What Is Wrong With The NIV Bible ?

[JoJo]

hmm

wouldnt it best that we all just learn greek and hebrew then? and aramaic.

Jason, I once had a neighbor -- kind of a reclusive guy who would come and talk to me on my porch sometimes -- who spent most of his time studying Hebrew texts. He was Jewish & Christian. Anyway, he asked me what Bible version I used and I told him NIV. And he said, "Good. That's the closest you'll get in the English language."

 

[ronniechoate34]

hmm

wouldnt it best that we all just learn greek and hebrew then? and aramaic.

after we could go back all look at the intent. But i think we still would find differing interpretations of the intent in some areas. Thus in a sense bringing us back to the same old arguement which one is best and the closest interpration.

You do know this isn't about the KJ Bible vs other translations, right? Did you look at the video link that RND posted?

 

[jasoncran]

i know that, but we are arguing over the niv. Some has said that it's bad and other its ok.
i said that in jest and some truth as we have our bias and understand of things that we want to believe as well.

The ancient Greek and Hebrew cultures are dead. So in a sense we have to take that into consideration as were a removed from that time when we translate.

for example when the car dies out and 1000 yrs pass and archeologists are going over words and literatures they will know what the car is and what it does, but the cultrure that created and was created by it. They will only know what the books say. That will be a limited view. This holds true with some things in the bible.

It doesnt mean the bible is errant, just that audience isnt the same agragrian peoples. Principals are most important. It also will allow such deviations in translations as we english speakers dont have some of the words that the greek and hebrew have. They are cousins toungues to each other and a distance relative(very distance) to english.

 

[ronniechoate34]

i know that, but we are arguing over the niv. Some has said that it's bad and other its ok.
i said that in jest and some truth as we have our bias and understand of things that we want to believe as well.

The ancient Greek and Hebrew cultures are dead. So in a sense we have to take that into consideration as were a removed from that time when we translate.

for example when the car dies out and 1000 yrs pass and archeologists are going over words and literatures they will know what the car is and what it does, but the cultrure that created and was created by it. They will only know what the books say. That will be a limited view. This holds true with some things in the bible.

It doesnt mean the bible is errant, just that audience isnt the same agragrian peoples. Principals are most important. It also will allow such deviations in translations as we english speakers dont have some of the words that the greek and hebrew have. They are cousins toungues to each other and a distance relative(very distance) to english.

Did you watch the video?

 

[jasoncran]

no. i dont use the niv. if you ever have the chance read the bible is spanish or any romantic language. Interesting things that you might see. The name of the book revalation in spanish is apokolypsos. Which is what the Greek word for it in the original writings.

 

[ronniechoate34]

no. i dont use the niv. if you ever has the chance read the bible is spanish or any romantic language. Interesting things that you might see. The name of the book revalation in spanish is apokolypsos. Which is what the Greek word for in the original writings.

The video isn't about the niv. It's about where we get all of the different types of bibles.

 

[jasoncran]

My point still holds then we are still looking at dead cultures.

The english of the King James Bible isnt spoken anymore. Do you in conversation use albiet, viz, the word perchance? Or call someone mean froward? Or the empoyees slaves, or bondserveants.No, some people arent able to grasp that any lets be fair why should they. When in modern english the words for perchance is the same as maybe, albiet is rarely used.

English is elvoving, not static.

I will look at video, but perhaps since you like the kjv only then you should request that the English being taught in schools revert back to the old 1500 english. We americans broke away from the type of dialect the brits used as we americans won the revolutary war and kept the older toungue longer then the Brits did!
Interesting thing that i learned when i listened to a linguist explain the basic pheonomes of the english language and all languages.

IF we all flock to the old english then will by habit use the kjv only.

 

[ronniechoate34]

The KJ Version isn't really so hard to understand. The words are simple and a dictionary is available.


At one time I didn't grasp a majority of it but I see it through new eyes with the Holy Ghost to help me see.


Please do look at the video and see what you decide for yourself. I'd like to know what say you once you have heard this lecture.

 

[jasoncran]

For some it is, I have a gift for languages. I had the help from the holy spirit.

Another thing to point out is the fact while bicker which version is the proper , fellow believers dont even a full bible or verse to read. They hunger for the whole thing.

 

[Free]

Ahh, Vic beat me to the punch while I was in another topic.

