|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 12:35:21 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
I came here only to state my opinion towards the multitude of Scriptural translations available to us because it was mentioned. My intentions were not to throw anyone off their soapbox. I guess I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:25:57 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
For those to whom it may concern: To answer the OP, here are a few "severities," if you will, that should be addressed.
1. In the NIV, look up these passages. Tell me if they exists. If thet do not, tell me why.
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
Luke 17:36; 23:17;
John 5:4.
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7.
2. Isaiah 9:3 "You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy" NIV "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy" KJV
This shows a COMPLETE opposite thought and contradiction placing this in the "sever" category.
3. In the NIV, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely left out in 1 John 5.
"7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." NIV
However, the KJV states "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Now, for some odd reason the authors of the NIV chose to leave out this extremely significant phrase, and I'd like to know why. I could take the NIV and preach against the Trinity. This is quite severe IMHO.
4. Ever heard this passage before?
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."
Note that the words in bold have been omitted from the NIV. These words are not useless words. They own much meaning and context to the passage, yet for some reason are absent in the NIV.
5. How about this passage?
Matthew 26:35 "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, THEY PARTED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS."
Note again the words in bold are completely absent in the NIV. The words in bold, hoever, are quite significant, as they fulfill the prophesy found in Psalm 22:18. VERY SIGNIFICANT!
6. Who killed Goliath? I think everyone here can say with a resounding "David!" Well, not according to the NIV.
2 Samuel 21:19 "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. "
Yet, just before this in 1 Samuel 21:8-9 it says
"8David asked Ahimelech, Don't you have a spear or a sword here? I haven't brought my sword or any other weapon, because the king's business was urgent. 9The priest replied, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, is here; it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you want it, take it; there is no sword here but that one. David said, There is none like it; give it to me."
So I guess in all of your churches that use the NIV, you can no longer tell your kids the story of David and his slingshot. Or can you? The NIV records it two completely different ways. I guess Goliath was killed by two separate individuals simultaneously. 
7. "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to judgment."
The bold words are absent in the NIV. This verse alone, according to the NIV, makes Jesus a sinner in Mark 3:5. This is pretty darn severe to me!
CONCLUSION: There is your evidence. Study it, ponder it, and pray about it. IMO, the NIV isn't that great of a translation. Too many problematic contradictions/omissions for me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 8:58:28 AM
|
|
|
Stephanos
Posts: 1115
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
As much as I detest the NIV as a translation (I prefer my NASB), I also dislike blind attacking of something with out all the facts.
As to the "problems" with the NIV you listed.
as to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 7...these all deal with the same issue. And that is that the early manuscripts used to translate the bible into english, do not all agree and contain the same imformation. Take forinstance the verse you gave in 1st John 5. The problem here is that most earlier manuscripts, these are the ones in Greek now, DONT have the added text. While most translations include this part, but add a foot note, the NIV just does not add it at all. Now you might find issue with their method of what is included and not included in terms of their study of the different manuscripts, but just because they did not include that verse, which again does not occur in the earliest manuscripts we have of 1st John in the original greek, does not mean that it is a evil translation.
as to point 6, it should be noted that these to Goliaths are NOT the same person, any more than Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot are the same person. Notice the difference, Goliath the Philistine, and Goliath the Gittite.
As to point 2, while my Hebrew is not very strong, it should be noted that the majority of translations side with the NIV and translate as "...and increase" not "and not increase". Furthermore, if you read down in context of the entire passage, this verse is a prelude to the comming of the Messiah. See Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is given..." I think that is a reason FOR joy, not against the giving of joy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 9:20:41 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 150
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
every1,
My point was not to evaluate the quran. All I wanted to show is that absence of multiple versions doesn't, by itself, guarantee unity among the followers.
quote:
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
Luke 17:36; 23:17;
John 5:4.
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7.
In each of these cases, my NIV has a footnote that begins, "some manuscripts", and includes the verse omitted from the main text. Except in the case of 1 John 5:7. In that case, it says, "late manuscripts of the Vulgate".
I've been told that the translators of the NIV had more manuscripts available to them than the translators of the KJV and that, in some cases, they used a different manuscript than the KJV had used.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 10:03:18 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1657
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
every1needsgod,
Do yo have a copy of the original Greek and Hebrew autographs, written by the original authors themselves?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:29:25 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
As much as I detest the NIV as a translation (I prefer my NASB), I also dislike blind attacking of something with out all the facts.
