Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You have heard the old saying: "It's all Greek to me."

Seriously, most churches are so focused on NT Greek (and even the OT septuagint Greek) that it is forgotten that 2/3 of the Bible was written in Hebrew, and much of the latter third either quotes the Hebrew or shows the Hebraic logic and mindset as set forth in the Hebrew scriptures.

Does this really matter?

 

[Free]

The Bible consistently teaches he who sins is a sinner. The concept “sin nature”from birth isn’t there. Augustine introduced that theology.

And everyone sins, because it is in our nature to do so. Our nature was corrupted by Adam's sin, that is rather the whole reason we need a Saviour. If our nature wasn't corrupted, then it stands to reason that it is possible that one or more persons will never sin and don't need to be saved. And, that, is unbiblical.

 

[Free]

Discussions are perverse, not godly..

That idea does not come from the Bible.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And everyone sins, because it is in our nature to do so.

That’s not what the Bible says. It says we sin because of our wrong desires.

Our nature was corrupted by Adam's sin, that is rather the whole reason we need a Saviour.

Nope. No one in the Bible thought that. Sin entered the world, not man’s nature.

If our nature wasn't corrupted, then it stands to reason that it is possible that one or more persons will never sin and don't need to be saved. And, that, is unbiblical.

Why? What is that to you anyway?

 

[Free]

What is obvious is those who refuse to consider the problems with the NIV refuse to discuss them. Instead they lob ad hominem shots. Only one of the NT writers were highly educated. Only one. Nevertheless their understanding fat exceeds every single theologian since, no matter how excellent their Greek or Hebrew.

Aren't you refusing to consider the problems with the KJV? Do you accept the Apocrypha? It was included in the 1611 KJV, so if you don't accept it, why not?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Aren't you refusing to consider the problems with the KJV? Do you accept the Apocrypha? It was included in the 1611 KJV, so if you don't accept it, why not?

Answer the scriptures I put to
you instead of blowing chaff.

 

[Free]

Answer the scriptures I put to
you instead of blowing chaff.

Case in point. You know very well that admitting to rejecting the Apocrypha puts you in contradiction with your claims of the KJV. Why do you think the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV? Why did the KJV have those books in the first place?

I have addressed the first verse "you" gave--you actually posted from another source but didn't provide the source, which is in violation of the ToS, as I previously pointed out.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Case in point. You know very well that admitting to rejecting the Apocrypha puts you in contradiction with your claims of the KJV. Why do you think the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV? Why did the KJV have those books in the first place?

I have addressed the first verse "you" gave--you actually posted from another source but didn't provide the source, which is in violation of the ToS, as I previously pointed out.

I said in the beginning that the NIV so distorts the scripture that it’s difficult to come to understand God and His ways if that’s what you read. The Catholic additional books play no role in that whatsoever.

 

[D-D-W]

Does this really matter?

Absolutely it does. Everyone comes to a text with their own worldview and understanding. If the text was written from a different viewpoint it can lead to errors, perhaps even really bad ones.

IMO that is more important than what translation you use. Word for word (my preference) or thought for thought, the culture and world view of the authors and their original audiences are even more important.

 

[Free]

I said in the beginning that the NIV so distorts the scripture that it’s difficult to come to understand God and His ways if that’s what you read. The Catholic additional books play no role in that whatsoever.

You have claimed from the beginning the NIV has removed verses. This is what you said: "I heard that the NIV removed more verses than the NWT."

That is here: https://christianforums.net/threads/question-about-bible-version.90654/page-6#post-1698727

You then subsequently said: "It’s true that the NIV removed a great deal and there’s no fallacy in the statement."

Then: "It removed many verses and often those dealing with Christ Himself."

And on you went. Your first argument was the supposed missing verses from the NIV. And now that I have pointed out 14 books missing from your KJV that were in the 1611 KJV, you don't want to deal with it. Why is that? Is it because your position is entirely contradictory?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Absolutely it does. Everyone comes to a text with their own worldview and understanding. If the text was written from a different viewpoint it can lead to errors, perhaps even really bad ones.

IMO that is more important than what translation you use. Word for word (my preference) or thought for thought, the culture and world view of the authors and their original audiences are even more important.

