PDA

View Full Version : NIV ERRORS



ZAROVE
Apr 29th 2003, 05:48 AM
Ro answer a queastion raised as to why I say the new I nternational VCerson of the Bible is flawed, I presernt a small sample if errors.

By no means an exhaustive list, these are but a few errors one finds in the NIV version of the Holy Bible. There are hundreds of such errors int he text, here are but a few.

This, I trust, shows why I do not trust it.Below is the KJV and NIV compoared in select verses form the new testement alone.




KJV

Ephesians 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"

NIV


"one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"




Again another, here Joesoph is Jesus's father.

KJV

Luke 2:33
"And Joseph and his mother marveled…"

NIV


"The child's father and mother marveled…"

KJV

Mark 10:24
"…Jesus answereth again, … Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"


NIV


"…Jesus said again, 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'"


KJV

Mark 15:28
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.


NIV

Mark 15:28

[Omitted]


KJV

Luke 9:54-56
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.


NIV


54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" [comparison with Elias omitted]
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, [Jesus' words of rebuke omitted]
56 [Jesus' reason for coming to earth omitted] and they went to another village.



The above and more are reasons why I do not trust the NIV.

Mighty Mutt
Apr 29th 2003, 05:52 AM
How do you know the KJV isn't wrong?

ZAROVE
Apr 29th 2003, 05:58 AM
I know Hebrew, thus the Old testiment passes. ( NIV itsself makes mistakes there too and I can check agaisnt the origionals.) This alone draws doubt that the KJV, which is accurate in the old,is somehow inaccurate in the new.

NIV Is wrong in the old, thus if there is a conflict, I trust KJV more then NIV. Because I also know the old testiment Hebrew and have read the Torah.

Further, other scholars, biblical theologians, and various texts on the origional greek will affirm the King James accuracy, as opposed to the New International Version.

I have spoekn to several, read many articels, and seen for myself much that is accurate inn the King James that si altered in the new International version.

Peterguy
Apr 29th 2003, 12:57 PM
I've heard about this a while back, I checked my youth pastor about it and htis is what he told me. He said that the original bible didn't have chapters or verses so the stuff they did omit was no big deal he then went on to tell me that he reads the NIV cuz its easier to read. He told me to compare it with the KJV if you didn't understand something. I don't know what to think.

On Jesus-is-Lord.com there is a whole big thing about this what they call "Bible Perversion" I honestly don't know what to think of it all. I still read the NIV.

WtheWildthingsR
Apr 29th 2003, 01:37 PM
Sounds like a bad answer from a good guy, Peterguy. I think your youth pator is mistaken when he made a generalized comment about omissions in the Bible being no big deal.

Their are Bibles out that strip away the mission and diety of Jesus. And could you imagine trying to look up and read thru and study the Bible without the Chapter and verse markings? Yikes!!! My days are not long enough to spend HOURS searching for John 3:16 or the Book of Ruth.

There is a place in the KJV that says, "These kind come out only with FASTING and prayer," [speaking of a demon]....... In the NIV it removes the word FASTING and puts it in a hard to see footnote. Now to me this seems like something that should not be in a footnote. Since I found this I have not liked the NIV except for a refferance Bible when checking thru other translations.


Originally posted by Peterguy
I've heard about this a while back, I checked my youth pastor about it and htis is what he told me. He said that the original bible didn't have chapters or verses so the stuff they did omit was no big deal he then went on to tell me that he reads the NIV cuz its easier to read. He told me to compare it with the KJV if you didn't understand something. I don't know what to think.

On Jesus-is-Lord.com there is a whole big thing about this what they call "Bible Perversion" I honestly don't know what to think of it all. I still read the NIV.

Follower
Apr 29th 2003, 03:03 PM
AboutTomorrow,


Sounds like a bad answer from a good guy, Peterguy. I think your youth pator is mistaken when he made a generalized comment about omissions in the Bible being no big deal.Agreed.


There is a place in the KJV that says, "These kind come out only with FASTING and prayer," [speaking of a demon]....... In the NIV it removes the word FASTING and puts it in a hard to see footnote. Now to me this seems like something that should not be in a footnote. Since I found this I have not liked the NIV except for a refferance Bible when checking thru other translations.Would you like to tell us what the Greek says in Matthew 17.21? Or, the end of Mark 9.29? I recommend a good interlinear Bible for doing this type of study. And oh, by the way, I think you'll find that "most" texts show that there is no greek in Matthew 17.21 or the end of Mark 9.29, which is why many translations have removed them.

I believe that to compare/criticize the KJV and/or the NIV without understanding the underlying translation issues, is a bit of a disservice.

In Jesus' love,

Follower (http://www.parkbc.org/follower)

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”

catfriedrice
Apr 29th 2003, 03:09 PM
wow, some of that stuff is interesting, I'll remember it

Mighty Mutt
Apr 29th 2003, 08:07 PM
If the NIV is so bad, Zarove, then why do so many other Hebrew/Greek scholars NOT have a problem with it?

I don't get it. Granted a lot of language experts have problems with NIV. But there obviously must be a significant portion of experts who don't.

I have a hard time accepting the KJV as the ultimate translation, since it was the product of an era KNOWN for bending and twisting religion to satisfy the politicians.

Besides, the KJV was translated in 1611, right? Don't you think that since then there may have been improvements in linguistics?

ZAROVE
Apr 29th 2003, 09:57 PM
If the NIV is so bad, Zarove, then why do so many other Hebrew/Greek scholars NOT have a problem with it?

I don't get it. Granted a lot of language experts have problems with NIV. But there obviously must be a significant portion of experts who don't.

Yes and there are many scholars who say h#mos#xuality is not a sin in the Bible, and that where it said it was it was rtefering to pr#stit#tion.

Sorry, but not all Scholars are reliable. The Torah has been proven byt hte Dead Sea Scrolls NOT to ahv changed. I can read Hebrew. I can compare the Tporah to the KJV and though a couple of mistakes where made, its reliable more times than not.

The same is true fo the Greek. Incedentilly, the " Otigional greek" has problms.

Many say " The King James Version said this, but the origional greek meant somthign else", in reality, they are using the Text of Alexandria to compare tot he Jameian Bible, which ( surprise) didnt use the Alexandian new testiment. It used the Textus Recipitus, or the received texts. Copies of the origionals that had not been revised.

I trust is more for that reason too.



I have a hard time accepting the KJV as the ultimate translation, since it was the product of an era KNOWN for bending and twisting religion to satisfy the politicians.
This is a generalisation. The era may have been known for this, but this doesnt mean the King James Version was altered to suit a political agenda. Conversly, the modern Bibles are often a;ltered to suit current theology or political agendas. Indeed, there are more conflicting versions of the Bible out there NOW than there where in 1611, and there are politically corrupt peiple doing modern revisions and translations.

There is no difference, except that I know the background and history of thre King James Bible, and I know it checks againt the origional text, thus I trust it.


Besides, the KJV was translated in 1611, right? Don't you think that since then there may have been improvements in linguistics?

The above is a common argument, but it doesnt stand. Anceint Greek and Hebrew are dead languages. They dont change. As a result, I learned to read hebrew, and the way I read i is the same as anyone else reading it in 1611.

The idea of Proggress and linguistic improvement is a nice fantasy, we are in a better world than they, with computers, cars, telephones, ect, and science has greatly improved. It stands to reason so has linguistics.

But in reality, translations of dead languages remains the same, from 1611 tot eh preasent.

ZAROVE
Apr 29th 2003, 10:58 PM
Here is an article whihc shows why I use the faithful King James, and why modern statements like " we have progressed, lingusitics have imporved." dotn hold water.


http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

Mighty Mutt
Apr 30th 2003, 12:25 AM
I am very familiar with many of the arguments as to why the KJV alone is the best translation.

But, I don't necessarily believe that. Sorry. :)

ZAROVE
Apr 30th 2003, 01:36 AM
Beleif doesnt change the fact that it DOES measure up where others fial.

Besides, other translatiosn attempt to INTERPRET the text, not just translate it.

jesusfreak
Apr 30th 2003, 01:38 AM
My solution to the problem is just to use both. My bible is an NIV study bible, but i often use online bibles to check things and get a different wording.

In many of those situations above the meaning is not changed, the words are just moved around or they use different words to mean the same thing.

Both those ephesians quotes have the exact same meaning.


The verse about joseph where they replace hsi name with "the childs father" doesn't change the meaning, Joseph is the child(Jesus)'s father.

I have heard the opposite of what you say. I have heard that the KJV is full of errors, these are just rumors, I need to look aroudn to see what is true.

For now i honestly don't knwo which is better, so i compare when i am in question. Sometimes one Bible will allow you to see somethign different from another, this can be very cool.

Mighty Mutt
Apr 30th 2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by ZAROVE
Beleif doesnt change the fact that it DOES measure up where others fial.

Besides, other translatiosn attempt to INTERPRET the text, not just translate it.

You know I love you, Zarove, but there has never been a possibility of any view other than yours being right, has there? :P:lol::kiss:

homebild
Apr 30th 2003, 03:07 AM
What Zarove is claiming is largely nonsense.

There are differences in translations between the KJV and NIV and other English translations to be sure.

But claiming to know Hebrew does not explain any of the the differences.

The differences exist because the KJV, NIV and others were translated from differently available Greek manuscripts.

The KJV relied largely on the Catholic created document 'Textus Receptus' that referred back to the Latin Vulgate when discrepnacies appeared.

The NIV is largely the result of the 'majority text' which takes all known Greek texts and uses the 'majority' version when there is a controversy.

That discrepancies occured throughout the history of the evolution of the 'Bible' is apparant. Not even the Hebrew versions completley 'agree'.

To claim that the KJV is the 'best' English tranlsation is like claiming the New York Yankees are the 'best' baseball team....It depends upon which criteria you are using to base the claim.

Longevity is not one of them else wise the earlier and even MORE popular Douay-Rheims version takes the cake.

Zarove, in all due respect, is merely arguing from a point of ignorance rather than knowledge in his statements about the KJV and other bible versions.

ZAROVE
Apr 30th 2003, 05:10 AM
"CLAIMING TO KNOW HEBREW" , the quote makes it sound as though I just claim. And no, I am not arguing form ignorance, you are.

I said it was bthe best English Language translation, because it is. I have compared the Torah withthe King James and others, and King James actually is closer to the origional meaning.

As tot eh textus recipitus beign created by the vatican, actually, its the other way around. The "Majorital texts", which collected 400 of the 5000 available manuscripts, was compiled by rome, the textus recipitus was copied formt he otigionals over time.( actually the Majorital text is the Textus Recipitus. Though I speak with ignorance, I knwo this as a fact as soon will be revealed.)

So no, I am not arguing ona poin of ignorance, you are.


( The King James used the Textus Recipitus which was a collection of most manuscripts at the time, the NIV uses the vatican created Minority texts.)


I never said James was flawless, however from my own personal study, the text matches closer tot he Hebrew Tprah than the newer versions.

( Also, thansnks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know that the Hebrew manuscrpts do not disagree with each other. The Dead Sea Scrolls are identical to the Toraj of today. Every copy of the Hebrew is identical. )

Also


But claiming to know Hebrew does not explain any of the the differences

I do know hebrew, its not just a claim. Also, do you really want a list on the massive differences in the NIV to the KJV?

I can easily provide the Hebrew,King James, and NIV, if you like.


The KJV relied largely on the Catholic created document 'Textus Receptus' that referred back to the Latin Vulgate when discrepnacies appeared.

The Textus Recipitus was not created by Rome, it was copied formt he origional texts.

It existed ( as archeology shows) as early as the second sentury, and fragments form the first century agree with it. All of this becofore the time of Constantine and the Holy Roman Church, so how this can be a catholic creation if it was before catholisism is beyond me.

James used the Textus ecipitus and back to there Latin Vulgate only when wo recipitus manusctripts where in queatsion. Interestign to note thast in 375 years, the King James Bible has received fewer revisions, and only about 400 changes, most of which updates in spelling, than the current translations.




The NIV is largely the result of the 'majority text' which takes all known Greek texts and uses the 'majority' version when there is a controversy.

No, the NIV used the Alexandian , and ignored the " Catholic" textus recipitus that existed before catholisism.The Alexandian text, and the Textus Vaticanus, are the ones used in the NIV, so the catholic's created them. The catholics ddid not create the Received texts. You can verify this independantly if you like.


The Minorital texts, used in the NIV ( Called the Alexandian and the vatican texts, based on 400 out of the 5000 available) where used and compiled by Rome ( surprise, you got it in reverse.) and is itsself a manuscript. In the footnotes thaey add things like " Not in the best manuscripts" or " Not in all Manyscripts"- this was invented on the orders of rome, and was not based actually on the majority of greek texts. Only 400 out of the 5000 where used.

Please dotn say I am arguing out of ignorance when you don knwo the origionation of the actual texts you are using.



That discrepancies occured throughout the history of the evolution of the 'Bible' is apparant. Not even the Hebrew versions completley 'agree'.


The dead sea scrolls are identical tot he letter tot he modern Torah. For one that speaks reason agaisnt one who speaks in ignorance, you seem to overlook this.


To claim that the KJV is the 'best' English tranlsation is like claiming the New York Yankees are the 'best' baseball team....It depends upon which criteria you are using to base the claim.


I am usign the textus recipitus and the torah. You claim the textus recipitus was catholic created, this is wrong and I will prove is shorty.

The Torah has remained unchanged at least as far back as the dead sea scrolls.

What better authority than the origionalk do we have?



Zarove, in all due respect, is merely arguing from a point of ignorance rather than knowledge in his statements about the KJV and other bible versions.

When in doubt, bash your oponant. Nice personal attack. Whereas I do nto study, and dont knwo the sources for translation and variosu meathods used, I still speak, thus my words are largely unrelaible as I am ignorant.

Not a nice way to win a debate, as I am not arguing form Ignorance, and can show you clear proof of my points. Proof is shortcoming.


You know I love you, Zarove, but there has never been a possibility of any view other than yours being right, has there? -MM

Acrtually saying that makes me out to be arrogant. However, can you really site arrogance in my claims? What have I said that shows this in me? Nothing, I support all my claims on facts. I expect better form Christians than a put down.

Presumption is not comely for the body of Christ.




The verse about joseph where they replace hsi name with "the childs father" doesn't change the meaning, Joseph is the child(Jesus)'s father. -Jeasusfreak

No, Joesoph was not Jesus father. That is, not accordign to the fauly King james. I know I speak form Ignorance, but I beelived she was a Virgin, and Joesoph was not her father. Then again we all know how arrogant I am.Don we?


speaking of my ignorance, here is a link. Please take not that the Textus recipitus is the majority text, and the Catholic versiosn are what the newer translatiosn rely upon, because the actual parchment is older.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8936/TEXTUS.HTM

karenmot
Apr 30th 2003, 06:14 AM
Would you like to tell us what the Greek says in Matthew 17.21? Or, the end of Mark 9.29? I recommend a good interlinear Bible for doing this type of study. And oh, by the way, I think you'll find that "most" texts show that there is no greek in Matthew 17.21 or the end of Mark 9.29, which is why many translations have removed them.


First of all I want to say that I agree with Zarove on this one. I have done a lot of research and personal study, and while I am also aware of some flaws and slight inaccuracies in the translation from the original languages in the King James, it is still the best and most acurate translation. The NIV (Nearly Inspired Version) just flat out omits or changes too much for it to be considered accurate.

Next, I want to say that I do own an Interlinear Greek-English New Testrament, and refer to it often when I want to know what the original language REALLY says. I just looked up the passages in question here, Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29. There most definitely are Greek words at the end of both of these passages, the same in both verses, that are the words for "prayer" and "fasting". I would type them out for you, but my keyboard does not have Greek characters!




By the way, my husband and I happen to stumble upon this site that said that the King James that we have now is not the original authorized version of 1611, but the version we have now was changed from the original in the 1700's (I think?)

Anyone ever heard that?

ZAROVE
Apr 30th 2003, 06:56 AM
The King James has been attacked gfor years.

The fact that its been revised suggests to Most that its flawed.

This is used by many to push tere interpretations.

Actualy, the 1611 King James has had only 400 minor changes in the last 375 years. The first change was the change form Gothec letterface to Roman, this was considered a revision.

Also, many of the spelling differences where changed. For obvious reasons.


Below are some Origional 1611 spellings.


Runne, Iefuf, Euil, Teftement.

These words are now spelt differnetly, and make the origional 1611 nearly impossible for the causual reader of today.

the words are , Run, Jesus, Evil, and Testement.

the revisions are generally of this sort, changes in spelling.

78% of the revisiosn fall into this category.

An additional set includes correctign typographical errors form one edition to the next, which stabalised only 28 years after the first edition. ( Trivia, the first edition was followed by the second edition, because of printer errors on the first that caused defects.)

TYhe revisions that follow are minor corrections tot he text, including puncutuation and the like.

Only 2% of the changes where actually textual, and even half of those are correctiosn to make modern users understand them.


This is afyer 375 years.

Other translatiosn have inverdgone more severe revisions in as little as 50 years.

Mighty Mutt
Apr 30th 2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by ZAROVE -MM

Acrtually saying that makes me out to be arrogant. However, can you really site arrogance in my claims? What have I said that shows this in me? Nothing, I support all my claims on facts. I expect better form Christians than a put down.

Presumption is not comely for the body of Christ.


I agree, it is not. I never presumed you to be arrogant. That is a presumption on your part. :)

If I were to say anything, it would be that I have noticed that in any topic or post you make, you never seem to be open to discussion. You state your beliefs and defend them vociferously. Which would be great if we as humans had all the right answers. My point is, this is a discussion board not a lecture forum. As such, we all can learn more by considering what others have to say, and, taking the big leap to realize that we are all off-base from time to time.

Before this gets all off-topic, let me add that this is nothing personal. I have nothing against you as I have learned from some of your posts, just as I have from those of others here. :kiss:

BadDog
May 3rd 2003, 04:38 AM
BadDog ->

Just now found this thread. FIW, I will admit that the NIV is not my favorite Bible. I prefer the NASB, the NKJV, the NET (mainly online - www.bible.org) & sometimes even the RSV. But one thing that the NIV did do very well, IMO, is reach a good balance between a more word-for-word rendering, & understandability.

I like the NLT for a more free translation also.

But, getting back to the NIV, I think that we need to be careful about unilaterally slamming it as inaccurate. I believe that 70+ scholars labored over it - with a fair amount of diversity of theological backgrounds - though it retains a bit of a reformed flavor.

One could easily find such a list of "errors" in any translation. Most of that list of errors which started this thread are indeed actual errors in the translation process - IMO. But you will find that the TNIV (Today's NIV - NT done, OT in the process) has corrected many of those errors. However, the TNIV is a gender-inclusive version which has gone a bit too far for my taste.

ANother reason for some of the differences between the NIV & the KJV is that they are based on different Greek manuscripts. I prefer the Greek manuscripts that the KJV used, personally, but there are also many errors in the textus receptus (name given to the Greek manuscript developed by Erasmus & used to translate the NT of the KJV.) which I could point out. But some of the differences are just due to different Greek docs - not due to a translation error.

It's one thing to list errors, & quite another to claim that said Bible is removing the deity of Christ, attempting to discredit the trinity, or any other similar such claims. The godly men who did the work of translating the NIV, if we were to meet & talk with them individually, I'm sure would impress us with their commitment to the Lord, their knowledge of the Word, & their desire to be faithful to the original languages.

