PDA

View Full Version : I have officially switched



humbled
Apr 30th 2007, 07:13 PM
I was once a big fan of NKJV, then I adopted the NASB preference ... and after a while, I balanced the NASB with the ESV almost equally.

My wife just got an NIV given to her and I find myself borrowing her bible all the time! I used to dismiss the NIV because I *thought* it was a bogus translation, but ya know what? It's more fluid and a lot easier to read than the NASB! And I can't really tell much of a difference in overall content.

Granted, for deeper study I would probably go to the NASB, since it is more word-for-word, whereas the NIV is more a thought-for-thought concept. But I always end up looking into the original languages anyway ...

Anywhoo ... just thought I'd share that with y'all :)

What do you guys like?

Quickened
Apr 30th 2007, 07:14 PM
I prefer my widemargin NASB

humbled
Apr 30th 2007, 07:16 PM
widemargin? What's that all about?

Quickened
Apr 30th 2007, 07:20 PM
widemargin? What's that all about?

You can take a look here (http://www.amazon.com/Zondervan-NASB-Wide-Margin-Bible/dp/0310921848). As you can see from the little picture there is a boatload of room in the margin for note taking!

Whispering Grace
Apr 30th 2007, 07:24 PM
I have officially switched


Whew! I thought you were going to announce that you were now an Arminian. :lol:

humbled
Apr 30th 2007, 07:24 PM
I see ...

I don't like to write in my bible really. The occasional highlight is one thing .. but if I'm taking notes, it's in a notepad or even better - on the computer. ;)

That way I can switch versions and still keep the notes .. or if I lose the bible, I've lost my notes. Can't have that! I've looked back on some of my older notes and really enjoy seeing how much I've grown, and sorta laugh at myself for some previous interpretations.

humbled
Apr 30th 2007, 07:26 PM
Whew! I thought you were going to announce that you were now an Arminian. :lol:
I kinda thought that would happen to a few of ya ;)

lol .. nope. Still a staunch Calvinist ... moreso in fact! :eek:

What about you, incidentally? Since you bring it up ... are you still no longer a Calvinist?

Redeemed by Grace
Apr 30th 2007, 07:42 PM
I see ...

I don't like to write in my bible really. The occasional highlight is one thing .. but if I'm taking notes, it's in a notepad or even better - on the computer. ;)

That way I can switch versions and still keep the notes .. or if I lose the bible, I've lost my notes. Can't have that! I've looked back on some of my older notes and really enjoy seeing how much I've grown, and sorta laugh at myself for some previous interpretations.


My practice is to take notes within my bible and then buy a new bible ever two or three years and transcribe the notes again.... Those notes that still make sense I keep.... Those notes that I find confusing - I withdraw or clarify.... You'd be surprised how having both the notes within the margins and then the rewrites have helped my memory and thus focus....


To me it's the best way I can study afresh and find joy in remembering the when I wrote it and the why....

taddy
Apr 30th 2007, 09:02 PM
Here is something from another thread from this forum.
Originally Posted by dara http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1240968#post1240968)
iv heard that the niv new international version it is not good since some pasages have been changed in meaning
there were people like Virginia Mollenkott “In 1978 Mollenkott co-authored the book entitled Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, Dr. Mollenkott, one of the literary consultants for the NIV translating committee, is a professed homosexual.
too cut it short do a research on her u will find that her views have influenced pasages of niv

here is one

KJB - Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

NIV - Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.

abomination and detestable does not mean the same thing

SOLD OUT: Oohhhh, that is good information! I'm going to look that up. We had a discussion about NIV translation one night and upon further research, the translators (Westcott/Hort) weren't even saved!!!


Think about it. TADDY

Whispering Grace
Apr 30th 2007, 09:10 PM
I'm a NKJV gal myself.

Don't know why, really. Perhaps because it was the first Bible I got after my conversion. :dunno:

Now I collect 'em. I think I have about 10 NKJV Bibles. :lol:

I tend to stick to one translation because I like to memorize Scripture and reading various translations confuses me in that department.

humbled
Apr 30th 2007, 09:12 PM
Here is something from another thread from this forum.
Originally Posted by dara http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1240968#post1240968)
iv heard that the niv new international version it is not good since some pasages have been changed in meaning
there were people like Virginia Mollenkott “In 1978 Mollenkott co-authored the book entitled Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, Dr. Mollenkott, one of the literary consultants for the NIV translating committee, is a professed homosexual.
too cut it short do a research on her u will find that her views have influenced pasages of niv

here is one

KJB - Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

NIV - Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.

abomination and detestable does not mean the same thing

SOLD OUT: Oohhhh, that is good information! I'm going to look that up. We had a discussion about NIV translation one night and upon further research, the translators (Westcott/Hort) weren't even saved!!!