Are you accusing me of something? There was no blind attacking on my part, if that is what you insinuated.
quote:
As to the "problems" with the NIV you listed.
as to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 7...these all deal with the same issue. And that is that the early manuscripts used to translate the bible into english, do not all agree and contain the same imformation. Take forinstance the verse you gave in 1st John 5. The problem here is that most earlier manuscripts, these are the ones in Greek now, DONT have the added text. While most translations include this part, but add a foot note, the NIV just does not add it at all. Now you might find issue with their method of what is included and not included in terms of their study of the different manuscripts, but just because they did not include that verse, which again does not occur in the earliest manuscripts we have of 1st John in the original greek, does not mean that it is a evil translation.
as to point 6, it should be noted that these to Goliaths are NOT the same person, any more than Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot are the same person. Notice the difference, Goliath the Philistine, and Goliath the Gittite.
As to point 2, while my Hebrew is not very strong, it should be noted that the majority of translations side with the NIV and translate as "...and increase" not "and not increase". Furthermore, if you read down in context of the entire passage, this verse is a prelude to the comming of the Messiah. See Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is given..." I think that is a reason FOR joy, not against the giving of joy!
Ok great. You say all this just to prove my point. Yes, the NIV uses entirely different manuscripts, and is therefor entirely different than some other translations. My only point here is that in all of the translations available to the English speaking people, they ALL differ somewhere, some in more severe areas than the other! I gave you examples from the two most popular and most used translation (the KJV and the NIV) and I showed you in 7 different areas how severely they disagree. You can explain those differences away, and go into the Greek and Hebrew to show which one you believe is right, but that does not change the fact that THEY DISAGREE, which was my only point. You all wanted me to proved examples of these "severe contradictions" so that is exactly what I did.
The fact is this. I have studied the issue, and I do not count it a blessing to have all of the versions we possess. I just don't! Truth is truth regardless to what Bible you read. And EVERY Bible contradicts each other in some area or the other, some either distorting the truth or completely leaving it out. It's up to us to figure out what is truth, and not just pick the most flashy Bible off the shelf, or the one that is easiest for you to read. Those are not the guidelines to finding truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:33:32 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've been told that the translators of the NIV had more manuscripts available to them than the translators of the KJV and that, in some cases, they used a different manuscript than the KJV had used.
The first part I'm not sure of, but the second part is absolutely true. The manuscripts used in both translations are partly the same, and partly different, hence the differences in doctrine found in both of them. That's my point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:36:24 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3959
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
For those to whom it may concern: To answer the OP, here are a few "severities," if you will, that should be addressed.
4. Ever heard this passage before?
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."
Note that the words in bold have been omitted from the NIV. These words are not useless words. They own much meaning and context to the passage, yet for some reason are absent in the NIV.
CONCLUSION: There is your evidence. Study it, ponder it, and pray about it. IMO, the NIV isn't that great of a translation. Too many problematic contradictions/omissions for me.
How does this change the meaning? Matthew 6:9-15 NIV:
9.This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10.your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11. Give us today our daily bread.
12. Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
14. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
As far as meaning, the NIV is actually more clear, esp. verse 13. If your complaint is the modern English is less poetic than "Old" English, fine. But to argue that the NIV is less accurate as a translation is lost on me. I believe if you prayerfully study this in more depth, you will be less fearful about the NIV.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:37:12 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
every1needsgod,
Do yo have a copy of the original Greek and Hebrew autographs, written by the original authors themselves?
This is a silly question. Of course I don't! But I know what you point will be. I've heard it too many times, and frankly, I gag every time I hear it. It goes something like this:
"Well, since you don't know exactly what the original authros wrote, by this time there could be mistakes in any translation. So really you can't find truth in the Bible, you can only find truth from the Holy Spirit. So, just pick whatever Bible makes you feel good, read it, and "let the Holy Spirit guide you." You will be all right!"
But, if this is not the point you are leading to, and perhaps I jumped to conclusion, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:41:00 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
As far as meaning, the NIV is actually more clear, esp. verse 13. If your complaint is the modern English is less poetic than "Old" English, fine. But to argue that the NIV is less accurate as a translation is lost on me. I believe if you prayerfully study this in more depth, you will be less fearful about the NIV.
