cure-real
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: NIV or NKJV???

  1. #1

    NIV or NKJV???

    okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Renton, Wa. (by Seattle)
    Posts
    24

    New King James Version

    I personally prefer the New King James Version, and have been using it for years. I know many, many Christians use the NIV, and, though I do not see it as a "bad" version, there are ways I do not care for it.
    In john 3:16, where the KJV, and NKJV, say "the only begotten Son of God," the NIV says, "the one and only Son of God."
    This may not seem much difference, but the word "begotten" is a descriptive word that tells you that God is the one who Fathered Jesus, whereas "one and only" does not. Throughout the Word, we find the word "begat," and "begotten," and it is always showing how the one fathered the other. It is so used here in John 3:16 to show that God the Father is the one who Fathered Jesus.
    Now please understand, I am not condemning the NIV, but just showing one example of why I prefer the New King James Version. (or the original King James Version, which I read for years).
    I had not made a post about this, as I believe if we do as He commanded, and "not lean upon your understanding," then He will reveal the truth of His Word to us. But since you asked, I have given you my opinion.

    God bless you.....Roy.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    425
    IMHO,
    I like the NASB the best as it is a nice balance between the NIV (readability)
    and the KJV/NKJV (accuracy).

    But use whatever The Lord uses to speak to you.
    If He speaks to you in the NIV then use the NIV, if He uses the NKJV then your Bible must be NKJV, etc.
    "Love is not about you...and it never was"
    "Selfishness is inwardly focused, but Love is Always outwardly focused!"

    I am very anti-abortion, anti-murder, and Pro-Love.
    Gotta stop repeating myself...

    Stop Marfan - The Silent but deadly killer.
    It's main weapon is lack of truth.
    Please learn the truth about the Marfan syndrome
    by visiting The National Marfan Foundation.
    Feel free to ask me any questions you may have
    about the Marfan syndrome and I will answer them
    the best I can.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    11
    My main bible is KJV with wide margins for notes, but when I am really studying HARD, I use the NIV, NLT, and NASB! I think you should use the version that is easiest for you to understand. The NIV is more of a paraphrase than the NKJV.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    under grace
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by SeventytimesSeven View Post
    okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?
    I would think a compact bible would be for easy reading, not so much for study. I'd hang on to it and use it for reading when you're on the go. For in depth study, the more translations to compare with each other, the better.
    Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
    C. S. Lewis

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    135
    They're both basically the same. Both twist and add to and remove from the Word of GOD. In a lot of the same places, actually.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    115
    i personally use the NIV... but when i can i jump online and use biblegateway.com and look at other versions if i can...
    i cant get along with the KJV the language is too hard for me... but i do check it after i have read the NIV and see what it says and that can sometimes help me understand it better...

    but i also like the message...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,352

    NIV or NKJV?

    Quote Originally Posted by SeventytimesSeven View Post
    okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?
    I used the NIV for over 10 years but felt I needed a change - I heard a lot of tapes saying that the AV was the "only accurate translation", based principally on the fact that the source text it used was the Textus Receptus ("TR"), whereas all modern translations (apart from the NKJV, as I understand) use texts discovered fairly recently (generally in the last 100 years). The arguments are quite complex but I ended up being convinced that the TR was probably the more accurate source, but I wasn't at all convinced that the AV was the "only one" - because the language is so archaic that, unless someone has been brought up with it and had it all the archaic words "translated" for them, one would need to have an English Language degree to understand it! Ezra's friends transalated the 500 year old Law of God for the people in Nehemiah 8, so I reckon it was entirely appropriate for a modern language KJV to be produced. No one in the world uses words like "howbeit", "peradventure" or "eschew" in ordinary language any more, so I reckon the NKJV is possibly the best balance of accuracy and readability. I have a lot of time for the ESV as well, as it is a very accurate and readable translation (word-for-word, like the AV, NKJV and NASB) rather than thought-for-thought (known as "dynamic equivalence"), which the NIV, NLT, CEV etc all are. But it's not based on the TR. I would recommend you always use a "word-for-word" translation - I'm keeping an open mind on whether the TR is the most accurate, as the Reformers only had six manuscripts to work from whereas we now have over 6000! My reasons for preferring the TR are as follows:-

    1. The TR has lots of key verses in it that none of the modern translations has. Either heretics removed those verses early on or dishonest evangelicals added them to combat the heresies of the day - given the high view evangelicals have always taken of Scripture and the threats God makes of tampering with it, I go with the former.

