Bible Study NIV Slanted?

[Heidi]

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.

Actually, should current history have anything to do with what happened in ancient history? I don't think so. That's when slants can come into translations.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Actually, should current history have anything to do with what happened in ancient history? I don't think so. That's when slants can come into translations.

It was translated during a biblical time in history in other words, and I think IMO the KJV will be going strong for this reason until Christ returns.

 

[cyberjosh]

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.

This has nothing to do with translation but rather the textual tradition behind it. I do believe that many verses were not in the originals that the KJV includes, though I also reject some of the omissions based on evidence of inclusion by early Church Father quotes. I think what we need to be looking at here is the translation not the textual tradition. Because even the NASB uses a similar textual tradition but it is a far better rendering than the NIV and I don't care when anyone says about the NASB, I think it is an excellent study Bible.

~Josh

 

[Heidi]

It was translated during a biblical time in history in other words, and I think IMO the KJV will be going strong for this reason until Christ returns.

Once again, do you have a parallel bible? The treanslations are side by side and there are very few differences. The KJV was a rush job by order of King James. That's the only thing that is relevant to the two translations. There are also great books on the history of the bible and how each bible was translated, who did the translating and what methods were used. So instead of speculating about the two translations, we need to become knowledgable about the above before we can make any judgments.

 

[Guest]

Once again, do you have a parallel bible? The treanslations are side by side and there are very few differences. The KJV was a rush job by order of King James. That's the only thing that is relevant to the two translations. There are also great books on the history of the bible and how each bible was translated, who did the translating and what methods were used. So instead of speculating about the two translations, we need to become knowledgable about the above before we can make any judgments.

What does having or using a parallel bible have anything to do with it?

The importance of understanding translations is the work that is done in the translating.

Again - the NIV is called a dynamic equavilant - the NIV is NOT a word-for-word literal translation.

I will do some research for you on this if you like, but one of the minor prophetic books uses a lot of 'word plays' in the Hebrew that are not evident in translations. Why is it important to know this? It better explains the message of the prophet.

Understanding Greek and Hebrew is an important tool for those who are teaching the Scriptures.

 

[Heidi]

What does having or using a parallel bible have anything to do with it?

The importance of understanding translations is the work that is done in the translating.

Again - the NIV is called a dynamic equavilant - the NIV is NOT a word-for-word literal translation.

I will do some research for you on this if you like, but one of the minor prophetic books uses a lot of 'word plays' in the Hebrew that are not evident in translations. Why is it important to know this? It better explains the message of the prophet.

Understanding Greek and Hebrew is an important tool for those who are teaching the Scriptures.

The parallel bible has both the KJV and the NIV to show the differences between them. If one claims that the KJV is better translated than the NIV, all he has to do is see the few differences between the NIV and KJV in the Parallel bible.

But if one adds the Interlinear bible (which is the Greek and Hebrew texts) then one can further see the words of origin and compare them to the parallal bible.

So once again, Satan's attmept to undermine translations won't work. This nullifies the "translation" excuse when people don't like what the bible says.

 

[Guest]

The parallel bible has both the KJV and the NIV to show the differences between them. If one claims that the KJV is better translated than the NIV, all he has to do is see the few differences between the NIV and KJV in the Parallel bible.

But if one adds the Interlinear bible (which is the Greek and Hebrew texts) then one can further see the words of origin and compare them to the parallal bible.

So once again, Satan's attmept to undermine translations won't work. This nullifies the "translation" excuse when people don't like what the bible says.

What is this "translation" excuse you keep mentioning? And I will admit this time I ask this question out of ignorance.

Seeking a translation that is closest to the original is not an excuse, but rather an attempt to get the purest and most accurate understanding of the Word of God possible. This is not an attempt to "change" translations. In fact, the NIV has done much to change the Word of God - in an effort to make it "more readable".

However, I will grant you that the NIV is a decent reading for those who need milk - but as one progresses I would encourage them to put away the milk and begin to use a Literal Translation - like the NASB, KJV or the NKJV.

 

[Heidi]

What is this "translation" excuse you keep mentioning? And I will admit this time I ask this question out of ignorance.

Seeking a translation that is closest to the original is not an excuse, but rather an attempt to get the purest and most accurate understanding of the Word of God possible. This is not an attempt to "change" translations. In fact, the NIV has done much to change the Word of God - in an effort to make it "more readable".

However, I will grant you that the NIV is a decent reading for those who need milk - but as one progresses I would encourage them to put away the milk and begin to use a Literal Translation - like the NASB, KJV or the NKJV.

The "transaltion" excuse is what people adopt when they don't like what the bible says. A perfect example is the universal reconciliatioists. They don't like the notion of eternal hell. So they srutinize other translations and original texts hoping against hope that they can change word "eternal" into meaning "not eternal." But it never works because the word same word for "eternal" is used when talking about heaven and hell in all texts.

Another example is the Catholics looking up translations hoping against hope that the word "until" in Matthew 1;25 means forever instead of a limited time. And on and on.

So once again, the word of God is the word of God. Since God wronte the bible, then God will make sure that His word is correctly passed on through the centuries. So there is no reason to search translations or original textss unless people doubt the word of God. Absolutely none.

 

[Vic C.]

Seeking a translation that is closest to the original is not an excuse, but rather an attempt to get the purest and most accurate understanding of the Word of God possible. This is not an attempt to "change" translations. In fact, the NIV has done much to change the Word of God - in an effort to make it "more readable".

Alone, you have done well in wanting to learn all about various translations. You already know about the differences between word for word and thought for thought interpretations. I encourage you to broaden your understanding by researching and studyiny this. Many dedicate their entire lives to such a venture. I've been doing it for over seven years now. I understand the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical text and am convinced the TR is the way to go.

If you can stomach it, try Young's Literal Translation. Or you can go with the MKJ. LITV and 21st. Century KJ... all g very good translations.

I agree with what you said about the NIV. It has a seventh grade reading equivalent.