No, cow, I could care less about poetry. That's not my forte. What I care about is when one chooses to leave out a certain portion of a passage that has much meaning.
p.s. The NIV is not a translation I am fearful of. There are other translation that I HAVE grown fearful of over the years, but the NIV is not one of them. I actually own and read an NIV once in a while for cross-reference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:47:38 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3959
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
As far as meaning, the NIV is actually more clear, esp. verse 13. If your complaint is the modern English is less poetic than "Old" English, fine. But to argue that the NIV is less accurate as a translation is lost on me. I believe if you prayerfully study this in more depth, you will be less fearful about the NIV.
No, cow, I could care less about poetry. That's not my forte. What I care about is when one chooses to leave out a certain portion of a passage that has much meaning.
p.s. The NIV is not a translation I am fearful of. There are other translation that I HAVE grown fearful of over the years, but the NIV is not one of them. I actually own and read an NIV once in a while for cross-reference.
You did not address my question about how the Matthew 6:9-15 NIV is a problem for you.
The KJV is a translation, not the original, so what has made it the sacred text? Is a translation in Spanish not to be trusted because it isn't exactly like the KJV?
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 2:01:21 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
You did not address my question about how the Matthew 6:9-15 NIV is a problem for you.
My apologies. Well, how is leaving out the bold in Matt 6 NOT a problem for you? The bold preaches of our God dwelling in Heaven, His will being done NOT ONLY on earth but in heaven also (which is very philosophical, and that alone is a message any pastor could preach), and DELIVERANCE from evil temptations (because God can not tempt man)! Um, ya, this is a problem to me.
quote:
The KJV is a translation, not the original, so what has made it the sacred text? Is a translation in Spanish not to be trusted because it isn't exactly like the KJV?
Never did I state the KJV was the original. I know I clearly stated, more than once, that the KJV is a translation. Nor did I state the KJV was perfect, and I will not let this thread go there.
My only point throughout my posts is to show how multitudes of Scriptural translations is not necessarily a blessing. The OP asked for problems in the NIV, I provided only 7. I guess I'm sorry for answering the OP's question???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 3:22:27 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3959
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
You did not address my question about how the Matthew 6:9-15 NIV is a problem for you.
My apologies. Well, how is leaving out the bold in Matt 6 NOT a problem for you? The bold preaches of our God dwelling in Heaven, His will being done NOT ONLY on earth but in heaven also (which is very philosophical, and that alone is a message any pastor could preach), and DELIVERANCE from evil temptations (because God can not tempt man)! Um, ya, this is a problem to me.
KJV: Our Father which art in heaven
NIV Our Father in Heaven
Both convey the same meaning. The NIV makes the statement more actively.
KJV: Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
NIV: your will be done on earth as it is in heaven
Where is the difference???????????????
KJV: but deliver us from evil
NIV: but deliver us from the evil one (footnote: or evil)
How does deliver differ from deliver?????????????????????????????
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 3:34:43 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
My only point throughout my posts is to show how multitudes of Scriptural translations is not necessarily a blessing. The OP asked for problems in the NIV, I provided only 7. I guess I'm sorry for answering the OP's question???
no need to get so upset. This is just a discussion, no one is on a soapbox. I'm glad you finally posted some of your problems. I have to leave for work, I'll come back and answer them later.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 3:58:44 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
My only point throughout my posts is to show how multitudes of Scriptural translations is not necessarily a blessing. The OP asked for problems in the NIV, I provided only 7. I guess I'm sorry for answering the OP's question???
no need to get so upset. This is just a discussion, no one is on a soapbox. I'm glad you finally posted some of your problems. I have to leave for work, I'll come back and answer them later.
I'm not upset at all, I'm just a bit confused.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 4:19:06 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1657
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
But, if this is not the point you are leading to, and perhaps I jumped to conclusion, I apologize.
I am happy to report that you did jump to conclusions, for I would be equally put off by a statement similar to the one you presupposed me to make.
My point was, rather, that since we lack the original copies, there is no way to absolutely guarantee which manuscript is closest to the originals. Different translation styles will be governed by different theories and practices in regards to textual criticism. The NIV clearly uses a different philosophy of choosing which manuscripts it will use than, say, the KJV did. So, just because a version does not include certain disputable (and believe me, they would have to be very disputable to not be included) does not necessarily mean that version is inferior.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 4:32:55 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
But, if this is not the point you are leading to, and perhaps I jumped to conclusion, I apologize.
I am happy to report that you did jump to conclusions, for I would be equally put off by a statement similar to the one you presupposed me to make.