    2. Although scholars consider that the recently discovered texts are the most accurate because they are the oldest, does that necessarily follow? Heretics were around in the first century (many of the NT letters were written to combat them) and Paul makes reference to churches possibly receiving a letter "claiming" to be from him. None of the original manuscripts is left and one would expect evangelical believers to have used their copies the most and therefore they would all be prone to disintegrate at some point.

    3. It seems almost inconceivable that the LORD would withhold His complete truth from the church for several centuries, especially when the greatest revivals in human history have taken place when the AV was the recognised and most widely used translation. There is a plethora of translations now and a plethora of heresies and a mass turning away from the authority and sufficiency of Scripture! And would the LORD really have blessed a translation that was basically fraudulent? Go figure, as they say!

    Having said that, I am keeping an open mind but I find the NIV more and more frustrating - certain passages are very good (as they are both accurate and readable), but overall, I tend to go for either the NKJV or the ESV. I have heard so many good reports about the NASB, however, that I plan to get one of those too!

    Hope that helps.

    Nigel

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    3,381
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SeventytimesSeven View Post
    so whats the diff?
    Greetings SeventytimesSeven,

    My post is longer than others, but I think you'll find it helpful. Plus, it really appears longer than it is due to my extensive use of quote boxes.

    There a lot of little differences between the NKJV and NIV if you read them side-by-side. That being said, they aren't as serious as first glance may seem and all those little differences fall into one of two categories:

    Translational Style/Method


    There are basically two schools of thought on translation methods. One is called formal equivalence. The second is called functional equivalence. Here are simplistic definitions. Formal equivalence attempts to go more towards a word-for-word translation. Functional equivalence attempts to produce a thought-for-thought translation. No translation is exclusively one or the other. They are all a mixture of both.

    The NKJV, in its preface, calls its method of translating complete equivalence. The NKJV leans more heavily towards formal equivalence. Dr. Ken Barker of the NIV translation committee calls the NIV a balanced or mediating translation. This is probably a reasonably accurate description.

    Let me give an example of where these two play a difference. Let's look at 1 Peter 1:13 first in the NKJV . . .
    13 Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
    The New King James Version.
    (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 1 Pe 1:13.

    That's fairly literal -- for an English Bible. But what does girding up the loins of your mind mean? The NIV goes more functional (thought-for-thought) here to bring it into our language that we speak today . . .
    13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
    The Holy Bible : New International Version
    , electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), 1 Pe 1:13.
    Now the NKJV isn't impossible to understand, but the NIV certainly is easier. That's a more extreme example. The NIV is usually more formal than that.

    Textual Base

    Sometimes the NKJV and the NIV read differently because the manuscripts the NKJV translators chose to go with differ from the manuscripts the NIV translators went with. A great example is John 1:18. I'll give both the NIV and the NKJV . . .
    18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,e f who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

    e Or the Only Begotten

    f Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son


    The Holy Bible : New International Version
    , electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Jn 1:18.

    18 eNo one has seen God at any time. fThe only begotten 8Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

    e Ex. 33:20; Matt. 11:27; 1 Tim. 6:16

    f Ps. 2:7; John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9

    8 NU God


    The New King James Version.
    (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jn 1:18.

    One speaks of the only begotton Son (NKJV); the other speaks of God the one and only (NIV). The difference stems from the Greek manuscripts. I like the fact that in the notes, both the NIV and the NKJV let you know of the manuscript difference, that is that some manuscripts read Son while others read God. Neither side tries to hide anything. The NIV gets an additional plus for noting the difference of opinon on only begotten OR one and only.

    Here's the NIV textual base . . .
    18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
    Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979), Jn 1:18.


    Here's the basis of the NKJV . . .
    18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο
    Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) : With Morphology
    (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2002), Jn 1:18.

    Which is correct? A whole other question that I won't get into now.

    And now, onto your second question . . .
    Quote Originally Posted by SeventytimesSeven View Post
    and should I be using a certain one over the other?
    Either . . . both. I've been saved for twenty-one years. I've taught from the pulpit out of both. I've read both cover-to-cover multiple times. Neither will lead you astray (despite what some would tell you).

