~Revelation Question~

Both are translations. There are many translations of the Bible that can be read and these were translated from earlier manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Earlier copies made were handwritten and copied word for word (words were counted to make sure that copies were made perfect). The differences noted may be due to the religious belief of the translators who injected their own meaning/belief into the Bible. Differences can be seen now by using Bible software wherein you can compare verses of the different translations if the words used were the preferred meaning of the original text (Hebrew and Greek).

There are differences in subtle ways. I believe that for the serious student of the scriptures, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is necessary. Every original word is transliterated (written in our alphabet) and defined from the original languages of the Bible. Hebrew in the Old Testament, and Greek in the New Testament. I find some apparent contradictions are cleared up by knowing what the original said. Something is always lost when translating from one language to another. For instance, the Greeks have seven words for LOVE. It helps to know the intention of the original writer, when searching for meaning of the writing. I also think it's like a game of 'telephone'. lol The more the work is translated the more of the original meaning is lost in the translation. I read the KJV just because it is the one I am most familiar with. But I do enjoy the newer translations for reading to my grandchildren.

I think the newer version is just another translation, they tried to make it easier to read and then they simplified soe things. Personally I like the King James version better

Both are translations! The King James was translated in 1604-1611. More details are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version The New International Version project was begun after a meeting in 1965 in Palos Heights, Illinois between the Christian Reformed Church, National Association of Evangelicals, and a group of international scholars.[3] The New York Bible Society (now the Colorado Springs-based International Bible Society) was selected to do the translation. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978. It underwent minor revision in 1984. More information is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version I like them both and use as many as 20 different translations in my Bible studies. At times when questions come up, I like to see how different translators put things.

Hello, gwoman2. The difference is source. Since the KJV came from the Masoretic Text or the Received Text ( textus receptus) many believers say that it was cared for through the hands of the church. This is not true, due too the fact that the Masoretic scribes changed scripture to suit their needs. Look at Psalm 40 verses 6-9 and then look at Hebrews 10 5-9 and one thing is clear, "a body you have prepared for me" which was taken out of the Septuagint old testament, and not out of the Masoretic old testament because the Jews of the time 800-1000 A.D. didnt want Jews to believe in Yashua. The NIV came from the Wstcott and Hort text which was corrupted as well through their own devices. Tichendorf brought a text back from Sinai and it eventually wound up in the hands of Westcott and his divining friend Hort. They were translations that were more recent, like the NIV and the NKJV to give us the more modern english. I personally do not think that it is needed, but some people might need it. I hope that this clears up some of your questions, even though I elaborated a little. Have a great day. :)