My point was, rather, that since we lack the original copies, there is no way to absolutely guarantee which manuscript is closest to the originals. Different translation styles will be governed by different theories and practices in regards to textual criticism. The NIV clearly uses a different philosophy of choosing which manuscripts it will use than, say, the KJV did. So, just because a version does not include certain disputable (and believe me, they would have to be very disputable to not be included) does not necessarily mean that version is inferior.
Ok, but it does mean that they contradict each other, correct??? This is precisely my point!
Yes, I may have my opinion about the NIV, and I may not prefer it to the KJV, but that is just my opinion. The OP's question was not "which Bible is the best?" its was "Are there things wrong with the NIV?" That is not word for word what the OP asked, but I took the liberty to paraphrase it. I do believe that was his question, so I provided a few examples. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 4:40:27 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1657
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ok, but it does mean that they contradict each other, correct??? This is precisely my point!
Then I misunderstood you, and apologize. Yes, there are contradictions. However, I believe most versions (at least, most popular versions) do not have contradictions serious enough to have any schisms over.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 7:29:28 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, I believe most versions (at least, most popular versions) do not have contradictions serious enough to have any schisms over.
Then we agree to disagree, which is fine with me!. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 7:50:47 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1657
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then we agree to disagree, which is fine with me!
Works for me, too. : )
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 7:52:35 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2911
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
My apologies. Well, how is leaving out the bold in Matt 6 NOT a problem for you? The bold preaches of our God dwelling in Heaven, His will being done NOT ONLY on earth but in heaven also (which is very philosophical, and that alone is a message any pastor could preach), and DELIVERANCE from evil temptations (because God can not tempt man)! Um, ya, this is a problem to me.
Just something for you to consider -
But what if the bolded sections you show aren't always in some of the older and more reliable manuscripts? I'd need to go back and check, but I believe that might be the case here. While the KJV text is longer, more theologically eloquent, and reads better, that's often an indicator that it's not necessarily the better translation of the original. Sounds wrong, but bear with me.
This is a rule of thumb fairly well followed in translations of older documents. As documents get copied over time, they have a habit of getting "explained" a bit via small additions and "cleaned up" to eliminate awkward phrasings. It sounds counterintuitive, but (all other things being equal) the current state of our research is that the shorter phrasing is to be preferred over the longer, and the more awkward over the less awkward.
The fact that certain omissions show up in the NIV shouldn't necessarily be understood as a problem - it's often the case of correcting a pre-existing problem in older translations.
Just an interesting possibility that I thought might be relevant here.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 8:49:02 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Ok, I think we are now actually getting to the heart of the OP's question. I would guess that the OP has run into some of the same websites/books/people as evry1needsgod.
evry1needsgod, if I may address a couple of things you said before I get to the issue of the specific problems:
quote:
quote:
As much as I detest the NIV as a translation (I prefer my NASB), I also dislike blind attacking of something with out all the facts.
Are you accusing me of something? There was no blind attacking on my part, if that is what you insinuated.
quote:
The fact is this. I have studied the issue, and I do not count it a blessing to have all of the versions we possess. I just don't!
The reference to "blind attacking of something without all the facts" comes from the fact that your list of problems comes straight from KJVO websites - not that you copied them from there, but, those are the exact claims they make. You said you have studied the issue, but how have you studied? By reading KJVO websites and KJVO books? Or, have you checked other, non-KJVO resources?
If all you have done to study the issue, is read the KJVO resources, I'm sorry but you don't have all the facts. I'm sad to say those resources are not accurate. This is not opinion, this is fact. I don't like to accuse people of lying, because in some cases it might just be a matter of misinformation. But, some of what is reported by the KJVO resources has to be deliberately lies. And, as you said, truth is truth.
For an example, and it is an important one, some KJVO sites will tell you that the Septuagint did not exist until Origen created it in the 2nd or 3rd century AD (I don't recall right now which). But this is not true, there are manuscripts which date back to the 1st century BC.
Another example is the claims made against Mr. Wescott and Mr. Hort. In her books, Gail Riplinger provides a number of quotes supposedly made by them which indicate that they were closet Catholics and into spiritism, etc. She probably knows that their writings are now very hard to get access to. Those quotes have been manipulated and mangled and do not say what Wescott and Hort actually said. I've seen it documented.
As you say, truth is truth. And, it seems to me if something is the truth, it doesn't need lies to support it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 10:12:50 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
1. In the NIV, look up these passages. Tell me if they exists. If thet do not, tell me why.
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
Luke 17:36; 23:17;
John 5:4.