    Appendix

    Only begotten OR One and only?


    Many contributors in the thread will tell you they read the NIV because it's easier. That's fine. I like reading it for that too. Others will tell you to read the NKJV because it's more accurate. That depends. One participant in the thread wrote . . .
    In john 3:16, where the KJV, and NKJV, say "the only begotten Son of God," the NIV says, "the one and only Son of God."
    This may not seem much difference, but the word "begotten" is a descriptive word that tells you that God is the one who Fathered Jesus, whereas "one and only" does not. Throughout the Word, we find the word "begat," and "begotten," and it is always showing how the one fathered the other. It is so used here in John 3:16 to show that God the Father is the one who Fathered Jesus.
    You may have noticed the begotten OR one and only difference in John 1:18 when I quoted it. The author in the thread is well-intentioned no doubt about begotten being more descriptive about the Father fathering Jesus. However, the proper question isn't which is more descriptive? The question is which is a more accurate translation of the Greek? Greek scholars have concluded that begotten is a mistranslation of the Greek word μονογενης . Scholar Dr. Wayne Grudem informs us . . .
    The idea of “only-begotten” in Greek would have been not μονογενής but μονογέννητος.
    Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1233.

    Grudem informs us that μονογενης means unique or one of a kind. Thus one and only translates the Greek better. As newer translations are coming out, more are reflecting this. The ESV is a good example and so is the HCSB. Both of these are formal translations that have been released within the last 10 years.

    Another contributor to the thread, Nigel, stated that while having an open mind, he leans towards the Textus Receptus (the base of the NKJV and KJV) being more accurate. The TR will not lead anyone astray. It is not bad. However, there are many reasons that the majority of conservative, Bible-believing scholars lean away from it and towards the more eclectic approach of the NIV, NASB and others. Let me give brief comments on this to Nigel's points:
    1. The TR has lots of key verses in it that none of the modern translations has. Either heretics removed those verses early on or dishonest evangelicals added them to combat the heresies of the day - given the high view evangelicals have always taken of Scripture and the threats God makes of tampering with it, I go with the former.
    Nigel's openness is commendable. And I've probably heard several of the tapes he's listened to. They can be very convincing but they have a lot of logical flaws that can be hard to spot, but nevertheless the flaws are there. While Nigel leaves open the option that either additions or subtractions could have been made, he concludes bad motives for both: heretics for subtractions OR dishonest evangelicals for additions. Since he conclude that Evangelicals wouldn't likely do this, he leans towards subtractions by heretics.

    However, there are lots of reasons to believe that either additions or subtractions could have been accidental and not deliberate. This removes bad motives and makes either possible. Each manuscript difference must be taken on a case-by-case basis. None of them will change your beliefs.
    2. Although scholars consider that the recently discovered texts are the most accurate because they are the oldest, does that necessarily follow? Heretics were around in the first century (many of the NT letters were written to combat them) and Paul makes reference to churches possibly receiving a letter "claiming" to be from him. None of the original manuscripts is left and one would expect evangelical believers to have used their copies the most and therefore they would all be prone to disintegrate at some point.
    Per my comments on the last point, there is no reason to instantly assume heretics removed things from the text. All things being equal, whatever is closer to the source chronologically should be considered more accurate unless there is very good reason to believe stuff further away chronologically is more accurate. If you wanted to find out details about the holocaust, would you rather speak to the son of a Jewish prisoner or the great-grandson of the same Jewish prisoner? Unless there is extremely good reason to demonstrate an older copy has been tampered with, it makes more sense to go with manuscripts dated around 300-400 A.D. rather than ones dated around 1100-1200 A.D.
    3. It seems almost inconceivable that the LORD would withhold His complete truth from the church for several centuries, especially when the greatest revivals in human history have taken place when the AV was the recognised and most widely used translation. There is a plethora of translations now and a plethora of heresies and a mass turning away from the authority and sufficiency of Scripture! And would the LORD really have blessed a translation that was basically fraudulent? Go figure, as they say!
    The LORD didn't withhold any truth from the church. Both strands - the TR and the eclectic approach - teach the same doctrine. And of course revivals in the English speaking world used the AV -- it was all the English speaking world had for 300 years. It wasn't the Bible of choice, it was the Bible by default.

