Bible Study NIV Slanted?

[Fnerb]

I was talking with one of the Pastors up at camp last week and we were discussing the original languages of the bible and translations. I mentioned how I like using both the NIV and the KJV as well as the original Greek when really trying to study in-depth (I can't read Greek mind you, but I use Zhubert.com).

Anyway he mentioned that the NIV is a solid translation and they did a good job of taking some complex things and putting them in modern English, but that they "missed" some things in romans and that the text is somewhat slanted.

Any of you that can read Greek and have done any sort of extensive study between translations know anything about this?

 

[Lewis]

The NIV does have some errors in it.

 

[Atonement]

KJV Matt. 17:21, "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

NIV omits this verse from the text and places it in small print at the bottom of the page. The footnote says, "Some MSS add verse 21." (MSS is the abbreviation for manuscripts.).

KJV Matt. 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

NIV omits this verse from the text and places it in the footnote and says, "Some MSS add verse 11."

KJV Matt. 23:14, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

NIV omits this verse in the same manner as above.

KJV Mark 7:16, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

NIV omits this verse and says, "Some early MSS add verse 16."

KJV Mark 9:44, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

NIV omits this verse and does not even put it in the foot note.

KJV Mark 9:46, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

NIV omits this verse.

KJV Mark 11:26, "But if ye do not forgive, neither will you Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

NIV omits this verse from the text.

KJV Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

NIV omits this verse. Of course this is a blow at Christ since this refers to His fulfillment of Isa. 53:12.

KJV Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

NIV omits this verse that refers to His Second Coming.

KJV Luke 23:17, "(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"

NIV omits this verse.

KJV John 5:3,4, "...waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

NIV omits all of this which is part of verse 3 and all of verse 4.

KJV Acts 8:37, "And 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."

NIV omits this verse, even though the eunuch's question is recorded in verse 36 and is translated as follows: "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" Philip's answer in verse 37 is omitted, and he baptizes him with no confession of faith if we are to believe NIV. This is a very serious matter involving the salvation of the soul and we believe it is a serious error to tamper with God's Word in this way.

KJV Acts 15:34, "Not-withstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still,"

NIV omits this verse.


KJV Acts 24:7 "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands."

NIV omits verse 7 as well as part of verses 6 and 8.

KJV Acts 28:29, "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had great reasoning among themselves."

NIV omits this verse.

KJV Rom. 16:24, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

NIV omits this verse and places it in the foot note also.

KJV 1 Tim. 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh..."

NIV 1 Tim. 3:16, "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great; He appeared in a body..."

The KJV is very clear in showing that "God was manifest in the flesh", but NIV says "He appeared in a body..." The KJV shows that Jesus was God, while the NIV makes it unclear by substituting "He".

It's these and many more errors that pulled me away from the NIV. I once used the NIV and promoted this Bible as the one everyone should use. But after reading so many errors in this translation it was a wise choice to set this Bible down.

 

[Vic C.]

Good post Keith. Note that the NIV is not the only version that omits these verses. The NLT, ESV, CEV, Darby and maybe even some others, omit many of the verses mentioned also. This is based on me looking up Acts 8:37.

All the Bibles translated from the Textus Receptus have all the verses mentioned. The culprit is the Alexandrian text, notably the Westcott and Hort textx.

 

[Guest]

Good post Keith. Note that the NIV is not the only version that omits these verses. The NLT, ESV, CEV, Darby and maybe even some others, omit many of the verses mentioned also. This is based on me looking up Acts 8:37.

All the Bibles translated from the Textus Receptus have all the verses mentioned. The culprit is the Alexandrian text, notably the Westcott and Hort textx.

However, don't earlier manuscriptrs not have these verses - for example Acts 8:37.

By earlier manuscripts, they are closer to the originals. So - the question isn't so much if these verses are omitted, but were they added later.

 

[Atonement]

However, don't earlier manuscriptrs not have these verses - for example Acts 8:37.

By earlier manuscripts, they are closer to the originals. So - the question isn't so much if these verses are omitted, but were they added later.

Before I accept your statement, I would ask that you prove this please?

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

 

[Guest]

Before I accept your statement, I would ask that you prove this please?

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Prove what?

Forgive me, but adding the word "this" confused me - do you want me to prove 1 Thes. 5:21 or prove my question?

 

[Vic C.]

However, don't earlier manuscriptrs not have these verses - for example Acts 8:37.

By earlier manuscripts, they are closer to the originals. So - the question isn't so much if these verses are omitted, but were they added later.

They are "early" only because they were hidden away with all their errors, then discovered at a later point in time. Understand that before the printing press, scribes would make copies by hand, then discard the older copies. This didn't happen with many of the Textus Receptus, but it did happen with the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and the Beatty Papyri.

Note that the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and the Beatty Papyri are all of Alexandrian origin. They are poor in quality and contain many scribal errors.

