The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Darkstar]

Now, I'm no biblical scholar, but from what I understand the KJV is considered to be less accurate than the NIV.

Let's have a look:
http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiv...102/bt.htm

---

Unacceptable for Serious Bible Study:


The following translations have serious shortcomings of various sorts:

1) The King James Version (KJV) or The New King James Version (NKJV). The KJV was a great literal translation in its day, but that day was the 17th century! Many earlier and more accurate biblical manuscripts were discovered afterwards and most modern translations—including those produced by very conservative Christians—are based on them. The NKJV updates some of the 17th century language, and I like its literalness, but most of the time it relies on the same late and less accurate manuscripts that were available to the KJV translators in the 17th century.

2) The New International Version (NIV). The NIV was the first moderately "dynamic" translation to achieve immense popularity, especially among Evangelicals. It has its merits, but the departure from literal translation theory allowed some phrases and sentences of the Hebrew and Greek to be more paraphrased than translated. This contributed to several inaccurate and misleading translations. Dissatisfaction with the NIV among some fundamentalist and other very conservative Christian scholars was one of the reasons they brought out the ESV.

---

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was...evised.htm
http://www.biblica.com/niv/accuracy/

---

Since its first emergence as a complete text in 1978, the New International Version (NIV®) has stood as the modern pioneer of a different approach—an approach that mirrors the balance of priorities held by the KJV translators four hundred years ago. The NIV® tries to bring its readers as close as possible to the experience of the original audience: providing the best possible blend of transparency to the original documents and comprehension of the original meaning in every verse. The NIV® is founded on the belief that if hearing God's Word the way it was written and understanding it the way it was meant were the hallmarks of the original reading experience, then accuracy in translation demands that neither one of these two criteria be prioritized above the other.

Built upon this philosophy, the NIV® has experienced much the same reaction in the church and beyond as its beloved predecessor whose values it seeks to emulate. Thirty years after its first publication there are more than four hundred million NIV® Bibles in print.

But, unlike its predecessor, the NIV® was designed from the very start with a built-in mechanism to defy the attritional effects of time. Since 1978, the NIV® translation team has continued to meet, year after year, reviewing developments in biblical scholarship and changes in English usage—revising the translation to ensure that it continues to offer its readers an experience that mirrors that of the original audience, and periodically releasing those revisions in updated editions of the text.

---

Well, that was conclusive. /sarcasm

More indecision

Like I said, I'm no biblical scholar so I don't have any way of easily figuring out which translation is best.

Just so it doesn't look like I'm dodging:
...wait, what exactly is the interlinear bible? I found this page that says it is the interlinear bible, but it also says it is the New American Standard Version. Or is intelinear just in referenc to the Hebrew text between lines? (In which case, are you referring to the interlinear NIV or KJV, if they exist?)
If I don't respond in a timely manner, it is because it is finals week at the university, and I need to study.