    It's interesting that Nigel then states he leans towards the NKJV (Textus Receptus base) or the ESV (same textual base as the NIV). Two different textual bases. However, both are more formal than functional. The NKJV calls their method complete equivalence. The ESV calls theirs essentially literal. The same thing more-or-less.

    Again, the bottom line is read either the NKJV or the NIV . . . OR even better, read both. English speaking people are better off having multiple translations handy. It's a blessing, not a curse.
    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    3,381
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Braves27 View Post
    Wrong. .
    Hey Braves,

    Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I've been wrong many times in life and I could be wrong again. However, I don't want to sidetrack the thread from SeventytimesSeven's questions.

    If you're willing, start another thread telling how you came to that conclusion and let me know where it's at via PM or email . . .or send me a PM or email telling me how you came to that conclusion. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

    "Wrong" without any details isn't convincing to me.

    Grace & peace to you,

    Joe
    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    Hey Braves,

    Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I've been wrong many times in life and I could be wrong again. However, I don't want to sidetrack the thread from SeventytimesSeven's questions.

    If you're willing, start another thread telling how you came to that conclusion and let me know where it's at via PM or email . . .or send me a PM or email telling me how you came to that conclusion. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

    "Wrong" without any details isn't convincing to me.

    Grace & peace to you,

    Joe
    You're right man.

    I didn't say more for that reason--so as not to take the thread off topic. I said what I had to say on the topic--neither are any good. My comment is directed at that one line. That it is not a blessing to have all the confusion and strife created by all these so-called "versions" of the Bible. If I can think of a way to turn that into a thread, I will elaborate. If not, I'll send you that PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,352

    NIV or NKJV?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    Greetings SeventytimesSeven,

    Another contributor to the thread, Nigel, stated that while having an open mind, he leans towards the Textus Receptus (the base of the NKJV and KJV) being more accurate. The TR will not lead anyone astray. It is not bad. However, there are many reasons that the majority of conservative, Bible-believing scholars lean away from it and towards the more eclectic approach of the NIV, NASB and others. Let me give brief comments on this to Nigel's points:Nigel's openness is commendable. And I've probably heard several of the tapes he's listened to. They can be very convincing but they have a lot of logical flaws that can be hard to spot, but nevertheless the flaws are there. While Nigel leaves open the option that either additions or subtractions could have been made, he concludes bad motives for both: heretics for subtractions OR dishonest evangelicals for additions. Since he conclude that Evangelicals wouldn't likely do this, he leans towards subtractions by heretics.

    However, there are lots of reasons to believe that either additions or subtractions could have been accidental and not deliberate. This removes bad motives and makes either possible. Each manuscript difference must be taken on a case-by-case basis. None of them will change your beliefs.Per my comments on the last point, there is no reason to instantly assume heretics removed things from the text. All things being equal, whatever is closer to the source chronologically should be considered more accurate unless there is very good reason to believe stuff further away chronologically is more accurate. If you wanted to find out details about the holocaust, would you rather speak to the son of a Jewish prisoner or the great-grandson of the same Jewish prisoner? Unless there is extremely good reason to demonstrate an older copy has been tampered with, it makes more sense to go with manuscripts dated around 300-400 A.D. rather than ones dated around 1100-1200 A.D.The LORD didn't withhold any truth from the church. Both strands - the TR and the eclectic approach - teach the same doctrine. And of course revivals in the English speaking world used the AV -- it was all the English speaking world had for 300 years. It wasn't the Bible of choice, it was the Bible by default.

    It's interesting that Nigel then states he leans towards the NKJV (Textus Receptus base) or the ESV (same textual base as the NIV). Two different textual bases. However, both are more formal than functional. The NKJV calls their method complete equivalence. The ESV calls theirs essentially literal. The same thing more-or-less.

