THE NIV EXPOSED

[karuna]

Re: To Karuna

Should we consider the influence a translation has on it's readers and use the same standards for translators?

This is an open question because I am undecided. What do you think?

I would say that if the translation is so flawed that it will have a negative influence on its readers, then this should be evident from a comparison with better translations. We can still judge a translation (which is the real issue, isn't it?) if we know nothing about the translator.

In fact, this is what kyng seemed to set out to do. I just think his approach faltered after a certain point because he overzealously sought reasons to discount the NIV.

 

[Slepsog4]

The NIV is not a real Bible (IMO); it is a line for line commentary; it has been called a scientific paraphrase; it does not merely translate words; it tends toward interpretation many times; it shows little respect for the grammar of the original text.

 

[kyng_james]

amen kyng,
douay rheims latin vulgate is reported to be the original ancient texts of hebrew aramaic and greek into latin then english around the same time as KJV. When i first got saved and immersed myself in reading His Word i ended up with i think it was seven or eight different translations of the bible, man i got upset with God, i screamed "you promised me no confusion and now this is confusing me, what is it with all these versions, all slightly different in the style of laungauge, some verses are different all together,( eg 23rd ps is the 22nd in the DRV), Holy Spirit said "have a look at the "first published in dates" and that in itself was a lesson in christian history, took me way back to 342ad(i think it was)to the texts being written into latin....

blessings

That is right! God would not give us different versions because the KJV does not agree with the NIV, and the Bible did say "God is not an authour of confusion."

 

[superdave5221]

Re: To Karuna

I would say that if the translation is so flawed that it will have a negative influence on its readers, then this should be evident from a comparison with better translations. We can still judge a translation (which is the real issue, isn't it?) if we know nothing about the translator.

In fact, this is what kyng seemed to set out to do. I just think his approach faltered after a certain point because he overzealously sought reasons to discount the NIV.

I think you wrote hastily, and didn't really mean what you said. It might be possible that you are so biblically literate, that you could immediately tell a bad translation from a good one. But that certainly could not be said for most people in general. There is much to be said for the influence of the Holy Spirit, Who is there to guide us in our search. But for the vast majority of spiritually immature, (most of whom don't speak Greek), and for those who are seeking, that it is a fact of life that they are dependent on bible scholars who are better educated, more knowledgable, and hopefully, more spiritually mature, to determine the better translation. I would certainly want to know something about these men's qualifications, abilities, and spirituality, before trusting them with a correct interpretation of God's word.

I would hope that there is a certain providential Will, which guides God fearing men, in areas of interpretation that are questionable. Can this be said of someone who is not even leading the life that an elder in a local congregation is expected to live? Can you say that a gay person can be just as good an elder in a local church, as one who meets Paul's requirements, just because the elders are also sinners?

 

[Slepsog4]

Superdave,

You have several assumptions.

1. The older manuscripts were necessarily better
2. That the scholarship of the newer versions is somehow better than the scholarship of the KJV translators
3. That textual criticism is unbiased

I am not a KJV only person by any means; but one must be careful on both sides.

 

[Cako53]

YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. IF HE ALREADY DID, WOULD HE NOT TRANSLATE IT INTO OUR LANGUAGE PERFECTLY AND I BELIEVE THAT A PERFECT GOD WOULD PERFECTLY TRANSLATE IT. AND TO SUPPORT YOUR ACCUSATION AGAINST THE KJV WHAT RESOURCE ARE YOU GETTING THAT FROM? AND WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU USING IF YOU ARE NOT USING THE KJV?
WE SHOULD NOT BE CORRECTING GODS WORD BUT LETTING HIS WORD CORRECT US.

It was human translated. That was from the KJV, and it was a simple punctuation error that anyone with an education could see. I'm not correcting God's words, I'm simply saying that the KJV is not perfect. Saying that it is, is simply pleading stupid. It's been shown where the errors are, if you ignore them, then that is simply ignorance kicking in.

 

[kyng_james]

It was human translated. That was from the KJV, and it was a simple punctuation error that anyone with an education could see. I'm not correcting God's words, I'm simply saying that the KJV is not perfect. Saying that it is, is simply pleading stupid. It's been shown where the errors are, if you ignore them, then that is simply ignorance kicking in.

You did not prove errors in the King James Version. I asked you where is your resource? and where are you getting this information from? Yes that is correcting God's Word whether you know it or not. It sounds more of a New King James you are using, which is also corrupted.

 

[machew]

Have we got any Manuscript experts on here? Hebrew and Greek experts? or should I say have you's read anything from experts on these matter from eperts? I was summize not. Only a 'King James only' team mate write something like that above consumed.

Yes we all know Jerome wrote the D-R and it is still looked at even by modern translations. However, you are postulating a Roman Catholic ideology. The Roman Catholics brought the D-R out in an English translation because of the widespread reformation and especially the stronghold it was taking in England. The English translation of the D-R (douay rheims latin vulgate) was completed in around 1609 the new testament being completed a few years before. So can you tell me that this did not have an anti reform slant????



