority of other translations by
> > comparing them with the KJV. This is not a valid methodology -- if one
> > wants to compare translations, they should both be compared with the
> > original text.
For those whom don't like old English words:
Since the late 90s and early 2000s, the KJV has been updated.
There have benn numerous updated translation like UKJV, KJ2000, AKJV, RKJV,
and RYLT. Even WB and YLT are KJV-based and a few centries more updated.
So the argument that one must have an easy readable translation does NOT
mean you must read the corrupt NIV.
If you look at my last post, you'll see a long list of translations. KJ2000
is easier to read than NIV, IMHO.
> > I am well aware of some of the calumnies that have been made against the
> > Westcott-Hort Greek text, but today most folks work from the Nestle-Aland
> > Greek NT, which is very good -- it uses the texts of the so-called Textus
> > Receptus (essentially Erasmus's Greek NT) and also other manuscripts
> > discovered since then, and also footnotes alternate readings.
Westcott and Hort were psychics and were not of the Lord.
Their translation is the evil one trying to pervert God's word.
http://watch.pair.com/another.html (scroll about 3/5 down)
Alot people like to say their translation is "scientifically" better -
such garbage. I refuse to risk my soul reading a translation derived
from devil-inspired people. My soul is the most precious thing I owe.
> > The biggest problem with the KJV is not related to the quality of the
> > translation -- it is a very good translation, but it is into an obsolete
> > form of English and uses grammar and many terms that are no longer
> > understood. English has changed so much in the 400-odd years since KJV that
> > its language is really an obstacle to people understanding the
> > Bible. There is no such thing as a perfect translation, and if
> > your name is any
> > indication, you are multli-lingual and have direct experience and knowledge
> > with this truth. The NIV has problems, as does every translation including
> > the KJV. The main thing is to use a translation that is faithful to the
> > original text (and there are texts which are difficult or ambiguous in the
> > original languages that require choices made in any translation) and the
> > idea is to have a translation is reasonably faithful and which footnotes
> > alternate translations where a choice has been made on an ambiguous or
> > questionable text. The NIV has the footnotes, BTW, as do other more
> > contemporary translations that are written in language much more readable by
> > the contemporary audience.
The KJV has been revised dozens of times including numerous major revisions.
That why, IMHO, this translation has less errors than most translations - more
errors have been weaned out.
Yes, I agree NIV has major problems.
Again there is no excuse for people avoiding KJV-based (or TR-based) bibles.
There has been alot of updated bibles recently - very easy to read.
Visit my webpage, Linux Documentation Links,
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
Powered by Outblaze
More information about the Linux4christians