D
Dave Slayer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
minnesota said:
I agree. I standard needs to be established. However, I would like to stick to the NIV if at all possible. Thanks and God Bless!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
I agree. I standard needs to be established. However, I would like to stick to the NIV if at all possible. Thanks and God Bless!
I took the time to look up a few of these verses in my NIV Bible:
Matthew 12:47 is in my NIV version (footnotes say, "some manuscripts do not have verse 47)
Matthew 17:21 is in my NIV version's footnotes "but this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting"
Matthew 18:11 is in my NIV version's footnotes "The Son of Man came to save what was lost."
Matthew 21:44 is in my NIV version; the footnotes say, "some manuscripts do not have verse 44."
Matthew 23:14 is in my NIV version's footnotes, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely."
Mark 7:16 is in my NIV version's footnotes, "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."
Mark 9:44 is in my NIV version's footnotes
Mark 9:46 is in my NIV version's footnotes
Well...I could go on. I use the "Mom's Devotional Bible New International Version", Zondervan Publishing House, (c) 1996 by The Zondervan Corporation (The Holy Bible, New International Version (r) Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society). In the front is a very lengthy Preface explaining who, what, when, where, why and how the translation was made. I have read the Preface twice and was personally satisfied with its explanations.
For those interested, here is a copy of the Preface:
http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/background.php
Matthew 12:47 is in my NIV version (footnotes say, "some manuscripts do not have verse 47)
Matthew 17:21 is in my NIV version's footnotes "but this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting"
Matthew 18:11 is in my NIV version's footnotes "The Son of Man came to save what was lost."
Matthew 21:44 is in my NIV version; the footnotes say, "some manuscripts do not have verse 44."
Matthew 23:14 is in my NIV version's footnotes, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely."
Mark 7:16 is in my NIV version's footnotes, "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."
Mark 9:44 is in my NIV version's footnotes
Mark 9:46 is in my NIV version's footnotes
Well...I could go on. I use the "Mom's Devotional Bible New International Version", Zondervan Publishing House, (c) 1996 by The Zondervan Corporation (The Holy Bible, New International Version (r) Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society). In the front is a very lengthy Preface explaining who, what, when, where, why and how the translation was made. I have read the Preface twice and was personally satisfied with its explanations.
For those interested, here is a copy of the Preface:
http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/background.php
Sorry, Dave, I missed the end of your post.
My NIV versions has 1 John 5:7 in the footnotes as, "7,8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate 'testify in heaven; the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the' (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)"
n2thelight
Member
- Jun 27, 2007
- 2,534
- 33
Hello, many may find the information in this study shocking, and shocking it is, however it is the truth and we must understand it. It is shocking that the facts and evidence herein are very real, and it is saddening that the situation has been allowed to come to pass. But the worst thing of all is that most Christians are totally unaware of the danger facing them, and it seems that nobody is willing to talk about it. May we broach the subject now with you now?
Those, whom we as God's children have trusted throughout the centuries to safeguard the Sacred Biblical Texts have in fact betrayed God and us by slipping corruptions into the manuscripts that all the newer Bible versions were translated from; newer meaning those after the original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) , and then those who didn't know any better passed them along as being good and sound Scripture. Thank God that He has preserved His Word in the King James Version Bible which has been read, studied, and trusted for four-hundred years. If you study from or quote Scripture from any of the newer Bible versions, including the: New King James Bible (NKJV), or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible (the Newest blasphemy on the market)...., then this study is a "must read" for you! And once you find out the whole ugly truth, what will you then do?
Please read the study here
http://www.biblestudysite.com/adulter.htm
Those, whom we as God's children have trusted throughout the centuries to safeguard the Sacred Biblical Texts have in fact betrayed God and us by slipping corruptions into the manuscripts that all the newer Bible versions were translated from; newer meaning those after the original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) , and then those who didn't know any better passed them along as being good and sound Scripture. Thank God that He has preserved His Word in the King James Version Bible which has been read, studied, and trusted for four-hundred years. If you study from or quote Scripture from any of the newer Bible versions, including the: New King James Bible (NKJV), or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible (the Newest blasphemy on the market)...., then this study is a "must read" for you! And once you find out the whole ugly truth, what will you then do?
Please read the study here
http://www.biblestudysite.com/adulter.htm
R
Rocksolid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #25
No translation is perfect. But, the NIV is not corrupt. It's one of the better choices for the average Christian.
