Like many people in the United States, I am blessed to own many bibles. This includes the AV, a later KJV, a NKJV, the NIV, the NASB, the NLB, and even *cough* the "message", which I never use.
So, it is obvious that I'm not of the "KJV Only" persuasion.
Anyway, today I was listening to a Christian Radio program and the topic of bible versions was being discussed. The announcer was obviously arguing from a "KJV Only" point of view, which I can deal with. However, what I thought missed the mark was that this person seemed to want to lump the NIV in with the TNIV, "The Message" and other things. He painted with a rather broad brush and that is something I have a real problem with. There was a reference to the NIV "leaving verses out" without any reference to the fact that the NIV and KJV come from different manuscript families...and that there is some debate as to whether the verses in question even belong. The implication is that the translators were guilty of omission (intentional?) and that they are guilty of taking away from God's Word vis a vis the warning in the Book of Revelation, which includes a curse. The reality is the issue isn't as settled as the argument would appear to make it.
Do you go with the largest family of manuscripts or the ones that are closest in time to the originals (which we do not have).
Regarding this issue, Pulpit Magazine has provided a few (actually four) articles which are worthy of consideration. They can be found here, here, here and here.
Bon Apetite!
