Bible Study The KJV Challenge...

[asb4God]

Nobody has yet to take up this challenge. I thought I'd start a topic to see if anyone is willing to go for it.

Please do the following:

1. Name one "omission" that you believe the NIV made in error and demonstrate why you believe it was in error.
2. Name one of these "omissions" where the doctrine is no longer present in the NIV because of it.

Thanks,
Scott 8-)

 

[Blazin Bones]

Do we honestly need a another thread on this topic? Four of which have all been started in the last 10 days.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 340#207340

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=17840

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=17802

This one was on the same topic started about a year ago.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=10634

 

[asb4God]

Actually...

Yes we do.

I view this topic as a topic-killer and that's why I created it.

I expect there will be nobody to take up the challenge and anybody else trying to dis the NIV or any other translation in favor of the KJV can simply be directed to this thread where they can accept the challenge.

Scott 8-)

 

[JM]

Nobody has yet to take up this challenge. I thought I'd start a topic to see if anyone is willing to go for it.

Please do the following:

1. Name one "omission" that you believe the NIV made in error and demonstrate why you believe it was in error.
2. Name one of these "omissions" where the doctrine is no longer present in the NIV because of it.

Thanks,
Scott 8-)

First, site your source? We need to know where you picked these questions up form.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Some people will only answer your questions with questions.

I'm not one of those. Allow me to make a point or two before I answer you directly:

You have two basic types of scriptural texts and textual approaches:
The critical text
The received text

Those strong adherents to critical text believe that the text has varied or been modified over time. They believe this because early texts tend to be a bit different in wording and content than the prominent received texts.

Those strong adherents to received texts tend to believe that the scripture has been accurately and painstakingly preserved over time. They tend to be suspect of modern scholarship, and tend to believe that modern scholarship intends to undermine the inerrancy of scripture. They point to the fact that many of the modern scholars are agnostic/atheistic (true).

In between these two poles are people of various convictions.

I don't see anything left out by the NIV, for it includes footnotes and brackets to include disputed portions.

I do see something left out by the KJV- the so-called apocrypha that was part of the received text from which the translators worked.

In turn, the NIV left these out, also.

I think that the received Byzantine text can be trusted, as it has been preserved by the Church. I think we do well to see what critical scholarship can tell us about possible additions, subtractions, or drifting over time- and to this point, I see no dogmatic issues being undermined by critical scholarship.

 

[asb4God]

Nobody has yet to take up this challenge. I thought I'd s

tart a topic to see if anyone is willing to go for it.

Please do the following:

1. Name one "omission" that you believe the NIV made in error and demonstrate why you believe it was in error.
2. Name one of these "omissions" where the doctrine is no longer present in the NIV because of it.

Thanks,
Scott 8-)

First, site your source? We need to know where you picked these questions up form.

Thank you! Someone finally interested in the issue.

I have no source. I made up these two little questions. They are questions of interest to me. They are specific to what I have been observing with respect to unsupported assertions about the NIV. This is not to argue that the NIV is the best possible translation, but only that statements of KJV superiority have gone completely unsupported.

Thanks,
Scott 8-)

 

[asb4God]

Very Sound!

Thank you, Ortho! You are a drink of cool water on a warm day.

Those strong adherents to critical text believe that the text has varied or been modified over time. They believe this because early texts tend to be a bit different in wording and content than the prominent received texts.

Yes, and they also believe this because textual criticism is a means whereby decisions can be made about how textual variants arose and what the originals most likely were. It stands to reason - and non-biblical text critics agree - that variants arise over time for various reasons. These reasons are well-known, well-documented and well-studied. They are not a mystery.

Those strong adherents to received texts tend to believe that the scripture has been accurately and painstakingly preserved over time.

And they have. That is why the Majority Text agrees with itself. These documents have internal consistency, but not external consistency. Because they don't agree with older texts, they must be (a)placed on an equal footing with earlier texts so that a priori biases do not affect our translation efforts, (b)held to the same rigorous standard of objectivity to which we hold the earlier texts and (c)stand or fall based upon the science used to critique them, which is the same for all texts.

They tend to be suspect of modern scholarship, and tend to believe that modern scholarship intends to undermine the inerrancy of scripture. They point to the fact that many of the modern scholars are agnostic/atheistic (true).

Agree in part. If we are talking about non-Evangelical scholars - say historically out of Germany and other locales, but including contemporary liberal scholars at the undergraduate level - I agree. They are agnostic/atheistic charlatans whose goal it is to undermine Scripture and inerrancy. However, I am speaking ONLY of Evangelical scholarship. Virtually every scholar working today in the major American/Canadian/British seminaries utilize sound text criticism with the end result being a clearer understanding of Scripture and the Glory of God, to include inerrancy, though even some Evangelicals are failing at this point.

It is apparent to me that KJO people tend to take a very unacceptable view of scholarship for this reason. They close their eyes and ears and mumble loudly - or throw ad hominem attacks about - in an effort not to be exposed to the facts as they are for fear of some dread apostasy. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't see anything left out by the NIV, for it includes footnotes and brackets to include disputed portions.

Indeed! The NIV has left out nothing and does not ignore disputed issues. Although I am only really familiar with the study Bible, I'm not sure if the other NIVs bracket or what they do.

I do see something left out by the KJV- the so-called apocrypha that was part of the received text from which the translators worked. In turn, the NIV left these out, also.

The Apocrypha is another story altogether. I confess I am not aware of the Orthodox position with respect to the Apocrypha, but I have no problem with the Protestant position of ignoring it. I have read much of it.

I think that the received Byzantine text can be trusted, as it has been preserved by the Church. I think we do well to see what critical scholarship can tell us about possible additions, subtractions, or drifting over time- and to this point, I see no dogmatic issues being undermined by critical scholarship.