Most newer translations leave out some verses that are in the KJV. This is because the translators doubt that those verses were part of the original text. The exclusion of these verses doesn't promote any bad doctrine nor remove any good doctrine.
Most newer translations leave out some verses that are in the KJV. This is because the translators doubt that those verses were part of the original text. The exclusion of these verses doesn't promote any bad doctrine nor remove any good doctrine.
Vic C.
Member
- Mar 16, 2003
- 18,230
- 4
Hi Dave!
I believe what I believe because I felt the conviction 10 years ago, when I was saved, to study the history of the Bible (primarily the NT, because that is where most of the discrepancies surface). I usually follow the line of translations derived from the Textus Recptus. Some say it's not as "old" as some other MMSs, but I don't buy into that line of thinking. I believe it has it's roots in the Byzantine and Latin texts of the second century.
The feel and quality of translations derived from the Alexandrian texts and the work of Westcott and Hort just don't sit right with me.
They seem to be more "thought for thought" with a few exceptions.
Dave, take the time to read this link:
http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm
It may be a little on the long side, but it's very easy to follow. It doesn't get too technical.
The author wrote this:
I believe what I believe because I felt the conviction 10 years ago, when I was saved, to study the history of the Bible (primarily the NT, because that is where most of the discrepancies surface). I usually follow the line of translations derived from the Textus Recptus. Some say it's not as "old" as some other MMSs, but I don't buy into that line of thinking. I believe it has it's roots in the Byzantine and Latin texts of the second century.
The feel and quality of translations derived from the Alexandrian texts and the work of Westcott and Hort just don't sit right with me.
They seem to be more "thought for thought" with a few exceptions. Dave, take the time to read this link:
http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm
It may be a little on the long side, but it's very easy to follow. It doesn't get too technical.
The author wrote this:But he left out a couple like Young's Literal and the translations from J. Green and one or two others I may have missed. I don't feel it was the writer's intentions to neglect mentioning them because they are bad translations; they are not. I believe it was just an oversight.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 22,631
- 5,998
I really don't buy into many of the arguments such sites use as they typically are based on poor reasoning and have little, if any, support. For example, to argue that all other versions have removed 1John 5:7 ignores the argument that the KJV (TR) could have added that verse. But it's always argued one way.
Each of those charts is based on similarly poor reasoning. If the Gnostics really messed with the texts to removed certain references to Christ's deity, resurrection, etc., they did an absolutely poor job of it because there are many other verses which they did not change. Obviously the texts have their differences and they are that way for a reason (scribal errors, someone messed with them, etc.), but that in no way means that the KJV is always in the right.
I really don't think the argument that modern versions have been purposely altered to remove certain beliefs and references to Christ (or whatever) can be sustained.
In support of the NIV, anyone who does a bit of research or knows more than one language, knows the difficulties in translating from one language to another. There is almost always something lost in the translation. In regards to Koine Greek, it is much more precise than English, so there will always be ambiguities when translating from Greek to English. Anyone who has taken Koine Greek knows that a paragraph or more can be written in English for a given verse to more accurately expound on what is being said.
That alone shows that a "thought-for-thought" translation can be just as accurate--and I would argue that maybe in some cases even moreso--to what the original author was intending to say.
Each of those charts is based on similarly poor reasoning. If the Gnostics really messed with the texts to removed certain references to Christ's deity, resurrection, etc., they did an absolutely poor job of it because there are many other verses which they did not change. Obviously the texts have their differences and they are that way for a reason (scribal errors, someone messed with them, etc.), but that in no way means that the KJV is always in the right.
I really don't think the argument that modern versions have been purposely altered to remove certain beliefs and references to Christ (or whatever) can be sustained.
In support of the NIV, anyone who does a bit of research or knows more than one language, knows the difficulties in translating from one language to another. There is almost always something lost in the translation. In regards to Koine Greek, it is much more precise than English, so there will always be ambiguities when translating from Greek to English. Anyone who has taken Koine Greek knows that a paragraph or more can be written in English for a given verse to more accurately expound on what is being said.
That alone shows that a "thought-for-thought" translation can be just as accurate--and I would argue that maybe in some cases even moreso--to what the original author was intending to say.
I agree, at least as far the NIV Bible goes. Wherever a verse is excluded in it, a footnote is there, explaining the exclusion and including the verse. When I am reading my Bible, I read the footnotes. Therefore, I don't feel like I'm missing out on any important doctrine. It is included there for my convenience should I choose to believe it might actually have been included in the original manuscripts.