No, this isn’t true. There are those who come to the scriptures without prejudice from a world view but come to learn from what it says.

But this probably requires a person to know what their worldview is or was or what else is out there.

Some are willing to change their thinking based on what they read including a world view. This likely hinges upon character or how much humility or pride is in the heart.

But I do admit this is rare.

The thinking of the authors is, of course, the whole point. That is what we ought to seek.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You have claimed from the beginning the NIV has removed verses. This is what you said: "I heard that the NIV removed more verses than the NWT."

That is here: https://christianforums.net/threads/question-about-bible-version.90654/page-6#post-1698727

You then subsequently said: "It’s true that the NIV removed a great deal and there’s no fallacy in the statement."

Then: "It removed many verses and often those dealing with Christ Himself."

And on you went. Your first argument was the supposed missing verses from the NIV. And now that I have pointed out 14 books missing from your KJV that were in the 1611 KJV, you don't want to deal with it. Why is that? Is it because your position is entirely contradictory?

Are those books in your NIV? If not that pretty hypocritical of you.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You have claimed from the beginning the NIV has removed verses. This is what you said: "I heard that the NIV removed more verses than the NWT."

That is here: https://christianforums.net/threads/question-about-bible-version.90654/page-6#post-1698727

You then subsequently said: "It’s true that the NIV removed a great deal and there’s no fallacy in the statement."

Then: "It removed many verses and often those dealing with Christ Himself."

And on you went. Your first argument was the supposed missing verses from the NIV. And now that I have pointed out 14 books missing from your KJV that were in the 1611 KJV, you don't want to deal with it. Why is that? Is it because your position is entirely contradictory?

The NIV removes verses which prevents readers from coming to understand the ways of God.

 

[Free]

Are those books in your NIV? If not that pretty hypocritical of you.

Um, no, that's not how logic works. You are the one claiming the NIV removed verses and cannot be trusted, yet ignore that the KJV removed whole books. My position is consistent--that those verses (and those books) shouldn't have been in the KJV in the first place--yours is contradictory.

 

[Free]

The NIV removes verses which prevents readers from coming to understand the ways of God.

Not at all. If one can read and understand English, they can understand the ways of God and see their need of a saviour by reading the NIV (or ESV, HCSB, LEB, NLT, etc.).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Not at all. If one can read and understand English, they can understand the ways of God and see their need of a saviour by reading the NIV (or ESV, HCSB, LEB, NLT, etc.).

What you have expressed is theology, not the ways of God, which cannot be summed up in the Gospel of salvation.

The ways of God are what God does and why and what He doesn’t do and why. A man who understands the ways of God NEVER says the ways of God are a mystery. That’s the opposite.

 

[Free]

What you have expressed is theology, not the ways of God, which cannot be summed up in the Gospel.

The ways of God are what God does and why and what He doesn’t do and why.

Which is theology...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Which is theology...

No. It’s not acquired by a university study. There one gains theology but not an understanding of God.

 

[Free]

No. It’s not acquired by a university study. There one gains theology but not an understanding of God.

Yes. Theology, at its most basic, is the study of God. Every time you interact with Scripture, anytime you read and study the Bible to get to know God and what he has revealed about himself, including his ways, you are doing theology. Every Christian is a theologian, in this sense. It's a matter of whether they are a good one or a poor one.

So, how about answering these questions: Do you believe the KJV itself is inspired? Do you accept the Apocrypha? It was included in the 1611 KJV, so if you don't accept it, why not?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes. Theology, at its most basic, is the study of God. Every time you interact with Scripture, anytime you read and study the Bible to get to know God and what he has revealed about himself, including his ways, you are doing theology. Every Christian is a theologian, in this sense. It's a matter of whether they are a good one or a poor one.

That’s the theory although the Bible never promises reading it will help you get to know God. That’s not what it says about itself.

So, how about answering these questions: Do you believe the KJV itself is inspired? Do you accept the Apocrypha? It was included in the 1611 KJV, so if you don't accept it, why not?

Do you admit the NIV has deleted many verses? Does your Bible have the Apocrypha? It’s pretty hypocritical to ask me that question if your NIV is missing it. The one finger you point at me has four pointing back at you.