I will give you an example of how translators work:

Good translators, therefore, take the problem of our language differences into consideration. But it is not an easy task. Romans 13:14, for example, shall we translate "flesh" (as in KJV,NRSV,NASU,ESV, etv) because that is the word Paul used, and then leave it to an interpreter to tell us that "flesh" here does not mean "body"? Or shall we "help" the reader and translate "sinful nature" (as in NIV,GNB,NLT, etc) or "disordered natural inclination" (NJB) because these more closely approximate what Paul's word really means?

word for word does not always work.. because of language differences an example below: 1 Cor 7:36

KJV: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin

NIV: If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to


Which one tells the reader what is actually being said.. check the greek out if you want to it is obvious it is not the KJV.

Ok another example: 1 Cor 6:20 (this is especially for you consumed)

KJV: For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

NIV: you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

I can hear the King James only can spitting through their teeth already, How dare those devil worshippers change the only perfect scripture as in 1 cor 6:20. But, hold on! This example was chosen to illustrate that, on occasion, changes to the original text where made by copyists for theological reasons.

The words " and in your Spirit, which are God's" though found in most of the late medieval Greek manuscripts, do not appear in any early Greek evidence or in the Latin - speaking church in the west. Had they been in Paul's original letter, it is nearly impossible to explain how/why they would have been left out so early and so often!

But their late appearance in Greek manuscripts can be easily explained. all manuscripts of the time where copied by hand in monastaries by monks in a time when Greek philosophy, with its low view of the body, had made inroads into Christian Theology, So some Monks added "in your spirit" and then concluded that both body and spirit are God's. While this is true, these additional words deflect Paul's obvious concern with the body in this passage and are thus no part of the Spirit's inspiration of the apostle.

The King James problem is they never had the early texts. and when King James onliests say there are pieces of the bible being removed, well that is very true for they should never have been there in the first place.

What the King James onliest's forget to tell you or don't know, is that the translators of the original King James only had late medieval copy's of the Greek text... I'll say that again, the translators of the Original King James only had late medieval copy's of the Greek text which had accumulated over a thousand years of copyists mistakes. Few of these mistakes - and we must note that there are many of them, make any difference to us doctrinally..But they often make a difference in the meaning of certain texts.

Taken from "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" G D Fee and Douglas Stuart. (Bible translators.)

I will say again I have a King James, infact more than one, But I would certainly not give one to a friend, and I don't really use that much, I like checking with a few translations on verse, which can be done online at biblegateway a lot quicker.

Phil

Very good post Phil. Thanks for taking the time to write it!

Blessings,

Machew

 

[superdave5221]

Superdave,

You have several assumptions.

1. The older manuscripts were necessarily better
2. That the scholarship of the newer versions is somehow better than the scholarship of the KJV translators
3. That textual criticism is unbiased

I am not a KJV only person by any means; but one must be careful on both sides.

These are not assumptions. They are time tested and proved. Textual criticism is accepted by all reputable scholars, of all persuations. Therefore, where is the bias?

 

[Cako53]

You did not prove errors in the King James Version. I asked you where is your resource? and where are you getting this information from? Yes that is correcting God's Word whether you know it or not. It sounds more of a New King James you are using, which is also corrupted.

I just did up in my previous posts. I am getting my information from a vast variety of reliable sources, one of those being biblestudy.org.

Okay, if you say that I am correcting God's Word, then by you saying that the NIV is corrupted and so is the NKJV, that would also be "correcting" or "diminshing" God's word. God never said that the KJV is the only english translation to read, all others are corrupted. If you could lead me to that verse, I would be in shock. This is simply human ignorance that leads people to believe that all other versions of the bible are corrupt.

 

[karuna]

Re: To Karuna

I think you wrote hastily, and didn't really mean what you said.

It's what I've been saying for a while now.

It might be possible that you are so biblically literate, that you could immediately tell a bad translation from a good one.

I haven't insisted on immediacy. A believer should be willing to spend the requisite amount of time seeking God's will for his life, which includes not only prayer but also study of the sources. I have not insisted that anyone be able to simply flip through a Bible and judge it, so I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that this needed to be refuted.

Maybe you made it up as a strawman?

Let me turn it back around on you: It might be possible that you are so insightful that you could immediately tell a bad man from a godly one, but I doubt it. In any case, people in general can't use a translator's personal qualifications.

But that certainly could not be said for most people in general. There is much to be said for the influence of the Holy Spirit, Who is there to guide us in our search. But for the vast majority of spiritually immature, (most of whom don't speak Greek), and for those who are seeking, that it is a fact of life that they are dependent on bible scholars who are better educated, more knowledgable, and hopefully, more spiritually mature, to determine the better translation. I would certainly want to know something about these men's qualifications, abilities, and spirituality, before trusting them with a correct interpretation of God's word.

So the same people who can't tell Bibles apart are fit to judge dead men? I'm unconvinced.