Think about it. TADDYHmmm ...

Main Entry: abom·i·na·tion http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?abomin06.wav=abomination'))
Pronunciation: &-"bä-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : something abominable (http://m-w.com/dictionary/abominable)
2 : extreme disgust and hatred : LOATHING (http://m-w.com/dictionary/loathing)

Main Entry: de·test·able http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?detest02.wav=detestable'))
Pronunciation: di-'tes-t&-b&l, dE-
Function: adjective
: arousing or meriting intense dislike : ABOMINABLE (http://m-w.com/dictionary/abominable)
- de·test·able·ness noun
- de·test·ably http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?detest03.wav=detestably')) /-blE/ adverb

I suppose in semantics it is different, but they seem to get the same point across. At least as far as I can tell. According to m-w.com they even appear to be synonymous.

Thanks for your input :)

Wise-Owl
Apr 30th 2007, 11:21 PM
From Strongs, to think about: Nick
abomination
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

detestable
1) detestable thing or idol, abominable thing, abomination, idol, detested thing

Toolman
May 1st 2007, 02:08 AM
I started out as a KJV guy because I loved the poetic, almost mystical, style of the language and that is what I had when I first became a believer.

I have used the NKJV over the last few years but have liked the NIV also for reading purposes and the NASB and Young's literal for study purposes.

A friend of mine was recently singing his new love for the ESV and all the reasons he prefers it, saying it gives him the best of the NIV (easy, flowing read) and the NASB (close translation to the original) worlds combined.

Humbled, do you find the NIV reads easier to you than the ESV? What are your thoughts on the ESV?

humbled
May 1st 2007, 03:13 AM
Humbled, do you find the NIV reads easier to you than the ESV? What are your thoughts on the ESV?I do! It's the easiest flow for me .. at least right now. The ESV is easy ... easier than the NASB and NKJV, but there was just something in the NIV that clicked with me over the last month or so. I really, really enjoyed reading more using it than I had before. Maybe it was the translation, maybe it was the energizing of the Spirit. But either way, I've just loved the Word more than "usual" lately. I give at least partial credit to the easy flow of the NIV :)

How ya been, brother? :)

Sold Out
May 1st 2007, 12:50 PM
I was once a big fan of NKJV, then I adopted the NASB preference ... and after a while, I balanced the NASB with the ESV almost equally.

My wife just got an NIV given to her and I find myself borrowing her bible all the time! I used to dismiss the NIV because I *thought* it was a bogus translation, but ya know what? It's more fluid and a lot easier to read than the NASB! And I can't really tell much of a difference in overall content.

Granted, for deeper study I would probably go to the NASB, since it is more word-for-word, whereas the NIV is more a thought-for-thought concept. But I always end up looking into the original languages anyway ...

Anywhoo ... just thought I'd share that with y'all :)

What do you guys like?

I read KJV, NKJV & Amplified. I usually compare all three. I love to look up scripture in it's original language too.

You might want to do your own independent study regarding the NIV translators. I recently did one, and was quite shocked at what I read concerning Westcott & Hort.

humbled
May 1st 2007, 01:02 PM
I read KJV, NKJV & Amplified. I usually compare all three. I love to look up scripture in it's original language too.

You might want to do your own independent study regarding the NIV translators. I recently did one, and was quite shocked at what I read concerning Westcott & Hort.I'm curious .. is there a genuine problem with the translation itself? I've heard my whole walk (one of the reasons I avoided the NIV) that its a poor translation, but never looked into it because I was satisfied with the NASB. But as I'm reading it, I don't get that feel. It's actually helped me better understand the flow of the chapters with its easy-to-read feel.

I don't know what Westcott & Hort did, but unless they intentionally mistranslated parts of it, then I don't know what the problem is.