"Lucifer" is a Latin term carried over from the Vulgate, that means "light-bearing" (both Strong's and Merriam-Webster are in agreement on this). This "morning light-bearer" is Venus and is a metaphor for the king in that passage. It is significant that Isa. 14:12 is the only place in all of Scripture that the word Lucifer is used, at least as a noun.

For further proof that the NIV's use of "morning star" in Isa. 14:12 is perfectly fine--instead of the KJV's use of the Latin "Lucifer"--I add this verse:

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (KJV)

 

[Steve]

I could never warm to the NIV Bible at all. Its preface states it was trying to create something other than a 'word-for-word' translation' ergo, Dynamic Equivalence. DE is translating what a verse MEANS, not what it SAYS. Therefore, you are mixing the words of men with the words of God. I believe that the words of God should be translated exactly as they are (putting them in a comprehensible English sentence). The Formal Equivalent manner is the only way to translate God's Words. Even the NASBU(1995) omits large amounts of conjunctions, as compared to the NASB(1977). The manuscripts, whether it be the Eclectic texts, or the Textus Receptus, or the Majority Text, agree 98% So, the textual variations 'should not' be a stumbling block. Of the major modern translations, I find the ESV to be very well done, as well as the HCSB, whose second edition will be out in 2010. The NIV text (1984) is in the process of being revised, the new text being released in 2011(400th anniversary of the KJV). The new NIV is being based on the TNIV, which will no longer be published. The TNIV, IMHO, was an inferior piece of work, due to the inclusive language nonsense. It never sold well, except among egalitarians and other assorted liberals. For me, and I think many others would agree, the 'safe' translations would be: KJV(archaic language problems); NKJV(translated 100% from the Textus Receptus, and is an improvement of the KJV); ESV (a 7% change of the 1971 RSV in a more orthodox direction); NASBU, HCSB. As to the dwindling number of KJVOnlyites, feel free to believe as you wish, but, don't IMPOSE it upon others. There are generationS of people who can no longer understand the English of the KJV, beautiful though it may be.

 

[Free]

I could never warm to the NIV Bible at all. Its preface states it was trying to create something other than a 'word-for-word' translation' ergo, Dynamic Equivalence. DE is translating what a verse MEANS, not what it SAYS. Therefore, you are mixing the words of men with the words of God. I believe that the words of God should be translated exactly as they are (putting them in a comprehensible English sentence).

I agree with most of your post but just have some comments about this portion. When translating from one language to another, there will always be things lost since no language can be translated word-for-word and maintain complete coherence, grammar, sentence structure, etc. This is why DE can, at least some of the time, be more accurate than a FE translation, since it is getting the ideas across which could otherwise be lost. Also, since there are variants between texts and many/most Greek and Hebrew words have more than one meaning, translators must decide which words to use and how the translation should read. So no matter which translation one uses, there are always the words of men used.

 

[Lewis]

I could never warm to the NIV Bible at all. Its preface states it was trying to create something other than a 'word-for-word' translation' ergo, Dynamic Equivalence. DE is translating what a verse MEANS, not what it SAYS. Therefore, you are mixing the words of men with the words of God. I believe that the words of God should be translated exactly as they are (putting them in a comprehensible English sentence). The Formal Equivalent manner is the only way to translate God's Words. Even the NASBU(1995) omits large amounts of conjunctions, as compared to the NASB(1977). The manuscripts, whether it be the Eclectic texts, or the Textus Receptus, or the Majority Text, agree 98% So, the textual variations 'should not' be a stumbling block. Of the major modern translations, I find the ESV to be very well done, as well as the HCSB, whose second edition will be out in 2010. The NIV text (1984) is in the process of being revised, the new text being released in 2011(400th anniversary of the KJV). The new NIV is being based on the TNIV, which will no longer be published. The TNIV, IMHO, was an inferior piece of work, due to the inclusive language nonsense. It never sold well, except among egalitarians and other assorted liberals. For me, and I think many others would agree, the 'safe' translations would be: KJV(archaic language problems); NKJV(translated 100% from the Textus Receptus, and is an improvement of the KJV); ESV (a 7% change of the 1971 RSV in a more orthodox direction); NASBU, HCSB. As to the dwindling number of KJVOnlyites, feel free to believe as you wish, but, don't IMPOSE it upon others. There are generationS of people who can no longer understand the English of the KJV, beautiful though it may be.

Great post dude.