While I say this, remember that the NIV is not my personal study Bible. I just want us to be fair to it as a translation.

light bread
Nov 11th 2007, 02:47 AM
I know this was created some time ago, but it is still one of the first google results for "errors in the niv." But only afew errors were posted; Lets keep posting as we find them to compile a more exhaustive list. Here are some big ones:

The niv says Jesus fell from heaven:

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!
The niv says Elhanan killed goliath:

In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.
The niv says that Passover comes after the days of unleavened bread with their translation of pascha:

When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

Its the other way around:

And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover.

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
The KJV is correct in their translation of easter. There are arguments bible critics make against this last one but none of them make any sense I will be happy to elaborate if any come up.

I<3Jesus
Nov 11th 2007, 03:28 AM
I have a hard time taking anyone who cannot spell correctly seriously when they are trying to debunk the translation of a text ;):lol::P

light bread
Nov 11th 2007, 03:40 AM
When one reads the end of Mark he/she either sees something saying [end of the gospel of mark] followed by the real ending or has on of the biggest lies repeatedly found in the NIV:



(The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)


In “introduction to the bible” page 372 geisler and nix said the longer ending was found in “some syriac manuscripts.” Apparently they thought “some” was the best way to describe it when ALL BUT ONE INCLUDE THE LONG ENDING OF MARK! They said it was in “MOST old latin manuscripts” again they meant all but one. In the early uncial manuscripts only 2 out of 5 omit the end (sinaiticus and vaticanus). They claim it was found in “most miniscules.” In the case of miniscules “most” means 600 out of 600.

Critics often quote Jerome as saying they were lacking in most greek manuscripts, but Jerome not only includes them in his vulgate, he also quotes and references them in other instances. (this is not surprising if one studies Jerome he often makes many careless contradictory statements) Not to mention they are recognized by many others: Papias, Justin M., Irenaeus, and Tertullian in the 2nd century – Hippolytus, Vincentius and the list goes on and on and on. It was at least as early as 177AD by Irenaeus when he quoted parts of it in his work “Against Heresies.” How are we to think it was added on much later in the text used by the KJV.

Not only are these verses had by other ancient witnesses the manuscripts definitely aren’t reliable. How could you consider two manuscripts reliable (sinaiticus and vaticanus) when they disagree with eachother over 3000 times just in the gospels!!!

light bread
Nov 11th 2007, 03:50 AM
I have a hard time taking anyone who cannot spell correctly seriously when they are trying to debunk the translation of a text ;):lol::P

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."

I have no problem with you insulting my intelligence but whether you take them seriously or not they are errors poor spelling or not.

Big T
Nov 11th 2007, 05:06 AM
Lets keep posting as we find them to compile a more exhaustive list. Here are some big ones:
Why?...............

Warrior Prophet
Nov 11th 2007, 01:05 PM
I found this to be an interesting topic and decided to check into it.

This is a link to a list of differences between the KJV and the NIV

http://www.thewayoftheword.com/1867295.html

I have not had the time to check all of it but so far it is interesting and thought I would put it in the discussion to see what others here think.

I<3Jesus
Nov 11th 2007, 04:24 PM
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."

I have no problem with you insulting my intelligence but whether you take them seriously or not they are errors poor spelling or not.

It was a joke dude, chill out. If I wasn't joking I wouldn't have used the smilies.

light bread
Nov 16th 2007, 02:26 PM
I found this to be an interesting topic and decided to check into it.

This is a link to a list of differences between the KJV and the NIV

http://www.thewayoftheword.com/1867295.html

I have not had the time to check all of it but so far it is interesting and thought I would put it in the discussion to see what others here think.
thats a BIG list thank you very much for posting, however most the verses they list im not sure would persuade someone from the niv. Sadly, most would probably think that the removal Jesus' blood is not a big deal such as in col 1:14 or that it leaves out that God was manifest in the flesh in 1jhn 4:3 (gnosticism anyone?). Im not saying they are not big errors but it seems like most people will read them and think, "oh, well" then continue reading it and just put it out of their mind.


Why?
Its a subject of which people should be aware. And IMO it would be nice to have somewhere online where 1. poeple can read how bad the NIV is and 2. have a reference for people that already know and would like to share with others.

ive got a list of about 20 more errors handy, just need to get around to putting them up.

Arizona
Nov 21st 2007, 10:18 PM
Sorry but to me when reading the KJV I'm left going "Huh?" far too many times due to it's old english language style. The NIV may not be perfect but I've never had a problem understanding what's said. Comparing several translations is always the best practice anyway.

light bread
Nov 22nd 2007, 03:09 AM
The niv takes out the clearest reference to the trinity in the bible, then renumbers verse 8 so that one does not realize there is a verse missing:

NIV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

HERE IS THE FULL QUOTE FROM THE KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

NIV teaches that God is in all people, not just believers:

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


The NIV teaches its hard to enter heaven, which implies salvation is works based:

The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Jesus teaches it is in fact easy to enter heaven:

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


Yet another error concerning salvation in Cor. 1:18, the niv changes “us which are saved” to “us being saved” blatantly teaching that paul and the Corinthians are not yet saved but working toward their salvation:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

NIV ALSO CORRUPTS THE FOLLOWING VERSE IN THE SAME MANNER: 2COR:2:15, ACTS 2:47

light bread
Nov 22nd 2007, 03:38 AM
Sorry but to me when reading the KJV I'm left going "Huh?" far too many times due to it's old english language style. The NIV may not be perfect but I've never had a problem understanding what's said. Comparing several translations is always the best practice anyway.

You have a right to read whatever translation you want. The first bible ever given to me after i was saved was an NIV, i read it alot, but when i started noticing verses that clearly taught the opposite of what it means to be saved and that it taught jesus fell from heaven by applying the term morning star to lucifer, i realized it was time to switch. It was a little difficult for the first couple weeks, but after that i had no time understanding the KJV. I don't think anyone would have trouble as long as they gave it an honest effort, the kjv scored at a 5th grade reading level.

Comparing many translations could not give you a better understanding. The KJV was translated from a large body of popular, late manuscripts which were in almost complete agreement. where as all newer translations were translated from a few very early (and very different) manuscripts. So if one was to line up the KJV against 9 modern translations one would end up seeing that the score was say 1 to 8 or 9 in a particular reading and go with the majority. but this would be incorrect since the modern version's writers were not concerned with what the majority of texts said.

The point is yes, you may be understanding what you are reading, but is it God's Words you are understanding or men's words?

BuffaloSoldier
Nov 22nd 2007, 03:41 AM
I'm sorry, but saying that the KJV somehow is more accurate or has more authority than any other translation is just ignorant. If it's the translation you prefer, that's fine. However, saying that it's the only "correct" transation is ignoring the historical fact that the KJV was translated during a very politically charged time between the Church of England, the Catholic Church, and groups like the Puritans. Furthermore, we have many more sources (OT and NT) to work from than the translators in the early 17th century had.

light bread
Nov 22nd 2007, 03:48 AM
I'm sorry, but saying that the KJV somehow is more accurate or has more authority than any other translation is just ignorant.....

This response is typical... i think ill apply prov. 26:4 to this one, especially since it is lacking of any real evidence.

BuffaloSoldier
Nov 22nd 2007, 03:59 AM
This response is typical... i think ill apply prov. 26:4 to this one, especially since it is lacking of any real evidence.

So, there was no conflict going on between the Anglicans, Catholics, and Puritans during the time of the translation? Interesting.

I should also note that the Greek which the KJV is based off of is from Stephanus' Greek New Testament, which was based on a collection of Byzantine manuscripts dating no older than 1200 CE. Since the translation of the KJV, we've found NT documents older than any of those used by Stephanus. This is on top of the wealth of information we recieved with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, through research that's been done in the past 400 years we have a much better understanding of the Biblical world, which gives a lot of insight into the original texts.

As I said, if you want to use the KJV, do so by all means. Just don't parade around saying that it's somehow superior in content/message.

light bread
Nov 23rd 2007, 02:11 AM
So, there was no conflict going on between the Anglicans, Catholics, and Puritans during the time of the translation? Interesting.

where in my message did i deny the religious conflict going on? not that it matters, show me a time in history when there was not religious conflict going on. The entire new testament itself was originally written in a time of great religious conflict.

There have been many new manuscripts found since the translation of the kjv but most only vindicate the text of the kjv. Also, note that just because documents are older does not necessarily mean better. two of teh oldest documents we have (א and β) differ in at least 3000 places in the gospels alone. Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel (who are not kjv supporters) admitted in "The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the new testament" that they differ so widely that no evidence of direct genealogical ties could be found in them.

Much different could be said about the byzantine family on the other hand which shows amazing agreement AND was widely used among early christians. If the byzantine and recieved text are inferior why did everyone choose to make copies of those and not the others? It is for these and other reasons that i feel the kjv is superior in content/message. I dont mean this as an insult to you, im just stating what is obvious to me after studying the issue. If you really have a problem with that I suggest you quit reading this thread.

BuffaloSoldier
Nov 23rd 2007, 07:08 AM
where in my message did i deny the religious conflict going on? not that it matters, show me a time in history when there was not religious conflict going on. The entire new testament itself was originally written in a time of great religious conflict.

There have been many new manuscripts found since the translation of the kjv but most only vindicate the text of the kjv. Also, note that just because documents are older does not necessarily mean better. two of teh oldest documents we have (א and β) differ in at least 3000 places in the gospels alone. Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel (who are not kjv supporters) admitted in "The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the new testament" that they differ so widely that no evidence of direct genealogical ties could be found in them.

Much different could be said about the byzantine family on the other hand which shows amazing agreement AND was widely used among early christians. If the byzantine and recieved text are inferior why did everyone choose to make copies of those and not the others? It is for these and other reasons that i feel the kjv is superior in content/message. I dont mean this as an insult to you, im just stating what is obvious to me after studying the issue. If you really have a problem with that I suggest you quit reading this thread.



This response is typical... i think ill apply prov. 26:4 to this one, especially since it is lacking of any real evidence.


You basically called me a fool, so don't give me any of that. I've studied this issue as well. I know I don't know everything about it, yet I even my pretentious self can admit that.

Hirohiigo
Nov 23rd 2007, 07:38 AM
I use primarily the NIV version, because it provides for an easy read. The KJV often leaves me wondering what the heck it just said, and more often than not you find the KJV separated in verses, which isn't how it was intended to be read.

I should also note that I use the Life Application Study Bible, which uses the NIV translation, but has explanations for ambiguous verses and points out that there may or may not be other interpretations of certain verses, and often points out the core meaning of the original words used.


The first bible ever given to me after i was saved was an NIV, i read it alot, but when i started noticing verses that clearly taught the opposite of what it means to be saved and that it taught jesus fell from heaven by applying the term morning star to lucifer, i realized it was time to switch.As far as I can tell, this quote was neither in reference to Jesus nor Satan; it was in reference to a Babylonian king, probably Nebuchadnezzar or Sennacherib. The term Lucifer is Latin for "Morning Star," and came from the Latin translation of the Old Testament. I believe elsewhere in the Bible the term lucifer is also used in reference to Jesus, also meaning "Morning Star."

Thirst
Nov 23rd 2007, 09:28 AM
I was reading Mark Hall's (lead singer for Casting Crowns) book when he talked about people who argued over which translation was the right one. He was in a class at a Baptist college in Florida where a professor was talking of the KJV's superiority as the only true Word of God. A student from Africa always read a NIV and said that KJV bibles were not available there. He then asked the professor that since he had never read the KJV bible, had he never heard the Word of God? The professor got pretty quiet very quickly.

I agree with BuffaloSoldier completely. Some people prefer different translations, but there is no reason to claim that one is superior over the other. How can ANYONE know with 100 percent certainty? We can't, we can only trust the Lord that He has provided us with what we need to know to have a relationship with Him. I know a lot of people that have been hurt by people who run around telling them that they have never read the true Word of God before, and I think that is sad. It screams of arrogance.

People should really be more careful.

Big T
Nov 23rd 2007, 02:02 PM
This is being moved to controvesial.

I<3Jesus
Nov 23rd 2007, 04:00 PM
I agree with Buffalo Soldier, if you ignore the historical context surrounding each text that is pretty ignorant (not an attack against anyone, just a statement). Organized religion has been a tool to keep people in control for centuries. I have nothing against either text, but I am not willing to say that there is one that is better than the next. You also have to take into account that translation from one language to another is often flawed. You can make any arguments you want about translation, but the simple fact is that each language has words, themes and ideas that have no equivalent in other languages. A modern example of this would be the movie Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. If you watch the movie with the subtitles, then you get the traditional Chinese fairy tale. If you watch the movie in which they dubbed over the Mandarin then you get a skewed, inaccurate version of the story. There are words, ideas and themes found in the Mandarin language that do not have an English equivalent. It is better to read the subtitles that accompany the Mandarin text than it is to listen to the English version. Considering all of the advancements we have now you would think that current things would be more accurate. When it comes to ancient languages it just isn't the case. It is what it is.

dan
Nov 24th 2007, 06:22 AM
...All the mistakes in the NIV would require another book to be written.

Just based on a few principles I would reject the NIV:

It is copywrited and that makes it private:

2PET 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The writers of the NIV were the Alexandrians and were included in a Council Of Nicea where they considered the right of Jesus to have the status of God. The Gnostics voted against it.
The only other negative vote was the Alexandrians. They were outvoted 316 to 2.

There are 12 or 16 original copies of the Alexandrian texts. There are 24,000 copies of the Greek and Latin texts that were used to make the KJV. The archaeological scholars believe that the ones that were considered the most accurate were the most copied.

Choose.

SammeyDW
Nov 24th 2007, 12:47 PM
...All the mistakes in the NIV would require another book to be written.

Just based on a few principles I would reject the NIV:

It is copywrited and that makes it private:

2PET 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The writers of the NIV were the Alexandrians and were included in a Council Of Nicea where they considered the right of Jesus to have the status of God. The Gnostics voted against it.
The only other negative vote was the Alexandrians. They were outvoted 316 to 2.

There are 12 or 16 original copies of the Alexandrian texts. There are 24,000 copies of the Greek and Latin texts that were used to make the KJV. The archaeological scholars believe that the ones that were considered the most accurate were the most copied.

Choose.

That makes no sense,
most translations ARE copyrighted including the NLT , NAS / NASB , LB , and KJV just to name a few.

So on the bases of copyright you are saying to reject them all? :confused

light bread
Nov 25th 2007, 12:16 AM
First, coming out and making a statement that this view is ignorant knowing people who have posted before hold this view, then saying "im not attacking..." is... just a slick way to call someone ignorant i suppose. BuffSoldier's response seemed very argumentative and directed more at "my ignorance" than the issue at hand and it seemed like he just wanted to shoot his mouth off. So, i chose initially chose not to respond thinking this would only result in an argument that would only bring the status of the conversation down to a malicious argument. Nothing he said showed that he actually considered anything that was said previously and it didn’t appear he had studied the issue at all; all he said were vague generalizations that most people regurgitate without knowing any of the facts behind them. IF they did I don’t understand why they would even use them.
So to clear up these objections…

I agree with Buffalo Soldier, if you ignore the historical context surrounding each text that is pretty ignorant (not an attack against anyone, just a statement)..... If you watch the movie in which they dubbed over the Mandarin then you get a skewed, inaccurate version of the story. There are words, ideas and themes found in the Mandarin language that do not have an English equivalent.


Saying the conditions at the time somehow negatively affected the KJ doesn’t mean anything as I previously showed this is not evidence against it in any way. IF you could find a specific passage and show that it was wrong and had been changed this way because of the historical context this could be considered. But just stating your position as a fact isn’t going to work.

Now, with CTHD there at least a couple things that need to be considered:

1.The underlying Chinese story could have been left out purposefully t b/c it was not important to the plot of the movie. Producers do this all the time, that’s why we have extended scenes on some DVDs. These are scenes shot that are part of the story and are later cut out b.c we dumb movie patrons would apparently get bored if they left too much of that stuff in.

If this is the case then it does not really apply to the issue at hand, unless you could find something that was intentionally left out of the KJV for some reason.

2. There may not be “word for word” equivalents of the themes and ideas but the idea can still be conveyed in a translation. If there wasn’t there would be no way for you to find out about it.

Think of it this way: lets say you are translating something from some obscure tribal language. And they have a word “Sarch” which refers to the top of the foot. In ingles there is no word that refers to the top of the foot, we have “soul” for the bottom but no single word referring to the top. You have two options, you can create a new word, or when you get to “sarch” simply write it as “top of the foot.”
Also, I would disagree that no translation can be perfect. The originals themselves contain translations. The people of Jesus’ time spoke Aramaic yet the New Testament was written in greek. Joseph spoke by means of an interpreter (Gen 42:23) so when his statements are recorded in the Hebrew originals of the Old Testament they are a perfect translation. The conversations between pharaoh and Moses also were recorded in Hebrew. In Acts 2 the Holy Spirit translated what Peter and the apostles said so that each of the listeners heard them in their own language. God translated (translate means to carry over) Saul’s Kingdom to David in 2nd Sam 3; He translated us into the kingdom of his son Col 1:13. If he can translate people why can’t he translate words? Matt translates the Hebrew words Jesus said on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Other translations can also be found in mark, “and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” “It is Corban, that is to say, a gift…” Peter speaks Hebrew to his tormentors in Acts 21:40, 22:2 but again acts was originally recorded in Hebrew.

light bread
Nov 25th 2007, 12:36 AM
As most are probably aware there is no capital/lowercase in greek writings. So, all puctuation in english translations are strictly by preference of the translators. What does this tell you about the NIV writer's opinion of Jesus?


After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

There is a big list of ways the NIV takes away from Jesus' authority/diety that someone posted a link to earlier but this one wasn't on there. here is the link again for reference: http://www.thewayoftheword.com/1867295.html

jeffreys
Nov 25th 2007, 01:41 AM
As most are probably aware there is no capital/lowercase in greek writings. So, all puctuation in english translations are strictly by preference of the translators. What does this tell you about the NIV writer's opinion of Jesus?



There is a big list of ways the NIV takes away from Jesus' authority/diety that someone posted a link to earlier but this one wasn't on there. here is the link again for reference: http://www.thewayoftheword.com/1867295.html

You are aware, aren't you, that the link you provided is for a blindly one-sided website - and that the author is an ex-Marine who has been a Christian for less than a year and a half, and has absolutely no education in original Bible languages?

He is certainly entitled to his preferences and opinions, but I'll read what he writes with a certain grain of salt.

BuffaloSoldier
Nov 25th 2007, 02:21 AM
First, coming out and making a statement that this view is ignorant knowing people who have posted before hold this view, then saying "im not attacking..." is... just a slick way to call someone ignorant i suppose. BuffSoldier's response seemed very argumentative and directed more at "my ignorance" than the issue at hand and it seemed like he just wanted to shoot his mouth off. So, i chose initially chose not to respond thinking this would only result in an argument that would only bring the status of the conversation down to a malicious argument. Nothing he said showed that he actually considered anything that was said previously and it didn’t appear he had studied the issue at all; all he said were vague generalizations that most people regurgitate without knowing any of the facts behind them. IF they did I don’t understand why they would even use them.
So to clear up these objections…


I said:


I'm sorry, but saying that the KJV somehow is more accurate or has more authority than any other translation is just ignorant.

My point was that claiming one translation has more authority over another is ignorant. If you do research that strengthens your preference of one translation over another, then by all means go with that translation. Just don't raise one translation up over another and say it's the end all be all version of the Bible. Millions of good people read versions of the Bible other than the KJV and do amazing things.

I<3Jesus
Nov 25th 2007, 02:49 AM
1.The underlying Chinese story could have been left out purposefully t b/c it was not important to the plot of the movie. Producers do this all the time, that’s why we have extended scenes on some DVDs. These are scenes shot that are part of the story and are later cut out b.c we dumb movie patrons would apparently get bored if they left too much of that stuff in.