Can this be said of someone who is not even leading the life that an elder in a local congregation is expected to live?

Yes, and it often has been. God can use whomever he chooses. Hosea was commanded to take Gomer as a wife. Balaam's donkey, who I imagine would have made a poor elder, delivered the message.

Do you think translators win the ability to be mouthpieces for God because of their righteousness? No, it is out of his pleasure that they're able to convey the message.

Can you say that a gay person can be just as good an elder in a local church, as one who meets Paul's requirements, just because the elders are also sinners?

I'm sorry that your quotation doesn't seem to be hitting the mark, but again, God can use for good what men have intended for evil and often has. I'm not the one to tell him he can only use pure translators.

 

[kyng_james]

I just did up in my previous posts. I am getting my information from a vast variety of reliable sources, one of those being biblestudy.org.

Okay, if you say that I am correcting God's Word, then by you saying that the NIV is corrupted and so is the NKJV, that would also be "correcting" or "diminshing" God's word. God never said that the KJV is the only english translation to read, all others are corrupted. If you could lead me to that verse, I would be in shock. This is simply human ignorance that leads people to believe that all other versions of the bible are corrupt.

You just don t understand. This is serious, cako. We are on the topic of the NIV omitting verses that should be in the Bible. Look into your NIV and you will not see the verses that are "posted". To say the NIV or the NKJV is God's Word is proposterous and should not be said. I already proven my fact, its all over this forum. End of argument.

 

[kyng_james]

WILL SOMEONE TELL ME WHY ARE THE VERSES NOT THERE? TELL ME PLEASE. I'M AGAINST THE NIV BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THE TRINITY, IT TAKES AWAY SALVATION IN JESUS CHRIST, IT TAKES AWAY GOD'S WORD. A REAL NIV READER PLEASE EXPLAIN.

 

[kyng_james]

BY THE WAY YOU ARE SPEAKING TO AN EX-NIV READER.

 

[karuna]

From the NIV, John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Do you receive salvation in some other way?

 

[kyng_james]

From the NIV, John 3:16:



Do you receive salvation in some other way?

I am not saved because I only read the KJV? wow.

 

[kyng_james]

?

Yes, I am saved. But we are on a topic here? Why are people going out of topic?

 

[superdave5221]

Re: To Karuna

It's what I've been saying for a while now.



I haven't insisted on immediacy. A believer should be willing to spend the requisite amount of time seeking God's will for his life, which includes not only prayer but also study of the sources. I have not insisted that anyone be able to simply flip through a Bible and judge it, so I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that this needed to be refuted.

Unless you can read the ancient Greek, and interpret it exegetically, which I doubt, then you are dependent on Greek and Biblical scholars to determine what is good or bad.

Maybe you made it up as a strawman?

Are you trying to be argumentative or cute?

Let me turn it back around on you: It might be possible that you are so insightful that you could immediately tell a bad man from a godly one, but I doubt it. In any case, people in general can't use a translator's personal qualifications.

Matthew 7: 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

Jesus said that you could tell a bad man from a godly one. Paul evidently thought so, or else why the qualifications set forth in Timothy if they could not be ascertained?


So the same people who can't tell Bibles apart are fit to judge dead men? I'm unconvinced.

Anyone can judge. The question is whether it is a righteous judgement. We are expected to judge those in the kingdom, (1 Corithians 5), and our ability to judge is based on our godly nature.


Yes, and it often has been. God can use whomever he chooses. Hosea was commanded to take Gomer as a wife. Balaam's donkey, who I imagine would have made a poor elder, delivered the message.

God often uses evil and secular people to judge temporally. He NEVER uses such people to spread the Gospel! See Acts 16: 16-19 for an example.

Do you think translators win the ability to be mouthpieces for God because of their righteousness? No, it is out of his pleasure that they're able to convey the message.

Correct. God chooses whom He may. More often than not, He chooses those that not only speak His Word, but apply it to their life.

I'm sorry that your quotation doesn't seem to be hitting the mark, but again, God can use for good what men have intended for evil and often has. I'm not the one to tell him he can only use pure translators.

I think that it IS hitting the mark. And that is why you choose to ignore it.

 

[Cako53]

You just don t understand. This is serious, cako. We are on the topic of the NIV omitting verses that should be in the Bible. Look into your NIV and you will not see the verses that are "posted". To say the NIV or the NKJV is God's Word is proposterous and should not be said. I already proven my fact, its all over this forum. End of argument.

I am being equally serious. Don't tell me I don't understand. Just because you have not convinced me, along with MANY others, doesn't mean that I "don't understand". You have not proven your fact, don't say you have, cause you obviously have not. You are saying that the KJV is "perfect". If it is perfect, then why are there errors? It is neither here nor there if the NIV "leaves out verses", if the KJV has errors, they are equally "wrong".

 

[Cako53]

BY THE WAY YOU ARE SPEAKING TO AN EX-NIV READER.

No offence, but what does that have to do with anything? Someone could be an ex-Christian, does that make Christianity wrong now?