Were they caught in a conspiracy or something? hmmm? Did they sin? :P

I kid ...

But seriously tho .. can you give me the highlights? Or a link?

Thanks!

Slug1
May 1st 2007, 01:05 PM
I've always read my NIV. As to the difference in words here and there that are used in the NIV, abomination and detestable so far brought out as an example in this thread. To me they both mean it's a NOGO so for me the meaning of the scripture mean the same thing and the message is clear... DON'T do it!

humbled
May 1st 2007, 01:21 PM
I've always read my NIV. As to the difference in words here and there that are used in the NIV, abomination and detestable so far brought out as an example in this thread. To me they both mean it's a NOGO so for me the meaning of the scripture mean the same thing and the message is clear... DON'T do it!lol .. ya, that's sorta what I thought too.

Sold Out
May 1st 2007, 01:26 PM
I'm curious .. is there a genuine problem with the translation itself? I've heard my whole walk (one of the reasons I avoided the NIV) that its a poor translation, but never looked into it because I was satisfied with the NASB. But as I'm reading it, I don't get that feel. It's actually helped me better understand the flow of the chapters with its easy-to-read feel.

I don't know what Westcott & Hort did, but unless they intentionally mistranslated parts of it, then I don't know what the problem is.

Were they caught in a conspiracy or something? hmmm? Did they sin? :P

I kid ...

But seriously tho .. can you give me the highlights? Or a link?

Thanks!


From what I can tell, it seems the translators were not even saved men. (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm)

There are some discrepancies, but not necessarily on heaven or hell issues. For example:

Hebrews 10:39, KJV
"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."

Hebrews 10:39, NIV
"But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."

Notice in the NIV version, the word SOUL (gr. psuche) is missing.

There are more, but I'm short on time.

humbled
May 1st 2007, 01:31 PM
From what I can tell, it seems the translators were not even saved men. (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm)

There are some discrepancies, but not necessarily on heaven or hell issues. For example:

Hebrews 10:39, KJV
"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."

Hebrews 10:39, NIV
"But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."

Notice in the NIV version, the word SOUL (gr. psuche) is missing.

There are more, but I'm short on time.I've always known it is more of a thought-for-thought translation rather than word-for-word. But tell me... is the basic idea lost without the word "soul"? I don't think so. The context tells us that it is speaking of the soul rather than the physical, right?

Redeemed by Grace
May 1st 2007, 01:37 PM
I'm curious .. is there a genuine problem with the translation itself? I've heard my whole walk (one of the reasons I avoided the NIV) that its a poor translation, but never looked into it because I was satisfied with the NASB. But as I'm reading it, I don't get that feel. It's actually helped me better understand the flow of the chapters with its easy-to-read feel.

I don't know what Westcott & Hort did, but unless they intentionally mistranslated parts of it, then I don't know what the problem is.

Were they caught in a conspiracy or something? hmmm? Did they sin? :P

I kid ...

But seriously tho .. can you give me the highlights? Or a link?

Thanks!


There are two noted translation streams that comprise today's translations...

One is the Byzantine stream which the King James and the NKJV are based around... In my digging around, these translations are more plentiful and younger in nature, so the 'theory' is that they have more room for transcription error.

The other stream is the Alexandrian and is older and less verbose in nature, with the understanding that it has original Greek of the period and not the newer Greek of today. Also, the theory is that it's closest to the original, transcribers interpretations are fewer.

Slug1
May 1st 2007, 01:40 PM
The context tells us that it is speaking of the soul rather than the physical, right?I agree with ya. The message is what is important. If I explain something to someone in a style of language they don't "get" then changing a word here and there to get the meaning across to them... enables them to understand... "get" my meaning ;)

If a person reads that KJV and says, Huh?... then reads the NIV and says, I get it now (Cause the scripture means the same thing, just different way to get it across) then the message is understood.

Quickened
May 1st 2007, 02:47 PM
I'll be honest. I have a NIV and the moment i noticed that there were verses that were excluded i stopped using it.