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7.
Ok, as you already know, this is a matter of manuscript evidence. You said:
quote:
Yes, the NIV uses entirely different manuscripts, and is therefor entirely different than some other translations.
Not so. The NIV uses the same manuscripts, PLUS, a lot more. The KJV translators could only examine the evidence provided by 1,000 manuscripts, 2,000 at the very most. The United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland committees both made critical texts - Greek New Testament texts which include the manuscript evidence found in ALL of the existing known manuscripts - which total over 5,000.
The KJV translators used EVERY resource available to them, the critical texts edited by Erasmus, Stevens, and Beza, plus a totally different critical text known as the Complutensian Polyglot. They also examined every other language translation available to them. From what they have written, I think they would also use the critical texts (USB and NA) that we have available today. I do know this, the KJV originally had margin notes, some of which indicated other possible readings, and I beleive some of these verses listed were marked.
quote:
2. Isaiah 9:3 "You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy" NIV "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy" KJV
This shows a COMPLETE opposite thought and contradiction placing this in the "sever" category.
Actually the complete oppositie thought is found in the KJV - which says "not increased the joy", and then goes on in the very same verse to describe times of increased joy!
There is a simple explanation for this. The Massoretes who copied the OT scriptures had a great deal of respect for the word of God. If a copied manuscript had too many copyist errors, it would be destroyed, but, if it had only a few, the copyist would make notations. No copyist wanted to be accused of changing the word of God, so, in the margin they would put the Hebrew word for "read" with the needed correction. I beleive there would be a symbol in the text indicating "write" or "written". Later copyists were to go ahead and write the "written" word in the text and put the "read" correct word in the margin. Those who read the scripture aloud in the Synagogues would read the word that was in the margin, not in the text.
In this instance, the KJV translates the "written" word, the NIV translates the "read" word. There are a few existent manuscripts that have the correct word in the text, as well as the Syriac OT translation. Also the ancient Jewish commentaries support the "read" word. As you say, truth is truth, no matter what Bible you read. It is pretty clear that the NIV has the correct reading here.
quote:
3. In the NIV, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely left out in 1 John 5.
"7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." NIV
However, the KJV states "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Now, for some odd reason the authors of the NIV chose to leave out this extremely significant phrase, and I'd like to know why. I could take the NIV and preach against the Trinity. This is quite severe IMHO.
Since you say you'd like to know why, you evidently haven't researched this one.
Simple truth: that verse is not found in the extreme majority of the manuscripts. It is found in only 8 Greek manuscripts, and 4 of those are only in the margin. Of the other 4, two of them were manuscripts that were made in the 16th century AFTER Erasmus came out with his first Greek New Testament edition without the verse. It does show up in some later manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, the earliest being from the 8th century.
None of the earliest Christian writers quote it either; some interpret the "Spirit, the water, and the blood" to be referring to the Trinity.
If you interpret this verse to be a doctrinal statement concerning the Trinity, it is a complete change of subject from the surrounding verses. The context is testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. According to Jewish law, Jesus could not testify concerning Himself (He even said so in John). But, the Spirit, the water, and the blood CAN testify as can God Himself as John goes on to explain in verse 9.
Now, an interesting fact about this is that the very first "quote" of this verse is found in the writings of a heretic, one who beleived that there was a distinction between Jesus and "the Word", that they were not one and the same person. If that heretic was right, the Word could testify concerning Jesus, but we know that that heretic was not right.
quote:
I could take the NIV and preach against the Trinity. This is quite severe IMHO.
You could not. Every other verse in scripture that is used to teach the Trinity, and the church Fathers did it for centuries before this verse appeared in any manuscript, is found in the NIV. It DOES teach about the Trinity.
Oops, my time is up and I need to go walk the dog. I'll be back to exlpain about the other "contradictions".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 10:33:51 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
I know this may seem as a cop-out to most here, but I promise you this is genuine. I leave for college at 4 in the morning tomorrow, and I will most likely be absent from this site for quite some time. All comments from this point forward I will most likely not reply to. It is not because I don't have answers, it is simply I don't have time or access. I apologize to have to leave all here hanging, but I have no choice. I will address a couple comments, and then I must leave. Again, I apologize. Thank you all, in advance, for this heart felt discussion.
quote:
But what if the bolded sections you show aren't always in some of the older and more reliable manuscripts?