Older does not always mean better or more accurate. I am convinced that the Textus Receptus is the more accurate and the one God chose to preserve HIS word. I've done dozens and dozens of hours of research and studying on this.

This is one of the better sites on this subject.

http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm

 

[Atonement]

However, don't earlier manuscriptrs not have these verses - for example Acts 8:37.

By earlier manuscripts, they are closer to the originals. So - the question isn't so much if these verses are omitted, but were they added later.

Forgive me, Can you prove this statement of yours here ^^


I used this Scripture 1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. because as a servant of the Lord, I choose not to accept men's words alone unless it can be proven by or through Scripture. As the Scripture I quoted indicated.. Prove All Things

 

[jgredline]

I am convinced that the Textus Receptus is the more accurate and the one God chose to preserve HIS word.

This is the first thing that one is taught when learning Greek...At least where I studied....

When the NASB folks as well as the ESV folks claim they have got the closest literal word for word translations, that is based on the Westcott and Hort text, that are liberally slanted....

 

[Vic C.]

Brother Duck :-D read through that link I posted. It is great information. :wink:

 

[Guest]

They are "early" only because they were hidden away with all their errors, then discovered at a later point in time. Understand that before the printing press, scribes would make copies by hand, then discard the older copies. This didn't happen with many of the Textus Receptus, but it did happen with the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and the Beatty Papyri.

Note that the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and the Beatty Papyri are all of Alexandrian origin. They are poor in quality and contain many scribal errors.

Older does not always mean better or more accurate. I am convinced that the Textus Receptus is the more accurate and the one God chose to preserve HIS word. I've done dozens and dozens of hours of research and studying on this.

This is one of the better sites on this subject.

http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm

I would definetly agree - that earlier does not necessarily mean better.

While I do not have the time tonight, I will read up on the link you provided.

 

[Guest]

Forgive me, Can you prove this statement of yours here ^^


I used this Scripture 1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. because as a servant of the Lord, I choose not to accept men's words alone unless it can be proven by or through Scripture. As the Scripture I quoted indicated.. Prove All Things

I really did not mean it as a declarative - rather as a question:

The question being - were those verses omitted from the originals or were they added latter.

One reason I do not like the NIV - is that, as you pointed out, they just up and omit those verses. While I use the NASB, in part because a few of my professors at Lancaster Bible College used it, it does not outright omit the verses like the NIV - but states that earlier manuscripts do not contain those verses.

In other words, it allows for one to do research on their own to figure out if they are omissions or additions.

 

[Atonement]

I'm sorry. I guess it's been a long day. I had to re-read what you stated and understand now what you mean. But I want to thank you for clearing it up in a very developed mellow way. Thank you

 

[Guest]

I'm sorry. I guess it's been a long day. I had to re-read what you stated and understand now what you mean. But I want to thank you for clearing it up in a very developed mellow way. Thank you

:-D

Although I am a pacifist, I have been known to throw a pretty mean uppercut with words. :o

Which is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Brother Duck LOL! Blink, Blink!

 

[Vic C.]

Allow me to say one more thing on this subject.

Lets apply a little logic; What is a more likely scenario? The scribes and movable typesetters added verses to the text or... the scribes omitted verses, whether by accident or on purpose? Considering the lighting conditions the scribes had to work under and the condition of the text they were attempting to copy, omitting text would be easy to do.

I won't even get into what I think about textual criticism. 8-) Give me word for word translation and let me decide for myself (with the help of a good lexicon, of course), instead of the comments of the likes of Westcott-Hort. Just one man's opinion. 8-)

 

[jgredline]

Brother Duck LOL! Blink, Blink!

Did someone call me? :-D

 

[Heidi]

I was talking with one of the Pastors up at camp last week and we were discussing the original languages of the bible and translations. I mentioned how I like using both the NIV and the KJV as well as the original Greek when really trying to study in-depth (I can't read Greek mind you, but I use Zhubert.com).

Anyway he mentioned that the NIV is a solid translation and they did a good job of taking some complex things and putting them in modern English, but that they "missed" some things in romans and that the text is somewhat slanted.

Any of you that can read Greek and have done any sort of extensive study between translations know anything about this?

Actually, the NIV was translated from both the Greek and the Hebrew unlike the KJV which was an understandbly rushed job on orders from King James. The translators didn't have time to go to Isreal and do the research like the translators of the NIV did. But the KJV was also written earlier than the NIV. But if it wasn't properly researched, then there will be errors in translations.

But I have the parallel bible which has the KJV, NIV and NASB alongside all the verses. And the minute differences between them are so negligible as to me unimportant because the meaning is never changed in any of them.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I'm a KJV bible fan myself. And no wonder. What I believe is that this was translated during the time of King James VI of Scotland who then became King James I of Britain. This was the last overturn prophesied in Ezekiel 21:27 and that's it (no more overturns) until "he comes whose right it is".

So that was translated at a very critical time in history.