    Again, the bottom line is read either the NKJV or the NIV . . . OR even better, read both. English speaking people are better off having multiple translations handy. It's a blessing, not a curse.
    Hi TrustGzus

    Many thanks for your very fair and gracious critique of my comments. I hope you don't see any inconsistency in my favouring both the NKJV and ESV - I guess what is more important to me is formal/complete equivalence (rather than dynamic/thought-for-thought equivalence, which can so easily be the thin end of the wedge of paraphrase) rather than textual bases. I am keeping an open mind on what are the most accurate source texts, however. I would agree that the removal of verses may not have been by heretics, but if the "controversial" verses in the TR were not in the original, then how did they get there if not by well-meaning (but misguided) evangelicals who wanted to combat the heresies of the day? Also, what do you make of the argument that surely the LORD would have preserved His perfect word down through the ages and that Satan has been doing whatever he can to distort it (as he's been doing since Eden!)?

    Re your final comment, I would agree that some of the more modern translations (principally NKJV, NASB and ESV and, to a large extent, the NIV) have been a blessing to the church, ALL the paraphrases would, imho, fall into the other category, because they distort the truth, water down or remove several key doctrines and give an overall false impression of the nature of God and of the Christian life. Discernment is so important in these matters - I'm sure it's no coincidence that neo-evangelical, "trendy" churches favour these paraphrases over the more accurate translations, as both take a far less "serious" view of God and the nature of Christian living.

    So, in conclusion, I think I would agree with your advice to Seventytimes Seven - I too have preached from the NIV several times and, in some passages, I think it is the "best" - but a combination of other accurate translations (rather than paraphrases), esp the NKJV, can be a very helpful thing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by SeventytimesSeven View Post
    okay so I saw this teen study Bible today at walmart and it was real small and compact and something I thought would be great for trips and such so I bought it. Well when I got home I noticed it said NIV on the side. And then all my other Bibles that I have in my room say NKJV,,,so whats the diff? and should I be using a certain one over the other?
    There are over 40 verses missing between the KJV/NKJV & the NIV. The NIV translators took great liberties in translating, to the point of communicating ideas & concepts over word-for-word translation.

    I used NIV for many years, but after finding out the lack of integrity on the part of the translators/compilers, I feel more confident reading the KJV or NKJV.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    3,381
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hey Nigel/9Marksfan,

    I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll PM you . . . Well, I was going to but it looks like you don't allow PMs and emails. So I'll reply here.

    Quote Originally Posted by 9Marksfan View Post
    Hi TrustGzus

    Many thanks for your very fair and gracious critique of my comments.
    Thank you kindly. I try to be fair and give benefit of the doubt. The Golden Rule. Dr. Norman Geisler is always fair and points out good things of people he disagrees with. I'm trying to model him in that way. Hopefully I'll do it as well as he someday.
    Quote Originally Posted by 9Marksfan View Post
    I hope you don't see any inconsistency in my favouring both the NKJV and ESV - I guess what is more important to me is formal/complete equivalence (rather than dynamic/thought-for-thought equivalence, which can so easily be the thin end of the wedge of paraphrase) rather than textual bases.
    That's cool. Many agree with you there. I like both. I'm glad we have both and not just one or the other. The important thing, in my mind, is to know which one you're reading or what balance the translation you have contains. It never hurts to check Greek either.
    Quote Originally Posted by 9Marksfan View Post
    I am keeping an open mind on what are the most accurate source texts, however. I would agree that the removal of verses may not have been by heretics, but if the "controversial" verses in the TR were not in the original, then how did they get there if not by well-meaning (but misguided) evangelicals who wanted to combat the heresies of the day?
    There are lots of good answers. Most of these have to take place on a case-by-case basis. There are lots of different ways to "accidently" add. There are also reasons to add intentionally that don't require bad motives. I'll use Matthew 23:14 as an example . . .
    14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
    The Holy Bible : King James Version.
    (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), Mt 23:14.

    The NIV doesn't even have a Matthew 23:14. Why? Because the Greek text is different. Some Greek manuscripts have it; some don't. The proper way to approach this is to assume neither addition nor deletion but simply ask What did Matthew write? If Matthew wrote it, we don't want to delete it; If Matthew didn't write it, then we don't want to add it. No scribe left us a note saying this is why I added it OR this is why I deleted it. So all we can do is propose scenarios.

    So we must ask two questions:

    1) Why might someone remove it?
    2) Why might someone add it?