That is not what I am talking about out all. Selective reading is popular on this site ;) Reread my post and we will talk.

light bread
Nov 25th 2007, 05:33 AM
That is not what I am talking about out all. Selective reading is popular on this site ;) Reread my post and we will talk.

That wasn't the the main point of my reply. Selective reading is popular on this site ;) Reread my post and we will talk.

TrustGzus
Nov 25th 2007, 02:58 PM
Greetings light bread,

I've been studying this issue in quite some detail for nearly 20 years from both sides of the issue. I'd be glad to discuss any verse that you have a problem with in the NIV compared with the KJV.

This issue has been discussed over and over ad nauseum at bibleforums.org. Many get frustrated with it.:B Having been on both sides of the issue, I can understand people from either side pretty well and the frustration they feel from the other side. Also, having been on both sides, I don't get as frustrated as some because I understand both sides' perspective.

I don't think the arguments you've used so far prove your point. If they do, then I would say let's abandon the NIV. If they don't, then you should drop the lines of argument that you use.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

dan
Nov 25th 2007, 07:08 PM
That makes no sense,
most translations ARE copyrighted including the NLT , NAS / NASB , LB , and KJV just to name a few.

So on the bases of copyright you are saying to reject them all? :confused

Wow, I must be blind. I can't find a copyright in my KJV, maybe your right, NOT.
:lol:
By the way the site you are posting on has free Bible software and, they will not give you the software unless you fulfill a requirement BECAUSE OF THE COPYRIGHT. The KJV, Douay, Youngs, Darby, Basic English, Weymouth, Wycliffe, World English, American Standard, and Webster's are all free without requirement.
A Bible that is free of copyrights is a pure Bible. Or, at least, as pure as one needs.

I<3Jesus
Nov 25th 2007, 07:34 PM
That wasn't the the main point of my reply. Selective reading is popular on this site ;) Reread my post and we will talk.

I think you think you're clever, but you are just coming off as a "know it all, smart alleck." You completely misread my post, so you are the one that needs to reread it, not me.

light bread
Nov 25th 2007, 09:43 PM
Wow, I must be blind. I can't find a copywrite in my KJV, maybe your right, NOT.

Most KJV versions today will have a copy right due to them containing commentary, concordance, introductions to the books, etc. so he probably does have one inside the cover of his KJV, i do. But the actual text of the KJV is not copyrighted. Some have said that the KJV had a crown copyright which is bassically the same as modern copyright laws. The KJV however was not protected by a crown copyright but a "terms of the letters patent" which refers to a letter delivered openly with the royal seal attached. This allows whoever wishes the permission to print a KJ except as I understand it in the UK where publishers must be licensed.


I think you think you're clever, but you are just coming off as a "know it all, smart alleck." You completely misread my post, so you are the one that needs to reread it, not me.

I reread but i don't see any point that i missed; the historical context comment, and then one about losing meaning through translation. I don't see any other point to your post, but maybe im just too ignorant.


I don't think the arguments you've used so far prove your point. If they do, then I would say let's abandon the NIV. If they don't, then you should drop the lines of argument that you use.

Thanks for at least understanding the implications of the issue.
As some may recall this thread was never meant to be a debate or for me to prove my point to any of you, just a resource for those who were looking for info on the subject and for those who haven't heard. But the main purpose of these forums is also to be a discussion, so questions and objections cant be ignored. What i cant understand, though, is that some people will think the NIV is just as good as any other translation after knowing how it degrades Christ, is based off poor manuscripts, and most of all twists the message of salvation. If these aren't enough to show that the NIV has errors and isn't a good translation then i don't know what would. Im not saying the KJV is a superior translation because i like it better; I like it better because its a superior translation. If you like the NIV better because its easier for you to understand thats OK, but its an inferior translation. That has no bearing on your personal quality, i think most of you are Godly people and i knmw and love many people who use the NIV, but the fact remains that it is such a poor translation.

I<3Jesus
Nov 25th 2007, 10:28 PM
I didn't say you were ignorant. I am just going to leave this discussion because I see nothing good coming from it. My point was that no translation is 100% accurate (and I listed why) therefore no one can make the claim that one is better than the other.

jeffreys
Nov 25th 2007, 11:05 PM
Really folks, this whole "NIV is WRONG and the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible" argument is silly.

First of all, the KJV was primarily translated from the Textus Receptus - a Greek New Testament that was translated by ONE MAN - note, ONE MAN - a Dutch Roman Catholic priest named Desiderius Erasmus. The Textus Receptus was finished in 1516, and was put together from a relatively small collection (about five or six) of Greek texts dating back to about the twelfth to fourteenth century AD. It is well know that, in his haste to "beat the competition to press" that Erasmus made several mistakes in his TR. For instance, he mistakenly included "marginal notes" as part of the text itself - something that has been clearly exposed and clarified.

So... the KJV was translated from a Greek New Testament that was itself compiled by one man who used only 5-6 earlier texts - none of which are early manuscripts - and it is known to have serious errors.

In addition, the KJV itself had to go through several revision to remove errors, including the heated debate that led to the later omission of the Apocryphal books in 1613. Do the "KJV Only" folks know that there was what was known as the "Wicked Bible" KJV and "Unrighteous Bible" KJV? Are you aware that the KJV originally mistakenly identified Jesus as Judas in Matthew 26:36?

Then we must add into the equation the fact that there have been countless earlier Greek manuscripts discovered since the translation of the KJV. In 1859 the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered - and it was penned in the mid 4th Century. The Codex Vaticanus was also discovered, and dated to the mid 4th Century. Other fragments, dating back to the 2nd Century, have been discovered since the KJV was translated. Truth be known, there have now been literally thousands of fragments discovered since the Textus Receptus was written, and all of these fragments predate the manuscripts used in the TR by over 1,000 years!


Therefore, we must ask ourselves this question: Is the KJV or the NIV translated from earlier, and more accurate, manuscripts? Without any scholarly question, the answer is that the NIV was translated from earlier, and more accurate, Greek manuscripts.

We really should put to rest this whole rant about how the NIV is a corrupted translation, and the KJV is the only pure translation, because it simply is not true.

dan
Nov 26th 2007, 09:15 AM
...Is a Bible that reads easy but distorts or destroys Prophecy? NONE! For you were meant to see Prophecy come true!
One of the ways that you can tell that the NIV is all wet is that it doesn't have an OT that conforms to the Jewish Version OT. The KJV, and all it's clones, succeeds in this task. The relevant Prophecies in the NIV won't come true because they are not the same prophecies.

light bread
Nov 26th 2007, 01:28 PM
My point was that no translation is 100% accurate therefore no one can make the claim that one is better than the other.

This was discussed in my response you, I was assuming you didn’t make it past part 1 of the CTHD response, so I asked you to reread MY post. If you belive the originals were perfect you have to grant the possibility of a perfect translation as the originals themselves are translations and contain translations. But still if there was not a perfect one this doesn’t mean all are equal, some can be better then others. Sorry my posts are so long but im just ONE MAN trying to respond to several.


Therefore, we must ask ourselves this question: Is the KJV or the NIV translated from earlier, and more accurate, manuscripts? Without any scholarly question, the answer is that the NIV was translated from earlier, and more accurate, Greek manuscripts. Truth be known, there have now been literally thousands of fragments discovered since the Textus Receptus was written, and all of these fragments predate the manuscripts used in the TR by over 1,000 years… Sinaiticus… Vaticanus…

We have already been over this, the older is better philosophy is seriously flawed. Codex sinaiticus and vaticanus (א and β) differ in at least 3000 places in the gospels alone and Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel admit they differ so widely that no evidence of direct genealogical ties could be found in them. Are these the older, better manuscripts??? Keep the boloney im not hungy J
Yes thousands of manuscripts have been found, most only agree with the kjv. All these types of arguments are merely “spin” and from what I can tell from my studies are based from work by geisler and nix who drastically distort the actual textual evidence to favor older manuscripts. I think most that use these are well meaning but have been mislead.

In addition, the KJV itself had to go through several revision to remove errors, including the heated debate that led to the later omission of the Apocryphal books in 1613. Do the "KJV Only" folks know that there was what was known as the "Wicked Bible" KJV and "Unrighteous Bible" KJV? Are you aware that the KJV originally mistakenly identified Jesus as Judas in Matthew 26:36?

This was answered on the first page I believe. For anyone not aware of this extremely misleading argument the “revisions” are answered in excruciating detail here: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp


Erasmus… We really should put to rest this whole rant about how the NIV is a corrupted translation, and the KJV is the only pure translation, because it simply is not true.

People always bring up Erasmus to somehow make the KJV “guilty by association” since Erasmus was a catholic or to criticize his methods. The truth is Erasmus was very critical of the catholic church, and if him being a catholic somehow affected the KJV show me the result of his catholic influence in the KJV. You can’t? that’s interesting b/c I can show you verses that have been changed in the NIV that do. The he based his work off strong manuscripts and his product agrees much more strongly with the majority of manuscript and fragment evidence we have today then either א or β.
You guys are the ones doing most of the ranting. I think I’ve provided adequate evidence to back up anything ive said, but some have of you have been the ones to make accusations of ignorance, silliness, and personal attacks, attempting to discredit people based on such ridiculous things as spelling or being a ex-marine and young Christian.

TrustGzus
Nov 26th 2007, 02:49 PM
Greetings light bread,

As Christians, I think we should give the benefit of the doubt to people. I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.

So as a Christian, I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to both sides. Assume no bad motives on either side and simply look at the evidence.

One thing that I have found that KJV-only advocates are very guilty of in their writings is having double-standards. They point to a "problem" in the NIV. Then either one of two things happens:

they don't realize the same problem can be found in the KJV
they excuse the same problem when found in the KJV. Now if a "problem" is found in the NIV and the same type of "problem" is found in the KJV, to be consistent, and even more importantly - honest, one must either declare the NIV not guilty OR declare the KJV guilty.

So far, for every verse you've posted, I think there are very satisfactory answer for. Let's take one example where if the NIV is guilty, then so is the KJV. You claim that the . . .
NIV teaches that God is in all people, not just believers:Then you quote Ephesians 4:6 out of the NIV. I"ll provide that here . . .
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Eph 4:6). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.


However, the KJV says the same thing in another passage . . .
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

 The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Col 3:11). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


So, as I see it, you have two options that I mentioned above. You can decide:
The NIV is innocent at Ephesians 4:6 of teaching that God is in all people, not just believers.
The KJV is guilty at Colossians 3:11 of teaching that God is in all people, not just believers.Which do you choose?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

jeffreys
Nov 26th 2007, 03:19 PM
...Is a Bible that reads easy but distorts or destroys Prophecy? NONE! For you were meant to see Prophecy come true!
One of the ways that you can tell that the NIV is all wet is that it doesn't have an OT that conforms to the Jewish Version OT. The KJV, and all it's clones, succeeds in this task. The relevant Prophecies in the NIV won't come true because they are not the same prophecies.
Read post #54.

So which version of the KJV are you touting? ;)

jeffreys
Nov 26th 2007, 03:26 PM
You guys are the ones doing most of the ranting. I think I’ve provided adequate evidence to back up anything ive said, but some have of you have been the ones to make accusations of ignorance, silliness, and personal attacks, attempting to discredit people based on such ridiculous things as spelling or being a ex-marine and young Christian.

If you want to ignore all manner of historic evidence, and believe that the KJV is the only true and pure translation of the Bible, you're welcome to believe that.

If you want to believe that the marginal notes Erasmus accidentally included, as though they were divine Scripture, you're welcome to believe that.

If you want to ignore the thousands of Greek texts that are over 1,000 years closer to the original writings than the 5-6 used by Erasmus for the TR, you're welcome to do that.

If you want to believe the rant of an ex-Marine, who has absolutely no training or education in Biblical languages, you're welcome to do that.


But in all these things, you should be honest enough to admit that you're sharing your opinion. And you should not denigrate and bad-mouth a translation other than KJV, just because like KJV better.

dan
Nov 27th 2007, 07:08 AM
Read post #54.

So which version of the KJV are you touting? ;)

...God told Erasmus' three year-old to translate it, it would still come out as right as God Requires!

The KJV, Douay, Youngs, Darby, Basic English, Weymouth, Wycliffe, World English, American Standard, and Webster's are all free without requirement.
A Bible that is free of copyrights is a pure Bible. Or, at least, as pure as one needs.

jeffreys
Nov 27th 2007, 01:21 PM
...God told Erasmus' three year-old to translate it, it would still come out as right as God Requires!

The KJV, Douay, Youngs, Darby, Basic English, Weymouth, Wycliffe, World English, American Standard, and Webster's are all free without requirement.
A Bible that is free of copyrights is a pure Bible. Or, at least, as pure as one needs.

What are you talking about?

Would you take the Textus Receptus seriously if you found out that Erasmus' monkey translated it from Marvel Comic Books?

And being free, or requiring a purchase price, is not part of this discussion...

I<3Jesus
Nov 27th 2007, 04:31 PM
What are you talking about?

Would you take the Textus Receptus seriously if you found out that Erasmus' monkey translated it from Marvel Comic Books?

And being free, or requiring a purchase price, is not part of this discussion...

I want to rep you so bad for this, but I cannot until I spread more around. I almost spit orange juice on my laptop.

I<3Jesus
Nov 27th 2007, 04:38 PM
You guys are the ones doing most of the ranting. I think I’ve provided adequate evidence to back up anything ive said, but some have of you have been the ones to make accusations of ignorance, silliness, and personal attacks, attempting to discredit people based on such ridiculous things as spelling or being a ex-marine and young Christian.

I think the only people "ranting" are the ones that are trying to prove that the KJV is the ONLY right text. You guys have the burden to prove your claims. Using propaganda written by a young man who has absolutely no language expertise is not a good way to prove your point. ;)

PS. I apologize for misreading your post previously. I do not do well with walls of text. I've said this countless times on here. If the response is too long you have lost me.

IBWatching
Nov 27th 2007, 06:04 PM
....The above and more are reasons why I do not trust the NIV.

The NIV and KJV were translated using different Greek NT texts. Those who favor the Byzantine (KJV) say that things are omitted from the NIV text when the Alexandrian texts are older and they could claim that the Byzantine texts added what they say the Alexandrian texts omitted. On top of this, the KJV strives to be a literal translation while the NIV admits to being a "dynamic equivalence" translation.

All of this boils down to, in the end, "scribal warfare" (when we don't even know who those scribes were). Unfruitful and pointless. While I am at it, the KJV is by no means "perfect":


Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

There is no Greek NT word for "easter" which could have been penned by any scribe who was faithful to the original. The translators of the KJV clearly inserted it into the text (as they did the word "unknown" in 1 Cor 14). There is no such thing as a "perfect" English Bible translation. They were all (except for paraphrases) translated using copies of the original Greek texts and as such are all subject to error by the translators. The Original, Inspired Word as given by God to man, is without error. We all have to trust the Holy Spirit for guidance in what English translation(s) to use.

I use several different ones, including the KJV.

TrustGzus
Nov 28th 2007, 05:34 AM
Greetings Dan,
...God told Erasmus' three year-old to translate it, it would still come out as right as God Requires!

The KJV, Douay, Youngs, Darby, Basic English, Weymouth, Wycliffe, World English, American Standard, and Webster's are all free without requirement.
A Bible that is free of copyrights is a pure Bible. Or, at least, as pure as one needs.Actually, the KJV has passed out of copyright due to time and is no longer under copyright. See the very first sentence of this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status).

That being said, copyright debates are a diversionary fallacy known as the red herring fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html). Whether or not a Bible is copyrighted has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good translation. Do you know why they copyright translations? You might call or write to ask one of the publishers and ask why Bibles are copyrighted. There is good reasoning behind it.

Thus, you should drop this line of argumentation for multiple reasons:
The KJV was copyrighted but is no longer simply because the copyright has expired. (Since the KJV was not free of copyright, does that mean it was not a pure Bible at that time?)
The same is true of all the other versions you mentioned.
The same will be true of the NIV. Eventually it will be public domain. Zondervan has agreed to no longer update the NIV. So the 1984 copyright date is the final copyright date and thus it will expire. (Does that make the NIV equal to the KJV? Based on the line of reasoning you provided, it will be equal when that happens. A Bible free of copyright is a pure Bible. Eventually the NIV will be free of copyright. Therefore, eventually the NIV will be a pure Bible.)
This argument employs the logical fallacy of red herring. Whether a translation is copyrighted or not doesn't say anything to the issue of whether it's translated well or not.Grace & peace to you, Dan.

Joe

dan
Nov 28th 2007, 06:31 AM
What are you talking about?

Would you take the Textus Receptus seriously if you found out that Erasmus' monkey translated it from Marvel Comic Books?

And being free, or requiring a purchase price, is not part of this discussion...

...Come to think of it, if the Prophecies came true, yes! Because that is how you tell it was Inspired in the first place! By the way KJV never had a copyright.
What are you going to do with a Bible that has no prophesy in it? Never mind, I already covered Kindling, didn't I?
Maybe you should reread your link, Royal Perogative is not a Copyright!

jeffreys
Nov 28th 2007, 02:34 PM
...Come to think of it, if the Prophecies came true, yes! Because that is how you tell it was Inspired in the first place! By the way KJV never had a copyright.
What are you going to do with a Bible that has no prophesy in it? Never mind, I already covered Kindling, didn't I?
Maybe you should reread your link, Royal Perogative is not a Copyright!

Are you responding to something a different poster wrote? I mean, this comment not only doesn't clarify your previous comments, it muddies them further.

I've not said anything about copyrights.

light bread
Nov 28th 2007, 10:56 PM
The NIV is innocent at Ephesians 4:6 of teaching that God is in all people, not just believers.
The KJV is guilty at Colossians 3:11 of teaching that God is in all people, not just believers.Which do you choose?

First, while I disagree with you, thank you for at least making arguments that pertain to the subject and including evidence and reasons for your position, rather then just attacking the character of those in the discussion.

As someone said earlier, to cite all the mistakes of the niv would require a book to be written, so even if this was to be excused in the niv there would still be many others left, on arguably more important subjects.

To answer your question, ill choose neither. You said often people will excuse the same problem when found in the KJV. If they merely shrug it off, this is obviously unacceptable. But if they give justification or grounds for being as it is in the kjv then this would be acceptable.

The passage in Col is referring only to people in a saved condition as is obvious from the previous verses “ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:”.

Note the beginning of verse 11, “Where there is neither…” This is limiting the statement to saved people only, all saved people have Christ in them, no matter what nationality or other condition.

If one were to try to excuse the eph passage in the niv in the same manner they would be unable as there is not a specific reference in the context to limit it to believers as the kjv passage in Col. If one really wanted to stretch it and say that everything applies only to belivers since eph was written to believers then the conflict at hand would be resolved, but the fact that while God is above and through everyone believer or not, he is specifically in believers only would be lost.

Also the niv in 3:10 says, “which is being renewed.” Again, they change salvation into a process.



Read post #54. So which version of the KJV are you touting?
Read post #18, #56


If you want to ignore all manner of historic evidence… the marginal notes Erasmus accidentally included… thousands of Greek texts that are over 1,000 years closer to the original writings than the 5-6 used by Erasmus for the TR, you're welcome to do that.
Would you take the Textus Receptus seriously if you found out that Erasmus' monkey translated it from Marvel Comic Books?
Me? Ignore evidence? You are the one posting poor arguments that have been previously answered all the way back on page 2 of the discussion, and you are accusing others of ignoring evidence? Please.

Comparing the copies Erasmus used to comic books is ridiculous, and saying that thousands have been found that are closer is such a lie that it leads me to believe you know almost nothing on this issue. Almost all of the manuscripts found predating erasmus’ text and others used in the KJV in agreement with and therefore strengthen their case for accuracy.

Two of the oldest and most revered texts of your position sinaiticus and vaticanus are so different that no evidence of direct genealogical ties could be found in them, over 3000 differences in the gospels alone. How can this be if they are more reliable? This is the third time I have posted this material and 2nd time in response to one of your posts, when will YOU stop ignoring the historical and textual evidence? The number of sources used by Erasmus does not weigh on its accuracy as much as the quality of the manuscripts he used. If a copy or translation was made from just one original most would say it to be reliable. Erasmus received text is far superior to that of א and β and texts like the NIV that use them as their basis.

light bread
Nov 28th 2007, 10:58 PM
These posts are becoming quite a nuisance, ill probably retire until after finals week especially if ppl keep repeating refuted arguments.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 04:59 AM
First, while I disagree with you, thank you for at least making arguments that pertain to the subject and including evidence and reasons for your position, rather then just attacking the character of those in the discussion.

As someone said earlier, to cite all the mistakes of the niv would require a book to be written, so even if this was to be excused in the niv there would still be many others left, on arguably more important subjects.

To answer your question, ill choose neither. You said often people will excuse the same problem when found in the KJV. If they merely shrug it off, this is obviously unacceptable. But if they give justification or grounds for being as it is in the kjv then this would be acceptable.

The passage in Col is referring only to people in a saved condition as is obvious from the previous verses “ ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:”.

Note the beginning of verse 11, “Where there is neither…” This is limiting the statement to saved people only, all saved people have Christ in them, no matter what nationality or other condition.

If one were to try to excuse the eph passage in the niv in the same manner they would be unable as there is not a specific reference in the context to limit it to believers as the kjv passage in Col. If one really wanted to stretch it and say that everything applies only to belivers since eph was written to believers then the conflict at hand would be resolved, but the fact that while God is above and through everyone believer or not, he is specifically in believers only would be lost.

Also the niv in 3:10 says, “which is being renewed.” Again, they change salvation into a process.



Read post #18, #56


Me? Ignore evidence? You are the one posting poor arguments that have been previously answered all the way back on page 2 of the discussion, and you are accusing others of ignoring evidence? Please.

Comparing the copies Erasmus used to comic books is ridiculous, and saying that thousands have been found that are closer is such a lie that it leads me to believe you know almost nothing on this issue. Almost all of the manuscripts found predating erasmus’ text and others used in the KJV in agreement with and therefore strengthen their case for accuracy.

Two of the oldest and most revered texts of your position sinaiticus and vaticanus are so different that no evidence of direct genealogical ties could be found in them, over 3000 differences in the gospels alone. How can this be if they are more reliable? This is the third time I have posted this material and 2nd time in response to one of your posts, when will YOU stop ignoring the historical and textual evidence? The number of sources used by Erasmus does not weigh on its accuracy as much as the quality of the manuscripts he used. If a copy or translation was made from just one original most would say it to be reliable. Erasmus received text is far superior to that of א and β and texts like the NIV that use them as their basis.

First of all, I'd strongly suggest you stop using such arrogant and derogatory language. To tell somebody with an advanced degree, in these very disciplines, of "knowing almost nothing about the issue" is absurd.

Second, I'd suggest that if you want to believe the KJV is the only pure Word of God, then believe it. It's obvious that God Himself could stand before you and tell you you're wrong, and you're not going to believe Him.

Third, I'd suggest you find some stronger arguments for trying to discredit non-KJV translations. It is a given that earlier (closer to the writing of the originals) manuscripts are likely to be more accurate that those not even written until the 1400s (those used by Erasmus). No scholar, in his right mind, believes that copies become more accurate the more they are copied, and the farther removed in time they are from the originals.


The overwhelming weight of scholarly credibility falls in favor of the later translations, such as the NASB and NIV.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 05:00 AM
These posts are becoming quite a nuisance, ill probably retire until after finals week especially if ppl keep repeating refuted arguments.
Perhaps a better option would be to open your mind, and open your eyes. It just might be that you're not 100% correct.

amazzin
Nov 29th 2007, 05:09 AM
Okay folks. I am going to be watching this thread like a hawk and if it turns into a KJV only thread I am shutting it down. Why? Because it just gets ugly. If you believe that the KJV is the only authorized version then "fantastic". But please do not come in here and tell everyone else they are wrong. We won't have that happen here.

I would encourage to dialogue but the moment this turns and goes south I will be shutting down the thread.

light bread
Nov 29th 2007, 08:02 AM
First of all, I'd strongly suggest you stop using such arrogant and derogatory language.... No scholar, in his right mind, believes that copies become more accurate the more they are copied, and the farther removed in time they are from the originals.

The overwhelming weight of scholarly credibility falls in favor of the later translations, such as the NASB and NIV.

It seems odd to me that people that tell teh world there is one true God, and one way to heaven take such great offense to a message of one true bible. no one ever posted anything saying if you use the NIV that makes you ignorant, or less of a christian. It doesn't. But when people start posting calling me and others ignorant for holding our view they are justified because of our narrow-minded position? i will never understand this.

Its going to be important for everyone to keep an open mind. It could be entirely possible you are not correct, jeffrys. The "fact" that most scholars believe older manuscripts to be more accurate is nothing more than a red herring, just like someone earlier claimed of the copyright issue. Majorities can be and are often wrong.

Your view is very instinctual and seems logical at face value. The problem with the "older is better view" is that their view of the transmission of the text is not exactly accurate. They would look at the bible as a stream, purest at its source. thus the further in time you proceed from the source the less pure just as you proceed from the originals.

This view is only partially correct: If the stream, almost immediately after the source, got an enormous amount of sludge dumped in the opposite would be true; the further one proceeded from the source the purer the water would get because the sludge would be diluted out. This would better describe what was going on with the text of the bible. Satan would be trying to corrupt God's word from the word go. Paul in his epistles warned about others writing false epistles under his name. Before the NT was even complete satan was trying to corrupt it. This would result in a large amount of error to be produced very early that would be filtered out as the early fathers taught directly by the apostles and the apostles themselves taught their churches the truth.

This would cause Christians to use and copy the good manuscripts while neglecting the poorer ones. The result of this is deterioration of reliable early manuscripts from use, the preservation of bad ones from lack of use, and a large number of reliable manuscripts because they were copied more.

Even westcott and hort knew this presented a problem for the "older is better view." The only thing they use against this view was a scenario concocted by one of them (cant recall which) called the "lucian recension" where church fathers met in a secret council to purposefully amass a large number of the poorer manuscripts in order to teach their doctrines. There of course was no evidence for this council ever taking place. And im not sure, but i dont think the lucian recension is still postulated as even happening nowdays.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 02:14 PM
5-6 manuscripts, from AD 1400 (1300 years after the originals were written), selected and copied by one man = Textus Receptus. It is a known fact that Erasmus made grave errors in his translation, including wrongly using marginal notes as part of Holy Writ.

It is also a known fact that the King James Version had numerous errors that, later, had to be edited and corrected.

You are placing your entire faith, and basing your entire argument, on a translation of one man, who used only 5-6 late texts, and who is known to have made errors in his translation.

If that is what you choose to do, so be it. You are perfectly entitled to do so.


As a side note, I still have no idea why you keep arguing about copyrights. Who are you arguing with, about that, and what's the point?

light bread
Nov 29th 2007, 03:36 PM
5-6 manuscripts, from AD 1400 (1300 years after the originals were written), selected and copied by one man = Textus Receptus. It is a known fact that Erasmus made grave errors in his translation, including wrongly using marginal notes as part of Holy Writ.

It is also a known fact that the King James Version had numerous errors that, later, had to be edited and corrected.

You are placing your entire faith, and basing your entire argument, on a translation of one man, who used only 5-6 late texts, and who is known to have made errors in his translation.

If that is what you choose to do, so be it. You are perfectly entitled to do so.

As a side note, I still have no idea why you keep arguing about copyrights. Who are you arguing with, about that, and what's the point?

Im not arguing about copyrights others brought that up, i just mentioned it in my last post.


We have a complete record of the new testament in the Syriac translation dating to 150 AD. These manuscripts agree with the text of the kjv in every major detail. You cant translate from something that wasn't around, so there are obviously texts predating 150 AD (let alone 1400) that agree with the king james.

But if you want to believe that a couple manuscripts one of which was found in a monastery trashcan, That disagree with each other 3000 times in the gospel alone, Is enough to overturn another translation line that dates back to 150 and was used by almost all christians... this is your prerogative but i don't know why anyone would.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 03:53 PM
Im not arguing about copyrights others brought that up, i just mentioned it in my last post.
Well... I've not said anything about it, but have seen it thrown on a bunch of times. I have no idea what it adds to this...

We have a complete record of the new testament in the Syriac translation dating to 150 AD. These manuscripts agree with the text of the kjv in every major detail.
I see you qualify that by writing, "in every major detail." So why is that standard okay for the KJV, but not for other translations?

Why is it okay that the KJV only has to be accurate "in every major detail", but you'll quibble over every jot & tittle of the NIV and other modern translations?

You cant translate from something that wasn't around, so there are obviously texts predating 150 AD (let alone 1400) that agree with the king james.
Of course they do - but, as you qualified, "in every major detail."
Nobody that I know is saying the TR is "all wrong" or that KJV is "all wrong". But there are known errors. Many of them.

But if you want to believe that a couple manuscripts one of which was found in a monastery trashcan, That disagree with each other 3000 times in the gospel alone, Is enough to overturn another translation line that dates back to 150 and was used by almost all christians... this is your prerogative but i don't know why anyone would.
The TR does not date back to AD 150, nor does the KJV. The TR was translated less than 200 years before the KJV, using 5-6 texts that were written only 200 years prior to the TR. This is not good scholarship.

Nor is the argument about the "trashcan" and "3000 disagreements" legitimate. Why? Because those texts were used as secondary checks. They - among thousands of other texts and fragments - were compared and checked against each other, to determine the best translation and to verify accuracy.

This kind of accuracy was NEVER verified before that one Catholic priest - whom many would argue had a vested bias - made his copy of the Textus Receptus.

Who would you think is likely to be more accurate? One Catholic priest - acting on his own - and translating texts from the 1400s, or hundreds of educated linguists who were comparing not only the manuscripts Erasmus used, but thousands of other texts and fragments that predated Erasmus' work by over a thousand years?

Continue to place your entire faith in the hands of that one, lone Catholic priest if you wish...

TrustGzus
Nov 30th 2007, 02:34 AM
Greetings light bread,

Thanks for a gracious discussion.
To answer your question, ill choose neither. You said often people will excuse the same problem when found in the KJV. If they merely shrug it off, this is obviously unacceptable. But if they give justification or grounds for being as it is in the kjv then this would be acceptable.I'm glad to see this response and that you see the problem with people having one standard for the NIV and a different one for the KJV.


The passage in Col is referring only to people in a saved condition as is obvious from the previous verses “ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:”.

Note the beginning of verse 11, “Where there is neither…” This is limiting the statement to saved people only, all saved people have Christ in them, no matter what nationality or other condition.

If one were to try to excuse the eph passage in the niv in the same manner they would be unable as there is not a specific reference in the context to limit it to believers as the kjv passage in Col. If one really wanted to stretch it and say that everything applies only to belivers since eph was written to believers then the conflict at hand would be resolved, but the fact that while God is above and through everyone believer or not, he is specifically in believers only would be lost.Are you being honest with yourself about this? You admit that it's possible to interpret Ephesians 4:6 in the context that this is an epistle addressed to believers. That's an important point. However, in addition to that, simply look at 4:1-5. Let me bold or color or in some way point out some key phrases . . .
As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Eph 4:1-6). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.The calling you have received . . . just as you were called to one hope when you were called. It seems the verses leading up to verse 6 are speaking about believers just as the verses leading up to verse 11 in Colossians 3 were speaking of believers.

Can you honestly say the verses leading up to verse six are inclusive of believers and non-believers?

Also the niv in 3:10 says, “which is being renewed.” Again, they change salvation into a process.light bread, this is an argument you'll have to drop if you want to be honest in discussions about the NIV and KJV. The Greek texts that were the basis for the NIV and the KJV are indentical at this point. So no difference can be attributed to the Greek. And the word for being renewed (in the NIV) or is renewed (in the KJV) is a present participle. There is not a single Greek manuscript that has anything but a present participle at this point. The fact is that the NIV is more accurate than the KJV at this point. To disagree with the NIV and go with the KJV, one must go against every Greek manuscript discovered. Let me repeat that. To disagree with the NIV and go with the KJV, one must go against every Greek manuscript discovered.

The same is true of 1 Corinthians 1:18. You mentioned earlier that the NIV changed the salvation process in that verse. Again, the Greek is identical at 1 Corinthians 1:18. There is no difference in any manuscript. The KJV is not translated accurately in either of these verses. Anyone who favors the KJV, but knows Greek, would have to agree. If they tell you differently, either they do not know Greek or they are lying.

It's interesting to note that Jay Green's interlinear of the KJV translates it correctly. And Jay Green holds your view of the manuscripts. He holds your view of the modern translations. Yet he correctly translated Colossians 3:10 and 1 Corinthians 1:18.

Another interesting note is that NKJV accurately translated 1 Corinthians 1:18 but failed to correct Colossians 3:10.

So, in summary, three questions for you:
Do you think that the verses leading up to Ephesians 4:6 provide a context of believers only OR believers and non-believers?
Do you think we should go against every Greek manuscript at 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Colossians 3:10 and translate these the way the KJV did, i..e. less literally and less accurately?
Since your argument seems to be one based on manuscript evidence, do you believe the NKJV is a good translation since its textual base is the same as the KJV?Grace & peace to you, light bread.

Joe

dan
Dec 3rd 2007, 01:44 PM
Third, I'd suggest you find some stronger arguments for trying to discredit non-KJV translations. It is a given that earlier (closer to the writing of the originals) manuscripts are likely to be more accurate that those not even written until the 1400s (those used by Erasmus). No scholar, in his right mind, believes that copies become more accurate the more they are copied, and the farther removed in time they are from the originals.

The overwhelming weight of scholarly credibility falls in favor of the later translations, such as the NASB and NIV.

Have you written any books lately?
Dr. Craig Bloomberg of the Denver Seminary, author of "Jesus And The Gospels", "Interpreting The Parables", and "How Wide The Divide?", disagrees with you. He says the checks and balances that were in place, assured good copies.

Perhaps you would listen to Dr. Bruce Metzger at Princeton Theological Seminary? He says there is some parts of John 18 that are dated to 100 A.D. and that they MATCH THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS PERFECTLY.

Of course, there's only about 10,000 of these matching Latin manuscripts and about 5600 almost perfectly matching ("negligible differences") Greek manuscripts.

All that versus 16 Alexandrian manuscripts? I choose the former.

threebigrocks
Dec 3rd 2007, 02:22 PM
You know what? We could argue this till the cows come home. We musn't look for our own truth for our own sake but for the sake of God's Holy Word without discount of the Spirit.

I see this as now we see through a glass dimly, and over time although the dimness hasn't left the light is a bit brighter. We have found things to point us in a direction or confirm or show our error in translations. Will there be another find in the future that will adjust our thinking again? Yes. The biggie being the second coming. Then nobody will doubt and I really think at that point that the way the Word was translated will be completely moot.

Really, where does this arguement take us? Cannot the Spirit of Christ direct us into truth even without written scripture? Why is this such a point of contention? Of course there are things I won't read such as The Message for obvious readings and count on that in order to "study thyself approved". I own NIV, NLT, NASB, KJV, NJKV and HCSB. I've used them all in my studies and for just plain reading and being quiet before the Lord.

What makes me misguided and misinformed and all that is being argued here because my #1 choice all the time is not the KJV?

Joyfilled
Dec 3rd 2007, 02:33 PM
Ro answer a queastion raised as to why I say the new I nternational VCerson of the Bible is flawed, I presernt a small sample if errors.

By no means an exhaustive list, these are but a few errors one finds in the NIV version of the Holy Bible. There are hundreds of such errors int he text, here are but a few.

This, I trust, shows why I do not trust it.Below is the KJV and NIV compoared in select verses form the new testement alone.




KJV

Ephesians 4:6
&quot;One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all&quot;

NIV


&quot;one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all&quot;




Again another, here Joesoph is Jesus's father.

KJV

Luke 2:33
&quot;And Joseph and his mother marveled…&quot;

NIV


&quot;The child's father and mother marveled…&quot;

KJV

Mark 10:24
&quot;…Jesus answereth again, … Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!&quot;


NIV


&quot;…Jesus said again, 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'&quot;


KJV

Mark 15:28
&quot;And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.


NIV

Mark 15:28

[Omitted]


KJV

Luke 9:54-56
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.


NIV


54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, &quot;Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?&quot; [comparison with Elias omitted]
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, [Jesus' words of rebuke omitted]
56 [Jesus' reason for coming to earth omitted] and they went to another village.



The above and more are reasons why I do not trust the NIV.

Those are no more errors than any translation contains. Translations always use different words to explain the same meaning. :)

dan
Dec 3rd 2007, 09:08 PM
Those are no more errors than any translation contains. Translations always use different words to explain the same meaning. :)

...If the Prophecies are not fulfilled because they are changed, what have we done?
We have changed the Word Of God, in that case, and that is not acceptable.

I<3Jesus
Dec 3rd 2007, 10:34 PM
The way I see it is this, if you stick to only one source when researching and studying then you are severely limiting your understanding of the topic being studied. I use a few different Bibles when I am studying, I cover all bases. In my opinion the NIV is a lot easier to understand and digest. I use this as my main Bible and then I check the others to get a better understanding of whatever it is I am reading. I see nothing wrong with that and I would never be bold enough to say that one source is enough.

jeffreys
Dec 4th 2007, 03:57 AM
Have you written any books lately?
Dr. Craig Bloomberg of the Denver Seminary, author of "Jesus And The Gospels", "Interpreting The Parables", and "How Wide The Divide?", disagrees with you. He says the checks and balances that were in place, assured good copies.

Perhaps you would listen to Dr. Bruce Metzger at Princeton Theological Seminary? He says there is some parts of John 18 that are dated to 100 A.D. and that they MATCH THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS PERFECTLY.

Of course, there's only about 10,000 of these matching Latin manuscripts and about 5600 almost perfectly matching ("negligible differences") Greek manuscripts.

All that versus 16 Alexandrian manuscripts? I choose the former.

And what does this prove?
Nothing - other than that the KJV "gets it right" in several places.

Have I ever said that the Textus Receptus is completely wrong, and erroneous? If you believe I have, I challenge you to find the quote.



What I have said, and will continue to say, is what is historically factual - that the TR was translated by one man, from 5-6 fairly late Greek texts. It has been historically proven that there were errors in the Textus Receptus, including marginal notes that were mistakenly thought to be Scripture.

But again, if you feel comfortable claiming the KJV is the only accurate English translation of the Bible, go for it. Read nothing else. Just don't be so condemning of different versions that are translated from older, more numerous, and more accurate Greek texts.

TrustGzus
Dec 4th 2007, 07:51 AM
Keep in mind, this thread is not supposed to be about the KJV. The title is NIV Errors. The idea is to discuss the NIV. In particular, places where the NIV might be in error. Where the KJV intersects by translating differently, then let's discuss the merits, or lack of, for the KJV rendering over the NIV.

Let's not have this simply become another KJV thread. In other words, if your post, doesn't address a verse in question in the NIV, then it probably doesn't belong in this thread.

Let's keep the thread on track.

jeffreys
Dec 4th 2007, 01:18 PM
Keep in mind, this thread is not supposed to be about the KJV. The title is NIV Errors. The idea is to discuss the NIV. In particular, places where the NIV might be in error. Where the KJV intersects by translating differently, then let's discuss the merits, or lack of, for the KJV rendering over the NIV.

Let's not have this simply become another KJV thread. In other words, if your post, doesn't address a verse in question in the NIV, then it probably doesn't belong in this thread.

Let's keep the thread on track.

What this thread has become is what every thread on this forum, in regards to Bible translations, inevitably becomes: An opportunity for a few angry people to bash the NIV.

Personally, I find it rather disgusting.

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2007, 12:42 AM
Hey Jeffreys,

I understand your disgust. This thread was started with that purpose in mind - demonstrating problems in the NIV. I say bring it on. If the NIV is erroneous at certain points, then let's point that out. Let's also let the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) know about it. I can get any recommendations to the CBT. They'll be glad to look at it and fix it in the TNIV if they find out something isn't right. They won't fix it in the NIV since they've agreed not to revise that version any longer.

We have nothing to fear from people questioning the NIV (or any version). We can only improve our knowledge about the original languages in the process. However, those who want to throw around any and every argument against the NIV better be ready to defend their view. I'm still waiting for a response to the questions I asked earlier in this thread in post #77 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1455803&postcount=77).

We can't let those with differing opinions get us emotionally worked up (though I'll admit sometimes that is extremely difficult). We need to hear their claims. Then we need to examine the claims for any truth. If there is truth in the claim, then we need to adjust our view to get it in accord with the truth. If their claim is not accord with truth, then we need to challenge the claim to get them in accord with the truth. There's nothing to fear in admitting the possibility of being wrong and being willing to get in accord with the truth. However, in this thread, I've seen nothing that convinces me of the so-called NIV errors.

Grace & Peace to you,

Joe

dan
Dec 10th 2007, 01:51 AM
...I would not bash anything without cause. My cause is the Falling Away:

2THESS 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

But if you prefer:

JER 6:23 They lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as a man for the battle, against thee, daughter of Zion.

All these versions agree:
Darby English Bible, Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT, King James Version, Youngs Literal Translation, American Standard-ASV1901, World English Bible.

NIV
JER 6:23 Bows and spears are in their hands; they are cruel and have no mercy; their voice is like the thunder of the sea, and they go on horses; everyone in his place like men going to the fight, against you, O daughter of Zion.

threebigrocks
Dec 10th 2007, 02:36 AM
What about missionaries who go into places where nobody has been, and translate the Bible into a native language nobody have ever translated before? What version is that?

Plain and simple, scripture is scripture. If it gets someone reading it, praise God. I started out with only an NIV. I grew by leaps and bounds and never had huge contradictions when I got into other translations. Were my eyes open to understanding more fully? Yes. Did my faith faulter because of that? Not at all. Did I ever feel as I had been misled? Never.

Scripture, the Word of God, is never a bad thing when you have a hungry soul that needs a drink. To criticise the Word of God in the translation that one thirsty sould drinks from as not good enough is sad, sad thing. Let them have the NIV.

Brother Mark
Dec 10th 2007, 02:38 AM
What about missionaries who go into places where nobody has been, and translate the Bible into a native language nobody have ever translated before? What version is that?

Plain and simple, scripture is scripture. If it gets someone reading it, praise God. I started out with only an NIV. I grew by leaps and bounds and never had huge contradictions when I got into other translations. Were my eyes open to understanding more fully? Yes. Did my faith faulter because of that? Not at all. Did I ever feel as I had been misled? Never.

Scripture, the Word of God, is never a bad thing when you have a hungry soul that needs a drink. To criticise the Word of God in the translation that one thirsty sould drinks from as not good enough is sad, sad thing. Let them have the NIV.

Can I get a LOUD amen!!!! AMEN!

I like what Billy Graham once said (or I was told he once said it) when asked what version he recommended.... "I recommend whatever version you will read".

Nuff said.

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 04:29 AM
...I would not bash anything without cause. My cause is the Falling Away:

2THESS 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

But if you prefer:

JER 6:23 They lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as a man for the battle, against thee, daughter of Zion.

All these versions agree:
Darby English Bible, Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT, King James Version, Youngs Literal Translation, American Standard-ASV1901, World English Bible.

NIV
JER 6:23 Bows and spears are in their hands; they are cruel and have no mercy; their voice is like the thunder of the sea, and they go on horses; everyone in his place like men going to the fight, against you, O daughter of Zion.

Jeremiah 6:23 -

KJV - They lay hold on bow and spear
NIV - Bows and spears are in their hands
Same meaning.

KJV - they are cruel, and have no mercy
NIV - they are cruel and have no mercy
Same meaning.

KJV - their voice roareth like the sea
NIV - their voice is like the thunder of the sea
Same meaning.

KJV - and they ride upon horses, set in array as a man for the battle
NIV - and they go on horses; everyone in his place like men going to the fight
Same meaning.

KJV - against thee, daughter of Zion.
NIV - against you, O daughter of Zion.
Same meaning.


So what, again, did this prove - other than that you don't like the NIV? :hmm:

dan
Dec 10th 2007, 10:07 PM
Jeremiah 6:23 -

KJV - They lay hold on bow and spear
NIV - Bows and spears are in their hands
Same meaning.

So what, again, did this prove - other than that you don't like the NIV? :hmm:

...It proves that you can try to improve the readability of a Bible and destroy Prophecy at the same time!

The meanings are not the same if you take into account the possibility that the "People From The North" are taking your weapons from you!
That subtle difference is enough to cause the change of one of the characteristics of the Enemy Of God.
With this one change, the Enemy has become anyone that has a weapon, instead of the ones that take weapons.

A greatly mistaken implication.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man ARMED keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

jeffreys
Dec 11th 2007, 12:12 AM
...It proves that you can try to improve the readability of a Bible and destroy Prophecy at the same time!

The meanings are not the same if you take into account the possibility that the "People From The North" are taking your weapons from you!
That subtle difference is enough to cause the change of one of the characteristics of the Enemy Of God.
With this one change, the Enemy has become anyone that has a weapon, instead of the ones that take weapons.

A greatly mistaken implication.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man ARMED keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

You're kidding me, right? You have to look that hard, and work that hard to make up a difference - and you're telling me it's evidence that the NIV is corrupt?

Again, what the difference in the meaning of the way the KJV and NIV translate this phrase?
KJV - They lay hold on bow and spear
NIV - Bows and spears are in their hands

Both translations say the same thing in nearly identical words! There is no change in meaning. And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that you don't know Greek or Hebrew - so you're not capable of comparing them to the original...

dan
Dec 11th 2007, 10:30 PM
You're kidding me, right? You have to look that hard, and work that hard to make up a difference - and you're telling me it's evidence that the NIV is corrupt?

Both translations say the same thing in nearly identical words! There is no change in meaning. And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that you don't know Greek or Hebrew - so you're not capable of comparing them to the original...

Remember it's a stumbling block?

JER 6:21 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish.

And two plus two is four. Or, rather, the rest of the evidence is in the KJV and clones also. It has been removed from the NIV.

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)

DAN 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

And furthermore, if God inspired one of these books He means to have His Prophecies come true word for word.

IS 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

PHIL 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

JAS 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
JAS 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Doesn't it seem wrong that the NIV does not follow the KJV in the OT? It does not even follow the OT as the Jews present it. How is it that the writers of the NIV would know more about Hebrew than the Jews? Sorry, it doesn't wash.

The NIV IS the "Falling Away".

jeffreys
Dec 11th 2007, 11:08 PM
Remember it's a stumbling block?

JER 6:21 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish.

And two plus two is four. Or, rather, the rest of the evidence is in the KJV and clones also. It has been removed from the NIV.

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)

DAN 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

And furthermore, if God inspired one of these books He means to have His Prophecies come true word for word.

IS 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

PHIL 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

JAS 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
JAS 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Doesn't it seem wrong that the NIV does not follow the KJV in the OT? It does not even follow the OT as the Jews present it. How is it that the writers of the NIV would know more about Hebrew than the Jews? Sorry, it doesn't wash.

The NIV IS the "Falling Away".

At this point, I'm done conversing with you. Your last sentence was just wrong, pointless and dumb.

Go ahead and love on your KJV - but realize that your arguments only work with people like you, who have buried their head in the sand, and won't look at historic truth and Scriptural accuracy.

Goodbye.

dan
Dec 12th 2007, 04:59 AM
At this point, I'm done conversing with you. Your last sentence was just wrong, pointless and dumb.

Go ahead and love on your KJV - but realize that your arguments only work with people like you, who have buried their head in the sand, and won't look at historic truth and Scriptural accuracy.

Goodbye.

...My brother.

EZEK 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezek 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?

EZEK 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

jeffreys
Dec 12th 2007, 07:18 AM
...My brother.

EZEK 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezek 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?

EZEK 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Don't bother. You hardly qualify as the Watchman, and I am not apostate and idolatrous exiled Israel - unless you can somehow extrapolate that out of the KJV.

ikester7579
Dec 12th 2007, 11:58 AM
It's funny how it seems OK to mock and criticize the KJV only people. But when it comes to another translation, people work up a dander and take offense when the same is done to them.

This most be the: KJV onlyist vs. the NIV onlyist thread. Or the KJV onlyist vs. any translation will doist thread.

I have to wonder just how many translations does God own? And would He condone us fighting over them?

jeffreys
Dec 12th 2007, 02:54 PM
It's funny how it seems OK to mock and criticize the KJV only people. But when it comes to another translation, people work up a dander and take offense when the same is done to them.

This most be the: KJV onlyist vs. the NIV onlyist thread. Or the KJV onlyist vs. any translation will doist thread.

I have to wonder just how many translations does God own? And would He condone us fighting over them?

Who's mocking and criticizing the KJV Only people?

This entire thread has been yet another - one of many - ignorant threads started by people who want to feel superior about reading only the KJV, and have to manufacture reasons to make themselves feel good about believing it's the only true translation.

Nevermind facts. Nevermind scholarship. Nevermind intellectual integrity...

light bread
Dec 12th 2007, 04:24 PM
“Do you think we should go against every Greek manuscript at 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Colossians 3:10 and translate these the way the KJV did, i..e. less literally and less accurately?” “Since your argument seems to be one based on manuscript evidence, do you believe the NKJV is a good translation since its textual\ base is the same as the KJV?”

The information in these questions are based off is very unreliable. Especially the idea that the manuscripts backing nkj uses the same as the kjv. This is entirely untrue. But even if they were there are still errors in the translation of the nkj. The niv/nkj are completely inaccurate in their translation of these passages.

You are correct that the greek behind these passages are the same in 1cor/col as well as the many other places this mistake is made in the niv/nkj. Since the tenses in greek language do not directly correspond to our English language great concern must be used when considering the many things affecting the tense in greek language. You claimed anyone that thought the verse should be translated as the kj either didn’t know greek or was lying, this can not be further from the truth. Few scholars in the past have held this view and not all scholars today are of this opinion. No bible before 1881 when the revised English version was made had translated 1cor 1:15 that way. Wycliffe translated it “that had been made safe” Tyndale translated it “to him that has been made safe.” The Geneva bible, the great bible, bishops bible, and kj 1611 all translated it “us which are saved” Even the douay Rheims catholic version that was translated from latin in 1582 said “them that are saved” C.J. Ellicott, chairman of the translation committee, told how its rendering in the RV was influenced by a particular german professor in his work “addresses on the revised version.” Modern versions are merely following behind his ideas.

Coptic versions read “those who are saved.” These copies clearly illustrate the use of the subsynthesized present participle- naming the group according to their end. Theodoret, a church father of Antioch from 393-458 (whose native language was greek) explained in his commentary on these passages that (just as the Coptic indicates) the reference is to the peoples’ final eschatological sense.

Even modern scholars disagree with it. Hans Conzelmann for instance said, “A contrast is drawn between the lost and the saved in 1 cor 1:18, compare 2 cor 2:15. the present participles ought not to have mysterious hints read into them to the effect that the present tense expresses the unfinished character of the so called road to soteria (salvation) and appolia (destruction) respectively. The term means simply - the saved." Theodore letis (who I don’t really care for but he does know quite a bit about greek) also says there is no ground to translate the text the way the nkj does.

We are supposed to believe none of these knew what they were talking about, including theodoret whose 1st language was greek? If that were true, this ‘superior modern scholarship’ results in rendering this passage in a way that contradicts the rest of the bible on salvation. Do you think we should go against the rest of the bible and translate the passage the way the niv does? The Col. Verse is in reference to the “old man” the bible is explicitly clear that, “old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” And “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin,” Both of these passages state that salvation has already happened as do many other verses in the bible: Eph 2:5, 1Cor15:2, rom10:10, jhn 3:36, these all refer to saved in the past tense at the moment of belief, as far as I know even in the niv and nkj. Each person has the right to read whatever translation/s they want but why pick one that contradicts itself on the issue of salvation.


“Do you think that the verses leading up to Ephesians 4:6 provide a context of believers only OR believers and non-believers?”

Epistles, while they may be addressed to believers, still contain teaching about unsaved individuals, paul often explains non-believers and then contrasts us against them, by saying something like “but we are not like those that…” The problem with trying to explain away the problem by this way is (I hope im explaining myself clearly here) that the first two aspects do not apply exclusively to believers. Whether someone acknowledges it or not God is above them, God can work through someone whether they are saved or not (king Cyrus of Persia was stirred up by God to fulfill his promise to Israel) BUT it can not be said that God is in or lives within a non-believer. While I maintain this is an error and the niv is deficient in its rendering of the passage, it is rather a moot point. Even if one was persuaded this was an error it is likely it would not change their view if they favored the niv, they would just think its a mistake but isn't a big deal, like the blood of jesus being taken from verses is not a big deal. As I said earlier, there are tons of other mistakes in the NIV on arguably more important topics (such as the one above) that i would rather discuss.

light bread
Dec 12th 2007, 05:10 PM
This entire thread has been yet another - one of many - ignorant threads started by people who want to feel superior about reading only the KJV, and have to manufacture reasons to make themselves feel good about believing it's the only true translation.

Who's mocking and criticizing the KJV Only people?


Are you joking?


Nevermind facts. Nevermind scholarship. Nevermind intellectual integrity...

well you've certainly succeeded in doing that so far.

Never has anyone said that if you read the niv you are inferior, I used to read the niv when i was first saved, i learned from it, but once i learned about the errors i chose to switch to a better translation. It was different at first, but the more i read now the happier i am that i switched. This thread was intended to bring the errors to peoples attention, just like someone showed me some of the errors. Instead people take it extremely personally and call me ignorant and instead. Nothing was ever said about someone who uses the niv, only the niv itself. But ever since certain people started posting no one with the exception of trustgzus has been able to make a post without attacking the person rather then the argument.

You can do two things with the information here, you can consider it honestly or you can reject it based on what you have already been taught and what you think you know. It is apparent that you prefer to do the latter and proclaim yourself as wise, since claim to have recieved an education on this subject. An extremley one sided education i might add.

so here is my final response until you can exercise a little more tact and open your mind. this is your last post to mine yours are in red mine are in blackgreen:

I see you qualify that by writing, "in every major detail." So why is that standard okay for the KJV, but not for other translations?

Most of the niv errors and old manuscript errors deal with doctrine, the deity of Christ, and salvation. These are not minor details. Im not going to argue about kjo and the perfection of the kjv since it was made clear that this topic is a “no no” in these forums and would result in the removal of the thread, instead ill stick to the original topic which was how the niv is in error.

“You cant translate from something that wasn't around, so there are obviously texts predating 150 AD (let alone 1400) that agree with the king james.
“Of course they do - but, as you qualified, "in every major detail."
As opposed to early “more accurate manuscripts” that are so different their genealogical relation to each other cannot even be discerned? C’mon now, which is better?

The TR does not date back to AD 150, nor does the KJV. The TR was translated less than 200 years before the KJV, using 5-6 texts that were written only 200 years prior to the TR. This is not good scholarship. Nor is the argument about the "trashcan" and "3000 disagreements" legitimate. Why? Because those texts were used as secondary checks. They - among thousands of other texts and fragments - were compared and checked against each other, to determine the best translation and to verify accuracy.

The multitudes of errors are most certainly pertinent to the issue as well as the trashcan. Although im sure you would like to ignore them. What we have is a large body of texts in amazing agreement with a small amount of texts in disagreement with that large body. And where this small amount disagrees with the majority they often disagree with each other. Not to mention the monks that had them thought the best place for them was a trashcan.

In the case of the end of the gospel of mark modern scholars conclude that the long ending is illegitimate based on its lacking in א and β. This not only goes against the enormous body of textual evidence but against the writing of multiple church fathers who quoted sections of the long ending during the 2nd century which is supposed to be before they were “accidentally added in”. אand β were given the preeminence over this evidence because of their antiquity, this is more then just a secondary check. You keep bringing up the same information that I have shown to be incomplete evidence that is used to serve this idea that older manuscripts are somehow automatically better. In fact, when we compare all the evidence it shows that the sign of superiority is not antiquity but the majority.

This kind of accuracy was NEVER verified before that one Catholic priest - whom many would argue had a vested bias - made his copy of the Textus Receptus.

Anyone could make a claim that someone is biased, that doesn’t make it so. Many argue its apparent that Westcott and hort were biased in their work and favored doctrines of Catholicism. But you were challenged earlier to find a place where bias affected the KJ and you haven’t yet.

Brother Mark
Dec 12th 2007, 05:21 PM
I grew up a KJV only guy. Then I met other believers that had more power over sin, more love for man kind, more power in evangelism, and more clearly showed me Jesus in their personal lives. What changed my opinion of other bibles wasn't so much the bible text themselves, it was the power of God evident in the ones that were reading them.

How could I keep my beloved KJV only attitude when those reading the NASB and NIV had more power in their life than I did? It was obvious to me that God was using those Bibles to further his kingdom in their lives. That pretty much did it for me. Now I use them all.

jeffreys
Dec 12th 2007, 05:36 PM
Are you joking?

well you've certainly succeeded in doing that so far.

Never has anyone said that if you read the niv you are inferior, I used to read the niv when i was first saved, i learned from it, but once i learned about the errors i chose to switch to a better translation. It was different at first, but the more i read now the happier i am that i switched. This thread was intended to bring the errors to peoples attention, just like someone showed me some of the errors. Instead people take it extremely personally and call me ignorant and instead. Nothing was ever said about someone who uses the niv, only the niv itself. But ever since certain people started posting no one with the exception of trustgzus has been able to make a post without attacking the person rather then the argument.

You can do two things with the information here, you can consider it honestly or you can reject it based on what you have already been taught and what you think you know. It is apparent that you prefer to do the latter and proclaim yourself as wise, since claim to have recieved an education on this subject. An extremley one sided education i might add.

so here is my final response until you can exercise a little more tact and open your mind. this is your last post to mine yours are in red mine are in blackgreen:

I see you qualify that by writing, "in every major detail." So why is that standard okay for the KJV, but not for other translations?

Most of the niv errors and old manuscript errors deal with doctrine, the deity of Christ, and salvation. These are not minor details. Im not going to argue about kjo and the perfection of the kjv since it was made clear that this topic is a “no no” in these forums and would result in the removal of the thread, instead ill stick to the original topic which was how the niv is in error.

“You cant translate from something that wasn't around, so there are obviously texts predating 150 AD (let alone 1400) that agree with the king james.
“Of course they do - but, as you qualified, "in every major detail."
As opposed to early “more accurate manuscripts” that are so different their genealogical relation to each other cannot even be discerned? C’mon now, which is better?

The TR does not date back to AD 150, nor does the KJV. The TR was translated less than 200 years before the KJV, using 5-6 texts that were written only 200 years prior to the TR. This is not good scholarship. Nor is the argument about the "trashcan" and "3000 disagreements" legitimate. Why? Because those texts were used as secondary checks. They - among thousands of other texts and fragments - were compared and checked against each other, to determine the best translation and to verify accuracy.

The multitudes of errors are most certainly pertinent to the issue as well as the trashcan. Although im sure you would like to ignore them. What we have is a large body of texts in amazing agreement with a small amount of texts in disagreement with that large body. And where this small amount disagrees with the majority they often disagree with each other. Not to mention the monks that had them thought the best place for them was a trashcan.

In the case of the end of the gospel of mark modern scholars conclude that the long ending is illegitimate based on its lacking in א and β. This not only goes against the enormous body of textual evidence but against the writing of multiple church fathers who quoted sections of the long ending during the 2nd century which is supposed to be before they were “accidentally added in”. אand β were given the preeminence over this evidence because of their antiquity, this is more then just a secondary check. You keep bringing up the same information that I have shown to be incomplete evidence that is used to serve this idea that older manuscripts are somehow automatically better. In fact, when we compare all the evidence it shows that the sign of superiority is not antiquity but the majority.

This kind of accuracy was NEVER verified before that one Catholic priest - whom many would argue had a vested bias - made his copy of the Textus Receptus.

Anyone could make a claim that someone is biased, that doesn’t make it so. Many argue its apparent that Westcott and hort were biased in their work and favored doctrines of Catholicism. But you were challenged earlier to find a place where bias affected the KJ and you haven’t yet.

You've proven my point for me - better than I could possibly have proven it myself.


Tell me... What is the degree of your Greek and Hebrew scholarship? In order to make the assertions you've made, I can only assume that you have at least a Master's Degree in these languages - and probably a PhD or Doctorate.

Can I assume you have this level of expertise in Greek and Hebrew? :hmm:

jeffreys
Dec 12th 2007, 05:38 PM
I grew up a KJV only guy. Then I met other believers that had more power over sin, more love for man kind, more power in evangelism, and more clearly showed me Jesus in their personal lives. What changed my opinion of other bibles wasn't so much the bible text themselves, it was the power of God evident in the ones that were reading them.

How could I keep my beloved KJV only attitude when those reading the NASB and NIV had more power in their life than I did? It was obvious to me that God was using those Bibles to further his kingdom in their lives. That pretty much did it for me. Now I use them all.

For many years I had a KJV-Only Baptist Temple right across the street from my office. Their slogan? "King James - Because The Word Of God NEVER Changes!" (Oh, the irony!)

And honestly, they were some of the most militant, cultish people, who were nothing short of horrible toward anybody who disagreed with them.

The love of Christ simply appeared to be missing from their lives.

No thank you!

Brother Mark
Dec 12th 2007, 06:04 PM
For many years I had a KJV-Only Baptist Temple right across the street from my office. Their slogan? "King James - Because The Word Of God NEVER Changes!" (Oh, the irony!)

And honestly, they were some of the most militant, cultish people, who were nothing short of horrible toward anybody who disagreed with them.

The love of Christ simply appeared to be missing from their lives.

No thank you!

While I can sympathize, I know some very Godly folks that prefer the KJV. I was just referring to my small little world. Something had to give. The love of Christ was very evident in those I was around that used other versions and not so much evident in those that taught me otherwise. But just because that was true for my small area of experience, didn't make it true for all.

For me, I love my NASB. After that, I enjoy the New Living Translation or the NIV for simple reading. If I am getting serious study, I use a bunch of them.



For sure, the KJV has changed over the years. In the front of my KJV it says "Diligently compared and revised with early...".

Anyway, the point is, God uses all the versions in a tremendous way. I like what I heard that Billy Graham said concerning versions.... "I am for whatever version you will read". I am not sure if he said it but it is a good thing that someone said it.

jeffreys
Dec 12th 2007, 06:16 PM
While I can sympathize, I know some very Godly folks that prefer the KJV. I was just referring to my small little world. Something had to give. The love of Christ was very evident in those I was around that used other versions and not so much evident in those that taught me otherwise. But just because that was true for my small area of experience, didn't make it true for all.

For me, I love my NASB. After that, I enjoy the New Living Translation or the NIV for simple reading. If I am getting serious study, I use a bunch of them.



For sure, the KJV has changed over the years. In the front of my KJV it says "Diligently compared and revised with early...".

Anyway, the point is, God uses all the versions in a tremendous way. I like what I heard that Billy Graham said concerning versions.... "I am for whatever version you will read". I am not sure if he said it but it is a good thing that someone said it.

I couldn't agree more!

I'd ten-times rather have somebody reading The Message than not reading NIV or NASB.

threebigrocks
Dec 12th 2007, 06:44 PM
I'd ten-times rather have somebody reading The Message than not reading NIV or NASB.

Uh, well, I think I'd go buy them and NIV and "suggest" they read a good hanful of it and let me know what they thought. TM as a one and only, well, just sorta scares me a bit. :rolleyes:

Any here a Message only sort? :P

TrustGzus
Dec 12th 2007, 07:12 PM
Doesn't it seem wrong that the NIV does not follow the KJV in the OT? It does not even follow the OT as the Jews present it. How is it that the writers of the NIV would know more about Hebrew than the Jews? Sorry, it doesn't wash.

The NIV IS the "Falling Away".Dan, let's grant that these very small differences that Jefferys has shown in comparing Jeremiah 6 of the NIV and KJV make a difference. You ask Doesn't it seem wrong that the NIV does not follow the KJV in the OT? I must ask the following:

Is it just as wrong when the New Testament of the KJV does not follow the Old Testament of the KJV?

Look at 2 Samuel 7:14 and Hebrews 2:5

2 Sam 7:14 - I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
Hebrews 2:5 - I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

There's a big difference between someone being my son than being to me a son.

Psalm 104:4 - Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Hebrews 1:7 -Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Are they a flaming fire or merely a flame of fire? Why can't the KJV NT get the OT right?

Or how about this one, once again looking at 2 Samuel 7:14

2 Sam 7:14 - I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
2 Corinthians 6:18 - And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters

Wow! That one made the singular word son into a plural with both genders sons and daughters.

I can pull out many, many more. But this should suffice for the moment.

How is it okay for the KJV to do this in its own New Testament but if the NIV slightly words an OT verse different than the KJV it becomes the falling away?

Grace & peace to you, Dan.

Joe

TrustGzus
Dec 12th 2007, 07:16 PM
Greetings Dan,
...My brother.

EZEK 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezek 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?

EZEK 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.Dan, all of these verses isolated from a context. What's your point? Are you saying that the NIV mistranslates these? Are you saying that the "wicked" in these verses is a reference to the NIV? Do you mean something else?

All of these verses have a context. I don't see what that has to do with the topic of NIV errors. Could you please explain?

Actually the same could be said of your post prior to that where you call the NIV the falling away. You quote multiple isolated verses that have a context - a context which determines the meaning. Do you believe it's okay to isolate verses out of their context to use them against the NIV?

Thank you.

Joe

jeffreys
Dec 12th 2007, 07:32 PM
Uh, well, I think I'd go buy them and NIV and "suggest" they read a good hanful of it and let me know what they thought. TM as a one and only, well, just sorta scares me a bit. :rolleyes:

Any here a Message only sort? :P

Would I rather have people reading The Message than no Bible at all? Yes, absolutely!

I regularly encourage people to read The Message, but to do so understanding that it is a paraphrase - and to understand what a paraphrase is. I do not encourage people to read it as their one and only version of the Bible. However, would I rather have them reading The Message than reading no Bible at all? Absolutely.

Brother Mark
Dec 12th 2007, 07:53 PM
Would I rather have people reading The Message than no Bible at all? Yes, absolutely!

I regularly encourage people to read The Message, but to do so understanding that it is a paraphrase - and to understand what a paraphrase is. I do not encourage people to read it as their one and only version of the Bible. However, would I rather have them reading The Message than reading no Bible at all? Absolutely.

I agree with you on this one. If someone is going to only read The Message or the Living Bible, or nothing at all, then by all means read them. They are commentaries at best. But to me, reading them is about the same as listening to someone preach. The hope is they would graduate from milk (food digested by someone else and used to feed a young one) to meat (feeding themselves directly from the written word) by moving to a translated bible at some point.

jeffreys
Dec 12th 2007, 08:10 PM
I agree with you on this one. If someone is going to only read The Message or the Living Bible, or nothing at all, then by all means read them. They are commentaries at best. But to me, reading them is about the same as listening to someone preach. The hope is they would graduate from milk (food digested by someone else and used to feed a young one) to meat (feeding themselves directly from the written word) by moving to a translated bible at some point.
Absolutely!

Honestly, the problem is that most people do no Bible reading at all. And that's another reason why all this "KJV Only" stuff - which relies largely on horrible historic scholarship that's regurgitated by people who don't know any better - is largely pointless. Extremely minor nuances, that don't change any meanings, are not worth quibbling about - especially in light of the fact that the NIV/NASB often have the more accurate wording.

We need to lead people into the Word of God, and not make it such a petty, trivial and argumentative thing that we're actually a hindrance.

TrustGzus
Dec 12th 2007, 08:51 PM
Hey light bread,

You made a lot of claims. You didn't back them up and it's not fair to the reading audience to just let them slip by unchallenged. I apologize in advance if the post seems harsh, but if your going to claim such things as the NIV isn't translating Greek as accurately as the KJV at certain points, be ready to back it up and not just make a claim and not have it challenged.
The information in these questions are based off is very unreliable. Especially the idea that the manuscripts backing nkj uses the same as the kjv. This is entirely untrue. But even if they were there are still errors in the translation of the nkj.You claim that the basis of the NKJV is not the same as the KJV. Then you claim even if they were there are still errors in the translations of the nkj. You and I were discussing some NT passages. The NKJV claims in its introductory notes that they use the same Greek basis as the KJV
In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the popup notes.

The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.The text is the same per the introductory notes. They do note differences in the footnotes, endnotes or popup notes depending on which printed or electronic version you have. So are you claiming they lied about this?
The niv/nkj are completely inaccurate in their translation of these passages.The passages you are speaking of are 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Colossians 3:10.
Could you please explain to me about participles and how to correctly translate them? I own several books that different colleges and seminaries use in teaching Greek. I'd like to compare your comments on how to correctly translate the particles in these passages to what these text books say. I have access to one of the living authors. I can pass on any corrections that need to be made to his book.
You say the NIV and NKJV are both wrong in these passages. Interestingly, I pointed out that the NKJV failed to correct the KJV rendering of Colossians 3:10 whereas the NIV correctly translated it. The NKJV rendered the participle as the KJV did. But now you claim the NKJV is wrong. So it's safe to assume if the NKJV is wrong in this verse, then the KJV is too?
You are correct that the greek behind these passages are the same in 1cor/col as well as the many other places this mistake is made in the niv/nkj. Since the tenses in greek language do not directly correspond to our English language great concern must be used when considering the many things affecting the tense in greek language.I'm glad we agree that there is no difference in the Greek. You claim tenses in Greek don't correspond to tense in English. Which tense in English does a Greek present tense correspond to? Also, you claim great concern must used when considering the many things affecting the tense in the Greek language. What are the many things that must be considered?
You claimed anyone that thought the verse should be translated as the kj either didn’t know greek or was lying, this can not be further from the truth. Few scholars in the past have held this view and not all scholars today are of this opinion.Such as who? I even pointed out (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1455803&postcount=77) that Jay Green, who is of the opinion that the TR should be used and that the modern translations use bad manuscripts (i.e. he's against my view), still translates 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Colossians 3:10 as I stated they should be translated. I know this because I own Green's interlinear and looked at it before I posted last time.
No bible before 1881 when the revised English version was made had translated 1cor 1:15 that way. Wycliffe translated it “that had been made safe” Tyndale translated it “to him that has been made safe.” The Geneva bible, the great bible, bishops bible, and kj 1611 all translated it “us which are saved” Even the douay Rheims catholic version that was translated from latin in 1582 said “them that are saved” C.J. Ellicott, chairman of the translation committee, told how its rendering in the RV was influenced by a particular german professor in his work “addresses on the revised version.” Modern versions are merely following behind his ideas.It's false that no Bible before 1881 translated 1 Corinthians 1:18 that way. Young's Literal did it in 1862 . . .
18for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us—those being saved—it is the power of God,
Young, R.
Coptic versions read “those who are saved.” These copies clearly illustrate the use of the subsynthesized present participle- naming the group according to their end. Theodoret, a church father of Antioch from 393-458 (whose native language was greek) explained in his commentary on these passages that (just as the Coptic indicates) the reference is to the peoples’ final eschatological sense. Why bother with the Coptic when we have the Greek which Paul originally wrote in?
Even modern scholars disagree with it. Hans Conzelmann for instance said, “A contrast is drawn between the lost and the saved in 1 cor 1:18, compare 2 cor 2:15. the present participles ought not to have mysterious hints read into them to the effect that the present tense expresses the unfinished character of the so called road to soteria (salvation) and appolia (destruction) respectively. The term means simply - the saved." Theodore letis (who I don’t really care for but he does know quite a bit about greek) also says there is no ground to translate the text the way the nkj does.I deal with primary sources. Where's the Conzelmann quote from? I'd like to read the context. What book? What page? What do you know about Conzelmann anyway? Do you know enough about him to cast aside the opinions of hundreds of other Bible-believing scholars? Check out his view of the historical reliability of the Bible. Will you believe him simply because one of his quotes supports your view in this thread?

Does Letis' opinion outweigh Robert Young of Young's Literal? Does his opinion outweigh the many, many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scholars (Bible believing scholars I might add) that disagree with his opinion?
We are supposed to believe none of these knew what they were talking about, including theodoret whose 1st language was greek? If that were true, this ‘superior modern scholarship’ results in rendering this passage in a way that contradicts the rest of the bible on salvation. Do you think we should go against the rest of the bible and translate the passage the way the niv does?Should we mistranslate a verse in order to make it fit our theology? That's what the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society does. Do we let the text form our theology or do we let our theology remold the text? Reminder, Young was before 1881. If you can give good reason to put a present participle in the past, then I'm open to hear it. Referring to older translations that translated it less accurately doesn't prove the point. Quoting German Bultmannian theologians doesn't prove it either.

Also, people who use the NIV teach that we are saved (past tense) by grace through faith alone. Perhaps you need to read more commentaries and listen to more sermons by people who use the NIV and check out their theology.
The Col. Verse is in reference to the “old man” the bible is explicitly clear that, “old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” The NIV says
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (2 Co 5:17). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.



And “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin,” Both of these passages state that salvation has already happened as do many other verses in the bible: Eph 2:5, 1Cor15:2, rom10:10, jhn 3:36, these all refer to saved in the past tense at the moment of belief, as far as I know even in the niv and nkj. Each person has the right to read whatever translation/s they want but why pick one that contradicts itself on the issue of salvation.Okay, so the NIV says salvation is past tense in various verses. Do we still mistranslate 1 Corinthians 1:18 and go against every manuscript to fit the theology, or do we pray and meditate on 1 Corinthians 1:18?

I can go to believers that believe the KJV is the best to learn about this. Check out Jon Courson, from the Calvary Chapel movement, who teaches from the KJV . . .
Again, a more literal rendering of this verse would be “…but unto us which are being saved, it is the power of God.” Salvation is, in a sense, progressive. When you opened your heart to Jesus Christ, you were saved from the penalty of sin. Day by day, we’re saved from the power of sin. And when Jesus comes to take us to heaven, we’ll be saved from the presence of sin.
Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1014). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.So, as you can see, one doesn't have to posit anything bad about the NIV or a correct translation of the present participle. Jon Courson with his KJV teaches the same theology that many who use the NIV teach.
Epistles, while they may be addressed to believers, still contain teaching about unsaved individuals, paul often explains non-believers and then contrasts us against them, by saying something like “but we are not like those that…” The problem with trying to explain away the problem by this way is (I hope im explaining myself clearly here) that the first two aspects do not apply exclusively to believers. Whether someone acknowledges it or not God is above them, God can work through someone whether they are saved or not (king Cyrus of Persia was stirred up by God to fulfill his promise to Israel) BUT it can not be said that God is in or lives within a non-believer. While I maintain this is an error and the niv is deficient in its rendering of the passage, it is rather a moot point. Even if one was persuaded this was an error it is likely it would not change their view if they favored the niv, they would just think its a mistake but isn't a big deal, like the blood of jesus being taken from verses is not a big deal. As I said earlier, there are tons of other mistakes in the NIV on arguably more important topics (such as the one above) that i would rather discuss.Great, then we can drop the Ephesians 4:6 and Colossians 3:10 discussion. While the epistles certainly can contain teachings about non-believers, your explanation on why the rendering of Ephesians 4:6 teaches that God is in all, believer and non-believer, and how the KJV doesn't teach the same thing in Colossians 3:10 isn't obvious to me. You claim context preceding Colossians 3:10 rescues the KJV showing it's speaking only of believers. Yet as I look at context prior to Ephesians 4:6, it seems the argument must apply there too. Ephesians 1-3 tells us the great things God has done for us. Paul lays down theology. Then in chapters 4-6 he lays down application. It is to believers for believers. You admit that it would be wrong for a KJV advocate to apply one standard to the modern versions such as the NIV and a different one to the KJV. Yet it's hard for me to see you doing anything different at that point. Don't fall into fallacious line of thinking at this point.

Let me add a reminder as my final point. I use multiple versions. I'm not NIV-only. I don't know anyone who is. Where the NIV is wrong, it needs to be fixed. It wont' be any longer. But the TNIV will continue to be updated. I have access to the Committee on Bible Translation for the TNIV. Any good suggestions for the TNIV, I will get to them.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Dec 12th 2007, 08:56 PM
I agree with you on this one. If someone is going to only read The Message or the Living Bible, or nothing at all, then by all means read them. They are commentaries at best. But to me, reading them is about the same as listening to someone preach. The hope is they would graduate from milk (food digested by someone else and used to feed a young one) to meat (feeding themselves directly from the written word) by moving to a translated bible at some point.Right on, Mark. Treat the Living Bible and the Message as commentaries. Don't use them for study Bibles, but compare them with your KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV, HCSB, or other reputable Bibles.

They are fine when we look at them in that light. I tried to give you rep points for that, but it said I need to share more reps. So, I thought I'd post instead.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

light bread
Dec 13th 2007, 01:19 AM
Uh, well, I think I'd go buy them and NIV and "suggest" they read a good hanful of it and let me know what they thought. TM as a one and only, well, just sorta scares me a bit. :rolleyes:

Right on, Mark. Treat the Living Bible and the Message as commentaries.



I cant believe you people degrade others bibles and push the NIV on them like that. :rolleyes: (Just a joke)



It's false that no Bible before 1881 translated 1 Corinthians 1:18 that way. Young's Literal did it in 1862 . . .

Why bother with the Coptic when we have the Greek which Paul originally wrote in? Does Letis' opinion outweigh Robert Young of Young's Literal? Does his opinion outweigh the many, many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scholars (Bible believing scholars I might add) that disagree with his opinion?

Okay, so the NIV says salvation is past tense in various verses. Do we still mistranslate 1 Corinthians 1:18 and go against every manuscript to fit the theology, or do we pray and meditate on 1 Corinthians 1:18?

Okay, so the NIV says salvation is past tense in various verses. Do we still mistranslate 1 Corinthians 1:18 and go against every manuscript to fit the theology, or do we pray and meditate on 1 Corinthians 1:18?


I stand corrected on 1881 being the 1st, i was unaware of young's although it does make sense that it would also have translated it this way since the goal of both of these was an extremely literal translation. But early translations in english are nearly unanimous in their translation in the past tense. There many things that have the ability to effect the tense of verbs in greek such as mood voice whther its active or passive the list goes on there is no point in me listing them, you obviously have enough knowledge of greek to know this already. But these things can affect the way a passage is going to be rendered in english. For example the aorist tense which is indicates past time is translated also as future or present if the action of a verb in the aorist subjunctive or aorist imperative forms. Also speaking of greek tense to answer your question about them relating to english for example the aorist tense, in english we have no tense with the meaning of the greek aorist tense. Not that the idea can not be conveyed in translation, it obviously is, but not with the tense of the english word. I am by no means claiming to be a greek scholar but do know a bit about teh subject.

The point of citing Conzelmann was to show that even a modern textual critic who is not of my opinion (and conzelmann is definetly that) believes that rendering the passages in the present tense is incorrect. That book was borrowed but i can probably get the page and title for you, defiantly at least the book title. Letis does not think the kjv is perfect but i think might openly favor the king james so i wanted to include someone who clearly does not come close to "KJO"

Does Letis' opinion outweigh Robert Young of Young's Literal? Not necessarily, but This isnt just letis' opinion, like i stated thousands of other scholars throughout history that disagree with Bultmann and the rest on his side. (dont forget theodoret who's first language was greek which happens to be what paul wrote in) But its not just their opinions that you have to discredit. You will also have to come with a reason why their understanding of the passage while being "incorrect " fits with the rest of scripture referring to salvation in the past tense where as the niv's "correct" translation doesn't. This isnt just "my theology" it disagrees with, it disagrees with what the bible says. the better question is are you going to let the bible mold your theology or modern scholars mold your theology?

I am aware that you are not "NIVO" but everyone is aware that not all translations are equal. Several people have made comments referring to the message and how the NIV is superior to it. But often the same group is militantly against the idea that the niv can be less superior then the KJV. I dont see how this makes much sense especially after seeing the types of errors the niv makes.

TrustGzus
Dec 13th 2007, 06:02 AM
I cant believe you people degrade others bibles and push the NIV on them like that. :rolleyes: (Just a joke)Thanks for the humor, light bread. Actually, some comments on my view of The Message and The Living Bible could use some explanation. Why do I see the KJV and NIV as translations and talk of these on a lower level? In the case of The Message, read Eugene Peterson's comments state that this shouldn't be anyone's permanent Bible with the emphasis being mine . . .
The Message is a reading Bible. It is not intended to replace the excellent study Bibles that are available. My intent here (as it was earlier in my congregation and community) is simply to get people reading it who don’t know that the Bible is read-able at all, at least by them, and to get people who long ago lost interest in the Bible to read it again. But I haven’t tried to make it easy—there is much in the Bible that is hard to understand. So at some point along the way, soon or late, it will be important to get a standard study Bible to facilitate further study. Meanwhile, read in order to live, praying as you read, “God, let it be with me just as you say.”

Peterson, E. H. (2002). The Message : The Bible in contemporary language. Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress.As for The Living Bible, mine says "paraphrased" right on the front. So it doesn't hide the fact that it is not a translation.
But early translations in english are nearly unanimous in their translation in the past tense.But neither quantity nor age are proofs of accuracy. If quantity was the factor, you'd have to go with the NIV at Colossians 1:14, Acts 9:37 and 1 John 5:7 for some examples. If age or ancientness was the factor, then you'd have to agree with the NIV over the KJV at all the points where the NIV goes with the oldest manuscripts. Otherwise, you'd have a double-standard.
There many things that have the ability to effect the tense of verbs in greek such as mood voice whther its active or passive the list goes on there is no point in me listing them, you obviously have enough knowledge of greek to know this already.Voice and mood don't affect the tense. Voice tells us the relationship of the subject to the action. Mood expresses the relationship of the action to reality from the speaker's point of view. The voice in this verse is passive which means the act of being saved is being done to us. We don't perform the act ourselves.
But these things can affect the way a passage is going to be rendered in english.Sure, but voice and mood won't change tense.
For example the aorist tense which is indicates past time is translated also as future or present if the action of a verb in the aorist subjunctive or aorist imperative forms. Also speaking of greek tense to answer your question about them relating to english for example the aorist tense, in english we have no tense with the meaning of the greek aorist tense. Not that the idea can not be conveyed in translation, it obviously is, but not with the tense of the english word. I am by no means claiming to be a greek scholar but do know a bit about teh subject.But this isn't the aorist in 1 Corinthians 1:18. All this talk of aorist tense seems to be a red herring to me. Do you think present tense in one language should be past tense in another?
The point of citing Conzelmann was to show that even a modern textual critic who is not of my opinion (and conzelmann is definetly that) believes that rendering the passages in the present tense is incorrect. That book was borrowed but i can probably get the page and title for you, defiantly at least the book title. Letis does not think the kjv is perfect but i think might openly favor the king james so i wanted to include someone who clearly does not come close to "KJO"He has a commentary on 1 Corinthians. I do not own it. Here's something interesting though. The people you're quoting are very much against important Protestant theology yet you try to appeal to them for rendering a present as a past. Conzelmann is Bultmannian. Then you talk of Letis . . .
Does Letis' opinion outweigh Robert Young of Young's Literal? Not necessarily, but This isnt just letis' opinion, like i stated thousands of other scholars throughout history that disagree with Bultmann and the rest on his side. (dont forget theodoret who's first language was greek which happens to be what paul wrote in) But its not just their opinions that you have to discredit.Letis denies inerrancy. So we should reject the translations of 1 Corinthians 1:18 in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and many others which were translated by conservative, Bible-believing Christians who adhere to inerrancy for ideas from a Bultmannian and an inerrantist? Now I grant that a Bultmannian and an inerrantist could be correct and a bunch of Bible-believing inerrantists could be wrong. And if that were the case, we should go that route as we should always follow the truth wherever that path leads us. However, with the word in question being a present participle, the facts are on the side of the translators of the modern versions.
You will also have to come with a reason why their understanding of the passage while being "incorrect " fits with the rest of scripture referring to salvation in the past tense where as the niv's "correct" translation doesn't. This isnt just "my theology" it disagrees with, it disagrees with what the bible says.It disagrees with what the Bible says? 1 Corinthians 1:18 isn't my understanding of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 1:18 is the Bible! σῳζομένοις is what the original states. It's not a question of what one's understanding is. It is what the Greek actually says. It is a present participle which properly translated matches all the modern versions I listed. If 1 Corinthians 1:18 disagrees with the rest of the Bible, we don't simply change 1 Corinthians 1:18. We don't have that right. We must choose one view over the other if there is a contradiction. I don't think there is a contradiction. I think we can have 1 Corinthians 1:18 translated correctly and the rest of the New Testament. More on that below.
the better question is are you going to let the bible mold your theology or modern scholars mold your theology?The New Testament is a Greek document. The Greek has a present participle. This isn't letting a scholar form my opinion. It's letting the Greek speak for itself. It's letting the Greek itself form my opinion. Your view doesn't let the Greek speak for itself. The view you hold has less accurate translations causing you to foist your view into the Greek without a single manuscript to justify how you want to translate the text. Your view would have merit if there were manuscripts with some other rendering. However, the manuscript evidence is unanimous.

On what basis do you decide to translate a present tense into one completed in the past?
I am aware that you are not "NIVO" but everyone is aware that not all translations are equal. Several people have made comments referring to the message and how the NIV is superior to it. But often the same group is militantly against the idea that the niv can be less superior then the KJV. I dont see how this makes much sense especially after seeing the types of errors the niv makes.I've stated previously that I don't think the "errors" presented in this thread are good cases. The NIV is not perfect. No translation is. I have verses where I prefer other versions over the NIV. The KJV is also a great translation. However, it is not as great as many would have you and I believe it is. I've talked plenty on my objection to the idea that the NIV is wrong at 1 Corinthians 1:18. The fact is that it is a more accurate translation than the KJV in that verse. We must let the Greek mold our theology. We must not let our theology influence how we translate the Greek. Leave that to the cults. Keep it out of Evangelicalism.

In fact, that's why translations such as the NIV, ESV and NASB have been done by committees. This prevents anyone group from allowing their theology to allow them to make the text say in English what the Greek doesn't substantiate. The mult-denominational influence prevents any theology from molding the Greek. Translations done by individual men or done by a single denomination don't have that safeguard.

With that thought in mind. Could you comment on Jon Courson's commentary on the passage? Do you agree with him? Do you think day by day, we're being saved from the power of sin and that one day we'll be saved from the presence of sin? It seems to me that most conservatives who hold as extreme a view as KJVO hold to that kind of theology. Does that not seem like a reasonable commentary on a present participle? Why try to foist a tense onto the Greek that isn't in any manuscript rather than accept the Greek for what it says and reconcile that passage to other New Testament passages by admitting that salvation is ongoing? Salvation is a broad word covering the entire process from beginning to end.

Salvation is in the past in justification.
Salvation is in the present in sanctification.
Salvation is in the future in glorification.That reconciles 1 Corinthians 1:18 perfectly with the rest of the New Testament as far as I can tell. Do you disagree with that?

Grace & peace to you, light bread.

Joe

threebigrocks
Dec 13th 2007, 07:35 PM
Jeffries and Mark, I'd let them have the Message, I wouldn't rip it away from them but let them know what it is. If that was all they insisted on reading, I'd let them keep on reading! ;)

jeffreys
Dec 13th 2007, 09:52 PM
Jeffries and Mark, I'd let them have the Message, I wouldn't rip it away from them but let them know what it is. If that was all they insisted on reading, I'd let them keep on reading! ;)

Right. I think people need to stop going ape nuts about The Message. It's a paraphrase. All we need to do is read the preface - where Peterson says exactly that. Enjoy reading it, but if we want to do studies, work from something else.

ikester7579
Dec 17th 2007, 06:35 AM
Who's mocking and criticizing the KJV Only people?

This entire thread has been yet another - one of many - ignorant threads started by people who want to feel superior about reading only the KJV, and have to manufacture reasons to make themselves feel good about believing it's the only true translation.

Nevermind facts. Nevermind scholarship. Nevermind intellectual integrity...


Hmmm. you just made an example of what you just accused others of doing.

ikester7579
Dec 17th 2007, 06:40 AM
Dan, let's grant that these very small differences that Jefferys has shown in comparing Jeremiah 6 of the NIV and KJV make a difference. You ask Doesn't it seem wrong that the NIV does not follow the KJV in the OT? I must ask the following:

Is it just as wrong when the New Testament of the KJV does not follow the Old Testament of the KJV?

Look at 2 Samuel 7:14 and Hebrews 2:5

2 Sam 7:14 - I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
Hebrews 2:5 - I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

There's a big difference between someone being my son than being to me a son.

Psalm 104:4 - Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Hebrews 1:7 -Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Are they a flaming fire or merely a flame of fire? Why can't the KJV NT get the OT right?

Or how about this one, once again looking at 2 Samuel 7:14

2 Sam 7:14 - I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
2 Corinthians 6:18 - And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters

Wow! That one made the singular word son into a plural with both genders sons and daughters.

I can pull out many, many more. But this should suffice for the moment.

How is it okay for the KJV to do this in its own New Testament but if the NIV slightly words an OT verse different than the KJV it becomes the falling away?

Grace & peace to you, Dan.

Joe

I think the KJV would be quite boring if all that means the same thing was said exactly the same way. It would basically be pointless.

jeffreys
Dec 17th 2007, 01:15 PM
Hmmm. you just made an example of what you just accused others of doing.

You saying that doesn't mean it's true.

This same old debate goes around in circles, endlessly. And the one common denominator here is that those who scream and yell about the inaccuracy of the NIV are always people who do not know Greek and Hebrew. They're simply regurgitating some rant they heard at church or read on a blog.

jeffreys
Dec 17th 2007, 01:17 PM
I think the KJV would be quite boring if all that means the same thing was said exactly the same way. It would basically be pointless.

Actually, for the sake of accuracy, the things that mean the same thing should be written the same way!

ikester7579
Dec 18th 2007, 07:12 AM
Actually, for the sake of accuracy, the things that mean the same thing should be written the same way!

Are you sure that God would agree with that? You are injecting your own personal opinion here.

jeffreys
Dec 18th 2007, 01:04 PM
Are you sure that God would agree with that? You are injecting your own personal opinion here.

Are you sure God would not agree with that?

And no, I am not injecting my own personal opinion here. I'm citing the original text, and reading the variants in the various translations. When one translation reads, "He holds a spear in his hand" and the other reads, "In his fist a spear is held", we're talking about the same thing.

The only people who cannot see that, are those who take pride in trying to find errors with a translation they don't like, in order to make themselves feel better about the translation they prefer. In addition, as I've said earlier, the other common denominator among those who scream the loudest against the NIV is a lack of education in Greek and Hebrew language. They're simply regurgitating some inflammatory information they read elsewhere on the internet.

Not once have I met, or read from, an educated linguist who - as a result of his language-to-language comparisons - became alarmed at something in the NIV. A very dear friend of mine is a Greek professor, as is his son. Both of them will make occasional comments like, "I like the way this verse reads in the NASB". But never have I heard either of them shriek in horror and exclaim, "I cannot believe the way the KJV butchers that passage!"


Now... it is a given - and is clearly understood - that the Jehovah's Witnesses butchered the Bible when their "scholars" (who were known to be totally without language education) "translated" their New World Translation of the Bible. But that falls into a completely different category than anything related to KJV, NIV, NASB, et al.

TrustGzus
Dec 18th 2007, 07:58 PM
I think you guys are making some fine points, but the thread is NIV errors. Let's not get sidetracked into philosophy of translation.

Let's present a proposed error in the NIV or respond to one that someone has presented.

jeffreys
Dec 18th 2007, 08:15 PM
I think you guys are making some fine points, but the thread is NIV errors. Let's not get sidetracked into philosophy of translation.

Let's present a proposed error in the NIV or respond to one that someone has presented.

Exactly.

The problem is that we never have any "NIV Errors" presented from an educated linguist. Ever. It's all reactionary, second or third-hand information, passed on by people who want to believe it.

TrustGzus
Dec 18th 2007, 08:53 PM
Exactly.

The problem is that we never have any "NIV Errors" presented from an educated linguist. Ever. It's all reactionary, second or third-hand information, passed on by people who want to believe it.I agree with you that such is the case most of the time.

Could the NIV be better at points? Sure. Every translation can. The Committee on Bible Translation is trying to improve the NIV with the TNIV. They take suggestions and once a year go over them for future revisions of the TNIV.

As I've stated previously, the verses presented in this thread aren't what I would consider errors in the NIV. So far they are a greatest-hits collection from KJVO websites and books. I think those are almost always easily answered.

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 04:53 AM
I agree with you that such is the case most of the time.

Could the NIV be better at points? Sure. Every translation can. The Committee on Bible Translation is trying to improve the NIV with the TNIV. They take suggestions and once a year go over them for future revisions of the TNIV.

As I've stated previously, the verses presented in this thread aren't what I would consider errors in the NIV. So far they are a greatest-hits collection from KJVO websites and books. I think those are almost always easily answered.
Bingo!

So why do these "collections" keep getting thrown around as if something new and alarming was recently discovered by trained linguists?

It's like the persistent rumor that Barak Obama is a Muslim (something my parents seem hell-bent on believing). Even after it's shown that he's a member of a United Church of Christ, in Chicago, people don't believe it. They simply start saying things like, "Well, he's a closet Muslim then!"


In both cases, it's as though people have found something they're determined to believe, and they'll continue to believe it regardless of any and everything presented to them.

ikester7579
Dec 19th 2007, 05:26 AM
Are you sure God would not agree with that?

You make my point for me here. No one knows would have been the correct answer.


And no, I am not injecting my own personal opinion here. I'm citing the original text, and reading the variants in the various translations.


The whole of the Dead Sea Scrolls (original text) have been found intact?:rolleyes:

What physical proof do you have that the NIV is a translation from the original text, when no such thing exist in whole?

And I'm not trying to derail thread. He implied it, so I'm asking.

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 05:42 AM
You make my point for me here. No one knows would have been the correct answer.



The whole of the Dead Sea Scrolls (original text) have been found intact?:rolleyes:

What physical proof do you have that the NIV is a translation from the original text, when no such thing exist in whole?

And I'm not trying to derail thread. He implied it, so I'm asking.

By "original" I was actually meaning "Greek". I should have used a better word.

Does that clarify?

TrustGzus
Dec 19th 2007, 02:35 PM
Bingo!

So why do these "collections" keep getting thrown around as if something new and alarming was recently discovered by trained linguists?I think they go round and round because they are "new" to each person that discovers them and is not equipped to refute them.

And most aren't equipped to counter. Most Christians don't have good works in their library to provide them manuscript evidence. Bible verse comparison charts look convincing. When a person looks at a single verse and not a paragraph or chapter, it looks like a Satanic plot to remove "Jesus" or "Christ" or "blood" from the Bible. And the KJVO verse comparison charts only show one side. They don't show the charts that could be done the other direction.

I think another factor, and this is speculation on my part, is that scholars who are for modern translations think the arguments for KJVO are so weak that they aren't worth the time to write about. While this is true, most people can't name all the informal fallacies committed by KJVO. D. A. Carson did one years ago. But Carson also seems to have been in touch with the man in the pew on many issues and probably realized how convincing these things can sound to the average person and that the average person isn't keeping up on Aristotelian logic. James White did his book. Many scholars probably haven't thought it worth their time to write after White's book. A group of men from Bethel Seminary wrote a book after White's that was good.

I've thought of starting my own website dedicated to the issue. However, I'm not the most savvy web person.

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 03:02 PM
I think they go round and round because they are "new" to each person that discovers them and is not equipped to refute them.

And most aren't equipped to counter. Most Christians don't have good works in their library to provide them manuscript evidence. Bible verse comparison charts look convincing. When a person looks at a single verse and not a paragraph or chapter, it looks like a Satanic plot to remove "Jesus" or "Christ" or "blood" from the Bible. And the KJVO verse comparison charts only show one side. They don't show the charts that could be done the other direction.

I think another factor, and this is speculation on my part, is that scholars who are for modern translations think the arguments for KJVO are so weak that they aren't worth the time to write about. While this is true, most people can't name all the informal fallacies committed by KJVO. D. A. Carson did one years ago. But Carson also seems to have been in touch with the man in the pew on many issues and probably realized how convincing these things can sound to the average person and that the average person isn't keeping up on Aristotelian logic. James White did his book. Many scholars probably haven't thought it worth their time to write after White's book. A group of men from Bethel Seminary wrote a book after White's that was good.

I've thought of starting my own website dedicated to the issue. However, I'm not the most savvy web person.

Excellent thoughts. Thank you very much!

I think it's also entirely possible that, when a difference between NIV & KJV is seen, it's automatically assumed that the NIV is wrong and/or watering something down. And that's not an intellectually honest thing to do.

I also believe that we have a classic case of "making mountains out of molehills". Many times I've read different wordings for a verse, from different translations, but the meaning is exactly the same. As weird as it sounds, just because it's different doesn't mean it's different. :hmm:

light bread
Dec 19th 2007, 04:08 PM
The people you're quoting are very much against important Protestant theology yet you try to appeal to them for rendering a present as a past. This is simply because I wanted to use people who were not biased to the KJV translation. If I were to quote someone who were openly KJO for instance, you may say they were simply imposing their view on the passage in order to retain their inerrancy of the KJ. But surely, no one can say that any of the people I have used were playing favorites to the KJV but came to the conclusion from their study the text.
It disagrees with what the Bible says? 1 Corinthians 1:18 isn't my understanding of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 1:18 is the Bible! Yes but 1cor 1:18 is the verse in question. This isn’t going to be as easy as using your translation of the disputed verse to prove that your verse is translated correctly  We both agree on the rest of the passages mentioned such as Eph 2:5, 1Cor15:2, rom10:10. All of these are in past tense. But we both disagree on verses such as 1cor. and col. So, we could translate them as you say, in the present tense in which case they disagree with the previous verses in past tense. But we have many scholars (both those who favor the kj and those that don’t so this isn’t just people making stuff up to eulogize the kjv) that say that the present participle is being used in this case not to refer to an ongoing process, but is speaking of the people in regard to their eschatological sense, that the term means “the saved”. And this sees eye to eye with the rest of the verses we agree are past tense. This is not astonishing because the tense in greek is often very subtle. The aorist like I said indicates past tense but if one were to always apply past tense to the aorist one would end up with a mess. For instance in 2tim 2:2 the “commit thou to faithful men” is properly translated in the present tense while being aorist. Also in the gospels when peter walks on water jesus says to peter, “come.” This is in the aorist imperative thus is being used present tense. It would make no sense for jesus to say to peter, “came.” I’m sorry if this seemed off topic in the first response, I really am not experienced in explaining such things. The RV and YLT did not translate 1cor. past tense, I would suspect, because their aspiration was for an obstinately literal translation. I could not explain the mechanics of greek behind this, but there are many competent scholars that one could not simply write it off saying they don’t know greek. I’ve cited quite a few authorities that you can check out if you would like to know more; charles hodge also in his commentary on 1Cor. States the term in the verse means, “the saved.” It is fair to say that most of these men will know a great deal more about greek then you or I ever will.
The Greek has a present participle. This isn't letting a scholar form my opinion. It's letting the Greek speak for itself. It's letting the Greek itself form my opinion. Actually, to be exact, it’s letting what scholars taught you about the greek form your opinion of what the greek text says. Scholars who no doubt themselves thought the verse is referring to an ongoing process. So this is not a matter of the text vs my position as you are portraying it to be. It is one group of scholars’ interpretation against another group of scholars’ interpretation. All of the scholars I cited were looking at the same greek text you are looking at, yet came to a different conclusion.
With that thought in mind. Could you comment on Jon Courson's commentary on the passage? Do you agree with him? Do you think day by day, we're being saved from the power of sin and that one day we'll be saved from the presence of sin? It seems to me that most conservatives who hold as extreme a view as KJVO hold to that kind of theology. Does that not seem like a reasonable commentary on a present participle? Why try to foist a tense onto the Greek that isn't in any manuscript rather than accept the Greek for what it says and reconcile that passage to other New Testament passages by admitting that salvation is ongoing? Salvation is a broad word covering the entire process from beginning to end. • Salvation is in the past in justification. • Salvation is in the present in sanctification. • Salvation is in the future in glorification. I looked for some information but couldn’t find much information to easily discern if I agree with him or not. From what you have said I don’t think I would. I certainly disagree that salvation is a process.

light bread
Dec 19th 2007, 04:23 PM
These arguments about people believing the lists of errors only because they don't have knowledge of original languages or not being valid because they have no degree only amount to: &quot;Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?&quot; This appeal to authority is a weak argument, not only has it has been shown that not all authorities on the subject agree, but Im sure that much the same that went on in Jesus' case likely goes on in academia today. Many rulers believed on jesus but would not publicly confess him because the pharisees would throw them out of the temples. Just the same, im sure there are many people who go along with the current 'textual criticism' just to be associated with the perceived intellectuals of the day.

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 04:36 PM
These arguments about people believing the lists of errors only because they don't have knowledge of original languages or not being valid because they have no degree only amount to: &quot;Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?&quot; This appeal to authority is a weak argument, not only has it has been shown that not all authorities on the subject agree, but Im sure that much the same that went on in Jesus' case likely goes on in academia today. Many rulers believed on jesus but would not publicly confess him because the pharisees would throw them out of the temples. Just the same, im sure there are many people who go along with the current 'textual criticism' just to be associated with the perceived intellectuals of the day.
Apples & oranges.

You're trying to equate people looking at credible linguistic scholarship, with people rejecting the Messiah.

Perhaps we should spare the melodrama, and be honest. Those who are yelling about all the errors in the NIV (but aren't aware that virtually every other more modern translation has the same supposed errors) need to admit that they're not working from objective scholarship, but from bias and a witch-hunt mentality.

I firmly believe that you decided that the NIV is erroneous before you ever started studying the supposed errors. Your study simply confirmed what you already believed.

light bread
Dec 19th 2007, 04:56 PM
But the basis for rejection is the same for both groups: does any formally educated person or person of revered status hold the position?

The two do not have to be alike in every aspect just those relative to the argument i used, and the message implied by both is the same:

Those that believe do so because they are uneducated and dumb, no smart, educated people have believed so it must be wrong.

I did not begin with the supposition that the niv is wrong, like i said i used to read the niv. If you would like to make a case that the scholarship used by the translators is &quot;credible scholarship&quot; then please do so, but your position is not proven by appeal to authority. (namely your own)

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 05:40 PM
But the basis for rejection is the same for both groups: does any formally educated person or person of revered status hold the position?

The two do not have to be alike in every aspect just those relative to the argument i used, and the message implied by both is the same:

Those that believe do so because they are uneducated and dumb, no smart, educated people have believed so it must be wrong.

I did not begin with the supposition that the niv is wrong, like i said i used to read the niv. If you would like to make a case that the scholarship used by the translators is &quot;credible scholarship&quot; then please do so, but your position is not proven by appeal to authority. (namely your own)

I have repeatedly made the case for the accuracy of the NIV, and other modern translations. I have repeatedly made the case for their use of superior texts and manuscripts than were used to translate the KJV. All you have to do is go back and read them.


And I am going to assert the same truth again: You do not dislike the NIV because of your study of the Greek & Hebrew, and subsequent discovery of errors. You dislike the NIV because somebody told you it was inaccurate.

ikester7579
Dec 19th 2007, 06:13 PM
Excellent thoughts. Thank you very much!

I think it's also entirely possible that, when a difference between NIV & KJV is seen, it's automatically assumed that the NIV is wrong and/or watering something down. And that's not an intellectually honest thing to do.

I also believe that we have a classic case of "making mountains out of molehills". Many times I've read different wordings for a verse, from different translations, but the meaning is exactly the same. As weird as it sounds, just because it's different doesn't mean it's different. :hmm:

According to copyright laws, each translation has to be at least 10% different from every other one on the market upon being written. So knowing that. How different can you get before it's not even near the original?

Example: Is the tenth translation closer than the first 5? And would that be based on comprehension (easy to understand), or accuracy (comparing documents)?

Also, how would one know how many times the greek one has been rewritten? And how could we compare it to any document that it was translated from for accuracy? Or is it just taken for granted that it's correct regardless?

ikester7579
Dec 19th 2007, 06:28 PM
I have repeatedly made the case for the accuracy of the NIV, and other modern translations. I have repeatedly made the case for their use of superior texts and manuscripts than were used to translate the KJV. All you have to do is go back and read them.


And I am going to assert the same truth again: You do not dislike the NIV because of your study of the Greek & Hebrew, and subsequent discovery of errors. You dislike the NIV because somebody told you it was inaccurate.

I think we need a new categorization other than KJVO. Like ABKJV (Anything but the King James version). Or AMVWD (Any modern version will do). Or AICU (Anything I can understand).

Also, I trust a certain pastor (Hagee) who went to Israel to see the dead sea scrolls. And took the KJV with him. He also took a Rabi because he did not know the old hebrew, but knew greek very well. So upon investigation into the scriptures that were mostly intact. They found that they matched the KJV. Why did he do this? Like you, he needed to know. People kept asking him which translation and all he could do is repeat what he had been told. KJVO. But he did not like saying that without actually knowing. So he went to the source.

Now you may not like Hagee for what ever reason. But I admire someone who would go to that much trouble to find truth so that he is not repeating what someone else claims.

A Seeker
Dec 19th 2007, 06:50 PM
I have a question. Probably dumb.

Rev 13:10



NIV
10If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity he will go.
If anyone is to be killed[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2013:10&version=31#fen-NIV-30903a)] with the sword,
with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

(italics mine)
the little [a] corresponds to "Some manuscripts anyone kills ". and sure enough

KJV


10He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.


My gosh thats a helluva difference init!! One is a reflective statement of if its gonna happen its gonna happen making the last sentance a call to pragmatic acceptance. The other version is a call to a specific activity which does not (to me) seem to fit so well with the patience bit although it does with the faith.

Anyone got any information as to which manuscripts are being used? Because these are two radically different concepts. So at least some manuscripts must have been corrupted at some point! It worries me that the manuscripts are so different at such an early stage.

Oh and BTW

The NASB agrees with the KJV
The English standard with the NIV

:hmm:

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 08:05 PM
According to copyright laws, each translation has to be at least 10% different from every other one on the market upon being written. So knowing that. How different can you get before it's not even near the original?

Example: Is the tenth translation closer than the first 5? And would that be based on comprehension (easy to understand), or accuracy (comparing documents)?

Also, how would one know how many times the greek one has been rewritten? And how could we compare it to any document that it was translated from for accuracy? Or is it just taken for granted that it's correct regardless?

So copyright laws require it to be 10% "different". Big deal! The NIV includes sub-headings, such as "Jesus Walks On Water", that are not included in other translations. You got 8%-9% right there!

Further, your "is the tenth copy closer than the first 5?" question evidences that you're mistakenly assuming the later translations are copied off of the KJV. But they're not. They're translated from earlier and more accurate manuscripts than the 5 from which the KJV is translated!

And as for your question about the Greek translation... I'd be delighted to look at that for a moment! The KJV came from the Textus Receptus - a document translated by one man - get that, ONE MAN - and he a Catholic priest. It was translated from 5-6 Greek manuscripts that were only a couple hundred years older than the TR - meaning that they themselves had been translated many times (here's where you're question about the 10th copy becomes VERY important - but it works AGAINST your argument).


Now... are you aware that there are PROVEN inaccuracies in the Textus Recptus? Among them being that Erasmus mistakenly included "marginal notes" as Holy Writ? Are you aware that the TR had to be rewritten and revised several times, because of the inaccuracies that were found?

And are you aware of the fact that the KJV had to be revised several times, because of errors and inaccuracies that were found in it? Are you also aware of the fact that the KJV was a "rush job" because its publishers wanted to beat the competition to press? Commercialism isn't something that just showed up in the last 50 years, my friend!

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 08:09 PM
I think we need a new categorization other than KJVO. Like ABKJV (Anything but the King James version). Or AMVWD (Any modern version will do). Or AICU (Anything I can understand).
Also, I trust a certain pastor (Hagee) who went to Israel to see the dead sea scrolls. And took the KJV with him. He also took a Rabi because he did not know the old hebrew, but knew greek very well. So upon investigation into the scriptures that were mostly intact. They found that they matched the KJV. Why did he do this? Like you, he needed to know. People kept asking him which translation and all he could do is repeat what he had been told. KJVO. But he did not like saying that without actually knowing. So he went to the source.

Now you may not like Hagee for what ever reason. But I admire someone who would go to that much trouble to find truth so that he is not repeating what someone else claims.

John Hagee is NOT - I repeat, is NOT - a trained linguist. Furthermore, he's a mega-church TV evangelist.

And you're dead wrong to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls "matched" the KJV! What they found is that the KJV is accurate - in exactly the same way that many of the more modern translation are accurate.


Now... as I've said to others on this thread, if you're so hung up on reading the KJV only, go ahead. You're welcome to do just that, and to read only that translation. And I'm glad you're reading the Bible!

But don't be so presumptuous as to, in your lack of linguistic education, lecture others about how the KJV is more accurate than the erroneous newer translations - because nothing could be further from the truth.

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 08:14 PM
My gosh thats a helluva difference init!! One is a reflective statement of if its gonna happen its gonna happen making the last sentance a call to pragmatic acceptance. The other version is a call to a specific activity which does not (to me) seem to fit so well with the patience bit although it does with the faith.

Anyone got any information as to which manuscripts are being used? Because these are two radically different concepts. So at least some manuscripts must have been corrupted at some point! It worries me that the manuscripts are so different at such an early stage.

Oh and BTW

The NASB agrees with the KJV
The English standard with the NIV

:hmm:

You might want to tone down what most people consider to be vulgar language...

That said, I want to ask you something. Why do you suppose the NIV footnotes certain phrases, in certain verses? And have you ever followed those footnotes and read what is written?

The NIV - especially by the use of the footnotes - is more honest and has more integrity than many other translations. In fact, the translators were honest enough to actually put in print the fact, for instance, some of the early manuscripts either didn't have a few words, or had them worded differently.


Now... Which translation do you want to follow? One that honestly says that there are some textual variants, or one that glosses over said variants and acts as though they're not there in the early manuscripts?

TrustGzus
Dec 19th 2007, 09:05 PM
Hey Seeker,

No dumb question.
I have a question. Probably dumb.

Rev 13:10


(italics mine)
the little [a] corresponds to "Some manuscripts anyone kills ". and sure enough

KJV


My gosh thats a helluva difference init!! One is a reflective statement of if its gonna happen its gonna happen making the last sentance a call to pragmatic acceptance. The other version is a call to a specific activity which does not (to me) seem to fit so well with the patience bit although it does with the faith.

Anyone got any information as to which manuscripts are being used? Because these are two radically different concepts. So at least some manuscripts must have been corrupted at some point! It worries me that the manuscripts are so different at such an early stage.It's not exactly easy. My United Bible Society's 4th (UBS) edition gives this a "B" rating. The ratings are:
A indicates the text is certain.
B indicates the text is almost certain.
C indicates the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
D which occurs only rarely, indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision.The reading in the text of the NIV comes from the text in the Nestle-Aland 27th and UBS 4th. They chose to go with Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century. The reading in the NIV margin comes from:
manuscript 1828, which is a miniscule. I don't know the date of 1828, however, since it's a miniscule, it will have a late date, i.e. at least ninth century.
6th century Syriac
13th century Latin
the following Latin church fathers:
Pacian (4th century)
Beatus (8th century).Now the NASB, KJV, and NKJV go with:
Codex Sinaticus
uncial 046
along with the following miniscules:
1006
1611
1841
1854
2344
2351 Why do the NIV, TNIV, NA27th and UBS4th go with the lone reading from Alexandrinus?

I have never talked to them, but here's my guess. Revelation quotes the Old Testament over and over and over. And when it isn't quoting the OT, it's often alluding to it. I'm thinking that they think Alexandrinus is correct based on Jeremiah 43:11. At Jeremiah 43:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2043:11;&version=9;), every single translation reads like the NIV of Revelation 13:10. Thinking that Revelation 13:10 is either a direct quote or at least alluding to Jeremiah, they went with the Alexandrinus reading. They chose Alexandrinus over Sinaiticus even though they would normally go with Sinaiticus over Alexandrinus.

Grace & peace to you, Seeker.

Joe

ikester7579
Dec 20th 2007, 07:07 AM
John Hagee is NOT - I repeat, is NOT - a trained linguist. Furthermore, he's a mega-church TV evangelist.

And you're dead wrong to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls "matched" the KJV! What they found is that the KJV is accurate - in exactly the same way that many of the more modern translation are accurate.


Now... as I've said to others on this thread, if you're so hung up on reading the KJV only, go ahead. You're welcome to do just that, and to read only that translation. And I'm glad you're reading the Bible!

But don't be so presumptuous as to, in your lack of linguistic education, lecture others about how the KJV is more accurate than the erroneous newer translations - because nothing could be further from the truth.


Since you keep refering to your education, would you mind telling us where you went to bible college at? Because if I'm going to be banged over the head with: I'm more educated than you are in this area... I want to know what school so I can look up what they believe.

jeffreys
Dec 20th 2007, 01:24 PM
Since you keep refering to your education, would you mind telling us where you went to bible college at? Because if I'm going to be banged over the head with: I'm more educated than you are in this area... I want to know what school so I can look up what they believe.

Not once have I made any reference to my education. If you look back over this thread, you'll see that.

I'm exposing the lack of linguistics education by those who are always yelling about all the errors in the NIV. And in so doing, I've exposed the fact that - for the most part - the "anti NIV" crowd is doing nothing more than repeating rumors they've heard.

A Seeker
Dec 20th 2007, 08:24 PM
Thanks for your answer Joe. It was informative and well researched and helped a lot. Thankyou for taking the time. Reps for you.



You might want to tone down what most people consider to be vulgar language...



Fair comment. In that case would you mind toning down your tone which comes across as sarcastic and patronising.


Why do you suppose the NIV footnotes certain phrases, in certain verses? And have you ever followed those footnotes and read what is written?




Now... Which translation do you want to follow? One that honestly says that there are some textual variants, or one that glosses over said variants and acts as though they're not there in the early manuscripts?


You could also examine what appears to be a streak of intellectual snobbery in your posts. Presuming a lack of linguistic education in others and "exposing" it is not, i feel, the way to move this thread forward.

I have some sympathy with your position. I have doubts about the view that the KJV in superior in all areas. But i feel your frustration is damaging your position. Which is a shame because its one which should be argued and you sound informed enough to do that well.

But when you start getting personal with Ike it does not help your case. Or his come to that.

Blessings
Seeker

light bread
Dec 20th 2007, 09:06 PM
Not once have I made any reference to my education. If you look back over this thread, you'll see that.

really... this is from post 70 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1454750&postcount=70):

me: Comparing the copies Erasmus used to comic books is ridiculous... leads me to beleive you know almost nothing on this issue.


To tell somebody with an advanced degree, in these very disciplines, of "knowing almost nothing about the issue"; is absurd.

and numorous times as anyone could see from reading through, you have arrogantly implied numorous times that you are correct because those on your side of the position are smart, while we are dumb.

jeffreys
Dec 20th 2007, 09:37 PM
Thanks for your answer Joe. It was informative and well researched and helped a lot. Thankyou for taking the time. Reps for you.

Fair comment. In that case would you mind toning down your tone which comes across as sarcastic and patronising.

You could also examine what appears to be a streak of intellectual snobbery in your posts. Presuming a lack of linguistic education in others and "exposing" it is not, i feel, the way to move this thread forward.

I have some sympathy with your position. I have doubts about the view that the KJV in superior in all areas. But i feel your frustration is damaging your position. Which is a shame because its one which should be argued and you sound informed enough to do that well.

But when you start getting personal with Ike it does not help your case. Or his come to that.

Blessings
Seeker

First, I apologize if I have been offensive to you. That has not been my intent.

Second, my pointing out the lack of linguistic education in the KJVO crowd has a point - and that is that they are not arriving at their conclusions due to study. They're arriving at their conclusions, then seeking information to support the conclusions.

Third, I have argued my point just fine. My point to you was in reference to the footnotes included in the NIV. They clarify. They explain. And they expose scholastic honesty that is not present in some other translations. To say, "Some early manuscripts do not contain this passage" is not watering anything down. It's being honest enough to tell the truth.

threebigrocks
Dec 20th 2007, 09:38 PM
Just a suggestion: Stop the personal attacks. Please. Last chance.

jeffreys
Dec 20th 2007, 09:39 PM
really... this is from post 70 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1454750&postcount=70):

me: Comparing the copies Erasmus used to comic books is ridiculous... leads me to beleive you know almost nothing on this issue.

and numorous times as anyone could see from reading through, you have arrogantly implied numorous times that you are correct because those on your side of the position are smart, while we are dumb.

So you think I'm arrogant. Fine. I can live with that.

Now... do you have any real evidence that the NIV is chock full of errors - other than something you read on some iKJVO website? I'm waiting.

threebigrocks
Dec 20th 2007, 09:41 PM
Okay, enough. This has run it's course.