Godisnumber1
May 1st 2007, 03:05 PM
i love my NIV version :)

humbled
May 1st 2007, 03:22 PM
I'll be honest. I have a NIV and the moment i noticed that there were verses that were excluded i stopped using it.
Honesty's good :)

What verses are excluded? Please don't tell me 1 John 5:7-8! :rofl:

Sold Out
May 1st 2007, 04:23 PM
Acts 8:36,38 NIV (verse 37 is missing)
"36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. "

Acts 8:36-38, KJV
"36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

Other verses that are missing from NIV:
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44 & 46, 11:26 & 15:28

Luke 17:36, 22:44,43 & 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 15:34, 24:7 & 28:29
Romans 16:24

Slug1
May 1st 2007, 04:40 PM
I know in my NIV, in the study area it says for the passage Acts 8:37 (which it does go 36 and then 38) to refer to Acts 2:38, which reads:

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

:hmm: I'll have to check the rest of them out.

Slug1
May 1st 2007, 05:19 PM
Interesting, for Matt 17:21 it is omitted from all the following bible's: NIV, MSG, NLT, ESV, NIRV, and the CEV lists the verse as a footnote and being in "some" manuscripts.

Later I'll look at the rest.

Redeemed by Grace
May 1st 2007, 06:15 PM
Honesty's good :)

What verses are excluded? Please don't tell me 1 John 5:7-8! :rofl:

Missing or excluded is a funny way to look at it - or let me say maybe adding is better than subtracting? :) ... Actually this goes back to the two stream positions of the Alexandrian and Byzantine text streams... in which interpretive additions were added by the transcribers as the manuscripts aged through generations of copies, and not that the other early translation excluded it...

Mark 16: 9-12 is believed to be such an example

Both my MacArthur NASB and NKJV have the verses included... but footnoted to the history that it wasn't there in the early manuscripts, My Zondervan NASB has the verses bracketed, but does not have any footnotes to say why, and my Zondervan NIV begins this section with a large footnote stating that it's not included in some manuscripts, and both of my KJVs have the verses included but do not have any foot notes or any statement about manuscripts.

FWIW...

Befaithful
May 1st 2007, 06:20 PM
I have inserted a link below...where my info is taken from, hope I did it right:blush: Please research it if you would like to read more on the King James version.:saint:

King James Version is my main :D choice...

"It is written in the noblest and purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary form." The style used in this version was unique. It was not the English of that day, either spoken or written. Indeed, Mr. Marsh, in his "Lectures on the English Language" asserts, that the dialect used was not at any period "the actual current book language, nor the colloquial speech of the English people."

The fact concerning the style of this version is, that from the earliest effort at English version each succeeding translator improved upon his predecessors, taking his best points continually, so that in the end the chief excellence of each appeared. King James' version, therefore, combines the beautiful and felicitous expression of all who went before it.

As a final testimony to the excellence of the King James' version we may quote from Dr. F. W. Faber, who says: "Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvelous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds against heresy in this country? It lives on the ear, like music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than words. It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness. Nay, it is worshiped with a positive idolatry, in extenuation of whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of a man are hid beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft and gentle, and pure and penitent and good, speaks to him forever out of his Protestant Bible. It is a sacred thing which doubt has never dimmed and controversy never soiled.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

Walstib
May 1st 2007, 08:04 PM
I try and avoid any hint of paraphrasing in a translation when studying. As literal as possible from the source text. Thought by thought translations allow for more human input as I see it but do have their use. I travel and witness with an NIV but study with the KJV.

What this thread makes me think of is whether God would assemble a set of manuscripts through people as authoritative as I see He did with the books of the bible.

Can there be an argument that the Textus Receptus is the trump for translations into any language?

Peace,

Joe

cryinglion
Jul 1st 2011, 02:17 AM
I first came to Christ using the NIV version. I believe that God initially utilizes this version for those who either are turned off by the KJV, or for those who have average English skills. I have read NKJV, NASB,and ESV over the years. I like the NKJV the most. The main reason for me is that in the NASB and ESV (and NIV), some passages of scripture are left out in the main text while a footnote is added at the bottom stating that other manuscripts contain such-and-such. For the most part, the NKJV leaves in the full passage with with a footnote stating other manuscripts do not contain such-and-such. I like the fact that these portions are kept in to emphasize the context of scripture.

The NIV does an excellent overall job expressing God's word in a general sense. But, if one were feel fully confident in getting the full context of scripture then the NKJV (in my opinion) is best. With that said, one has to go with what the Holy Spirit is leading them to do.