Note the bold. This is BAD. Who says that what is older is more reliable??? This is the greatest pitfall people make. They assume that since they found a manuscript older than the one they had before, the original is "more perfect." This is completely false. Why?
1. Aging. The resources and utilities available to the writers/translators 2000 years ago were crude and at the least insufficient. They could not guarantee the preservation of a document over 2000 years. Let's say I find manuscript X, which dates almost 2000 years ago, using this same logic, I would assume they are more perfect than manuscript Y that had been found, say, 200 years later. Now, with this same logic, I will assume that all the additions in manuscript Y are false, because they are not found in manuscript X.
This is dangerous, because manuscript X had 200 years in which it could have aged, losing parts of it that provide truth. Whereas manuscript Y, found 200 years after manuscript X, was a copy of manuscript X, and includes those lost words/phrases/verses/chapters that were found absent in manuscript X.
Conclusion: It is faulty to assume an older manuscript is more perfect and more conclusive. It is often just the opposite.
2. When men copied manuscripts long ago, they often destroyed what they had copied from. Why? For the exact reason as stated above. They knew the consequences of one finding a partial manuscript. So they copied, then destroyed the original. In many cases, they were partially destroyed, leaving only partials of the original. When found, one may assume that the "partial" is not partial, it is really whole. They then assume, by your logic, that the copy of the original found years later added what the author of the original did not intend. But in reality, the newer, copied manuscript is truly whole, and the original is partial. Do not assume that a manuscript with an older date grants it the right of "more perfect." This simply is not true.
phyl2:
I sense a bit of a harsh knack (if you will) in you towards those who believe the KJV is perfect. That is ok, as long as you do not let that bias prevent you from learning truth. I am not saying that the KJVO crowd holds truth, I am simply warning you. I wish I could reply to a few or your comments, but the mods here are pretty strict on this subject, and will barely let the words KJVO be uttered with out shutting down the thread.
Of course you don't believe the KJVO crowd holds facts, because that is not what you believe. But others believe the entire opposite, and would sit here in a heart beat and tell you you don't hold facts either. Please don't let yourself become like that. We all have our beliefs. You can't prove to me that the KJV is imperfect any more than I can prove to you that it is. That's why it's a belief. You believe the NIV is a good translation, I don't, and we have reasons for those beliefs. Try not to claim one side has the facts over the other. Have YOU truly studied the issue? Have YOU read resources from every side? Yes, I have, and I have drawn my conclusions on this studying. I hope and pray the same goes for you.
And with that, I retire. Thanks for the debate! I'll be back eventually.
In Christ,
ZG
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/28/2008 12:10:06 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
5. How about this passage?
Matthew 26:35 "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, THEY PARTED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS."
Note again the words in bold are completely absent in the NIV. The words in bold, hoever, are quite significant, as they fulfill the prophesy found in Psalm 22:18. VERY SIGNIFICANT!
Matthew 26:35 doesn't read that in the KJV either. It reads:
quote:
Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.
The passage you are discussing is Matthew 27.
BTW, the words in bold are NOT "completely absent in the NIV". They are in the footnotes in Matthew, and they are found in John 19!
If you would check the critical text you would find out that the vast majority of manuscripts do NOT have this verse in Matthew, only maybe a dozen later ones do. In the John 19 passage, all the manuscripts have the reading.
This is a very common copyist error, especially found in the gospels, where one will include matierial from a very similar passage found in one of the other gospels. I did the same thing when I took a class on the writings of C S Lewis. He had themes which appeared in a number of his books, and when quoting him in my papers, I would often accidentally add something from another passage in one of his other books that spoke to the same theme.
Ooops, I missed one:
4. Ever heard this passage before?
quote:
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."
Note that the words in bold have been omitted from the NIV. These words are not useless words. They own much meaning and context to the passage, yet for some reason are absent in the NIV.
You didn't say which passage, but my guess is it's the Luke passage. If I remember correctly that is where the "short version" is found.
As I recall from researching it before, Jesus was speaking to a different group in Matthew from the one in Luke.
Again, there is good manuscript evidence for the passage in Luke to be different than the passage in Mark.
quote:
6. Who killed Goliath? I think everyone here can say with a resounding "David!" Well, not according to the NIV.
2 Samuel 21:19 "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. "
Yet, just before this in 1 Samuel 21:8-9 it says
"8David asked Ahimelech, Don't you have a spear or a sword here? I haven't brought my sword | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