    I can't think of a good reason to remove it. Some KJV-only advocates claim someone might have removed it because it's harsh, but the whole passage is harsh in all honesty. Why remove one verse? There's an added problem in that Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 do contain the teaching and are in all versions and manuscripts.
    40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

    The Holy Bible : New International Version
    , electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mk 12:40.

    47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

    The Holy Bible : New International Version
    , electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Lk 20:47.

    So to me it seems more likely someone added it either deliberately with good intentions or accidently. If it was heretics trying to remove it, then they were very sloppy because they entirely missed it in two other gospels and only got it in some copies of Matthew. In fact, that becomes the problem with heretic proposal -- in almost every single proposed deletion the same comment is found elsewhere in Scripture, sometimes even in the same chapter.
    Quote Originally Posted by 9Marksfan View Post
    Also, what do you make of the argument that surely the LORD would have preserved His perfect word down through the ages and that Satan has been doing whatever he can to distort it (as he's been doing since Eden!)?
    God did preserve His Word. So there is no problem. If the eclectic approach of translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV are correct, it must be pointed out that we only know of the texts reading this way because God preserved them and archaeologists have un-earthed them. If they are more accurate, the TR versions include everything and add a little more in most cases (not all cases) by duplicating quotes in multiple places. But that religious leaders devoured widows' houses and made lengthy prayers isn't truer because it's now found three times (Luke 20:47; Mark 12:40; Matthew 23:14) rather than just twice (Luke & Mark).
    Quote Originally Posted by 9Marksfan View Post
    Re your final comment, I would agree that some of the more modern translations (principally NKJV, NASB and ESV and, to a large extent, the NIV) have been a blessing to the church, ALL the paraphrases would, imho, fall into the other category, because they distort the truth, water down or remove several key doctrines and give an overall false impression of the nature of God and of the Christian life. Discernment is so important in these matters - I'm sure it's no coincidence that neo-evangelical, "trendy" churches favour these paraphrases over the more accurate translations, as both take a far less "serious" view of God and the nature of Christian living.
    I think the key is simply understanding what a translation is attempting to do. I treat paraphrases as commentaries. I tell people to treat them as such. Then what the Living Bible or Message says doesn't matter so much. If people would only read the prefaces to their Bibles, then they'd understand the differences. No one has to have a seminary degree to figure this out -- no rocket science. Readers are leaders. Too many people don't read enough -- including prefaces. Paraphrases are "baby food" in a sense. They're great for new believers and young kids, but leaders should graduate people to better versions. They're good for quoting too sometimes. Chuck Swindoll quotes the Living Bible a lot. Being discerning is good. Being well-informed is better.

    I don't find "key" doctrines missng in paraphrases I've read. I'd be curious to see what you consider "key" and how they've been removed. Obviously there are deliberate attempts to distort the Word such as the New World Translation of the Watchtower. Not too many people are trying to be that blatant. They do indeed distort key doctrines.
    Quote Originally Posted by 9Marksfan View Post
    So, in conclusion, I think I would agree with your advice to Seventytimes Seven - I too have preached from the NIV several times and, in some passages, I think it is the "best" - but a combination of other accurate translations (rather than paraphrases), esp the NKJV, can be a very helpful thing.
    Cool. We agree in many more ways (and more important ways) probably than we disagree.
    .
    BTW, if you'd like more info on how I think certain verses ended up the way we have them in different translations, PM or email me. I used to be Textus Receptus only and have been studying the issue for twenty years. I switched sides in 1994. In the process I've gathered many Greek texts. I own several different versions of the Textus Receptus (yes, there are differences - not all TRs are the same). I own Westcott & Hort. I own Nestle-Aland's 27th and the United Bible Society's 4th. Basically, I purposed that no one will be able to tell me what to believe from either side of the issue. I can look at the evidence, i.e. the different Greek texts, for myself.

    Grace & peace to you, Nigel.

    Joe
    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    68

    Banghead No need to hit your head against your Bible.

    If the 'scholars' think I don't love my Lord Jesus Christ, then so be it.

    I presently (and for over ten years) read both the NIV and the NKJV.

    I have been mightily blessed for many years as a result.

    If you tell me 'KJV only,' that's fine with me too. I know that we are
    worshipping the same LORD.

    But I'm sticking with my NIV and NKJV.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. KJV or NKJV
    By BadDog in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: May 21st 2009, 02:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •