I have done some research on how the two versions are different (KJV/NIV).
For instance Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) reads: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV Bible reads: ""How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ."
Later in Revelation 22:16, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR".
Morning Star is used in both versions here.
Is the NIV saying Lucifer and Jesus Christ are the "same" in respect to power and/or persons? I have also read of many other differences in the two versions...
Which bible do you feel we should read? How do you feel about the NKJV?
You need to read up on Mesopotamian mythology to understand the reference to "Morning Star", and what was being discussed in Isaiah. You need to get a copy of the original 1611 edition of the KJV, it has the margin notes from the translators explaining the use of "Lucifer".
NKJV is fine, it just updates the language of the KJV for more modern readers. If you like the KJV, get a book from the drama section which explains the language of Shakespeare. There are some subtleties in Shakespearean English, which better represents the Greek, we don't have in our standard dialect today.
While no translation is perfect, what we have here is a case of potential mistranslation/transliteration. The name Lucifer comes from the Latin, lucifer, and it literally means the Morning Star, which is Venus. While, potentially a reference to Satan, lucifer here doesn't mean that Lucifer is Satan's name. Meanwhile in Revelation 22.16 this is also a reference to a bright morning star, literally. So, while one is a reference to Venus/Satan the other is a reference to Christ. They use different words (in Latin, the texts were originally written in Hebrew and Greek), but the words have ultimately the same meaning.
All of this is to say that the NIV is not recommending Satan worship, nor equating Christ with Satan. If anything one could read the passages as suggesting that what Satan pretended to be, Christ truly is.
As for the many other differences, the KJV uses what's called the Textus Receptus for its translation, which were a collection of some of the best manuscripts in the Seventeenth century of the Old and New Testaments in Greek and Hebrew. The NIV, however, has used texts not available in the Seventeenth century many of which are older and considered more reliable.
The NKJV, so far as I understand it, is merely an update of the KJV. It isn't a new translation (from the original languages) but an update of the older language in the NKJV.
I personally use the English Standard Version most of the time, but find merits in many different translations including the KJV and the NIV.
I hope this has been helpful and not incoherent babel as I fear it may be.
Or just listen to this guy and not bother with any of your own research.
If I recall my school days correctly, lucifer is more properly translated as "light bringer" or "fire bringer", the usage in relation to Satan seems to be the work of some ancient "intellectual" working in the parallel of the myth of Prometheus and the account in Genesis of the serpent. Namely that an entity revealed secret, sacred knowledge to mankind and is suffering an eternal damnation for doing so.
I use the ESV...closest translation to the original Greek that you can find. Love it!
I have several translations in my office, and I use whichever one I'm in the mood for. The only actual obvious difference I've run into is 2 Samuel 23:5. The NIV says “If my house were not right with God, surely he would not have made with me an everlasting covenant, Every other translation I've ever picked up says something to the effect of "even though my house is not right, He has made this covenant.....
In this case the NIV actually does mean something different.
What do the margin notes say on that?
Nothing in mine, but I know there are newer versions of the NIV than the one I was carrying this morning..
Interesting. I know the NIV is based on the MT but also draws from other sources such as the various Aramaic Targums, LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS etc. Usually, if there's a variant text, it's noted in the margin.
in case yall might not know about this... this website has a great number of translations and you can flip among them while staying on the same passage: http://www.biblegateway.com/
i like to use both NIV and The Message. the latter for easy readability, the former for a more "accurate" translation.
Yeah, I pretty much always have biblegateway open in one tab while I'm working on a sermon.
Lately I've been using the NIV and the New Living Translation for the same reasons.