Agree in full. The Byzantine is a good text for what it is. It's the very Word of God, for cryin' out loud! But it has been eclipsed by virtue of earlier textual discoveries. This is how it works, folks! There is nothing nefarious here; no Satanic plot against the Word - as are some other "translations" now being discussed in other threads. This is sound Evangelical scholarship telling KJO folks what they desperately do not want to hear.

Ortho,

I have a feeling you know this as well as some of the others on here that appear to have some biblical education, but this is nothing more than the early-20th Century "Modernist/Fundamentalist Controversy" dressed up in new clothing. I do sympathize with Christians who feel the need to cover their eyes and ears because of cognitive and spiritual dissonance. But covering our eyes and ears has never gotten us very far before.

Sincerely,
Scott 8-)

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Well stated, Scott, and thank you for your gracious comments.

I bring forth the Apocrypha argument only because of the rallying cry of KJV-onlies that various translations have left this or that out....missing the irony of their own complaint about excising text.

 

[yesha]

Nobody has yet to take up this challenge. I thought I'd start a topic to see if anyone is willing to go for it.

Please do the following:

1. Name one "omission" that you believe the NIV made in error and demonstrate why you believe it was in error.
2. Name one of these "omissions" where the doctrine is no longer present in the NIV because of it.

Thanks,
Scott 8-)

Here are two I've noticed over the years.

1) Bad Translation IMO
Jer 7:22
22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices,
(NIV)

2)
This is a tough one... Perhaps for someone whats lacking here is doctrinally significant?

Jude 1:7
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
(NIV)

 

[asb4God]

Thanks, yesha.

A couple things to begin. This isn't what I was referring to when speaking of "omissions," but it is close. I was thinking about the list that has started this whole debate about the words/phrases/passages allegedly left out of the NIV. Those issues surround text critical issues, for the most part, and that's where I am headed with this issue. Otherwise we end up on a rabbit trail of arguing interpretation, rather than translation, which is a big can of worms that I don't personally have time to deal with. Hope you see my distinction.

This is important because the two examples you have shared are interpretation issues. It's important to realize that ALL translations are, in fact, interpretations. They all take the original language and not only translate it into a foreign tongue, but they make interpretitive decisions about just how to translate it. This will be clear in both of your examples.

I will discuss each instance only briefly and leave it to others to play with.

1. Jeremiah 7:22 (23) 22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people.

There are two issues here. The first is the appropriate translation of "b'yom," which is translated "in the day" in, I think, all the translations. Should it be "in the day" or "in that day" or "on that day"? These carry different meanings, of course. That is what is happening when we see v. 23. "but I gave them this command:"

This is an interpretive issue, not an issue of "omission." Scholars disagree over whether or not "in the day" means on the day they left Egypt or in the days after leaving Egypt. In fact, it was not on the day, but in the days after; therefore, the translaters are making a decision about what they think is meant here. The NIV is deciding that what is meant is in the days after, while the others argue that it means "on that day."

So, I would not personally call this a "bad translation," but a potentially bad interpretation. I haven't yet looked deeply into the issue to make a personal decision on what I feel is the best interpretation.

2. Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

I didn't have time to do much work in this one either, but the issue surrounds the Greek, which if I recall says "sarx heteros," which translates literally to "other flesh." The argument then, which is interpretive, not translative, is what exactly does "strange flesh" mean. I don't think for a minute that it means angelic flesh, as the pro-homoxexual critics allege, but rather means, in context, (Soddom and Gomorrah) to refer to homosexuality.

The problem arises, then, when we realize that other Greek words were used to describe homosexuality. I'm at a disadvantage right now because I don't have my Greek New Testament with me, so I can do a quick study of whether or not "sarx heteros" was ever used anywhere else in the NT, but I'm pretty sure, having looked into this issue before, that this phrase was never used.

So the NIV, at least, chose not to make an interpretive stand on this phrase, though it might look like they did, but rather to simply identify the sin as a "perversion," whereas other translations also did not make an interpretive stand by calling it outright homosexuality, but rather left it alone as "strange flesh."

The NIV, being a "dynamic equivalency" translation decided to explain the concept of perversion and let the reader decide if that perversion was homosexuality or not, something even the other translations don't seem to have stated explicitly. However, I think it is clear that the NIV implies homosexuality, while the other translations actually don't appear to have even implied that.

My 2 cents.

Thanks for taking up the challenge!

Are you a Jewish believer, by the way?? I am. :D

Scott 8-)

 

[yesha]

Jer 7:22

When I delivered your ancestors out of Egypt, I never said anything to them about wanting burnt offerings and sacrifices as such. (msg)

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: (KJV)

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (NIV)

I think that translating 'did not' as 'did not just,' with no indication that a word which essentially reverses the meaning was added makes for a bad translation of that verse.

As for Jude 1:7, it's the best I could come up with to meet your challenge of something doctrinally signifigant. As I said, it's a tough challenge.

 

[asb4God]

I think that translating 'did not' as 'did not just,' with no indication that a word which essentially reverses the meaning was added makes for a bad translation of that verse."

I just don't see how it "reverses" the meaning. As I see it the passage doesn't deny that they were told this, it just does not indicate exactly "when" they were told it. On the very day they left Egypt or during the intervening time period, which I believe was only 3 months, but I haven't researched it lately. How is there a reversal of meaning? Maybe I'm missing something here.

As for Jude 1:7, it's the best I could come up with to meet your challenge of something doctrinally signifigant. As I said, it's a tough challenge.

I understand.

Both of these instances seem to me to be interpretive matters, not translation matters.

But thanks for jumping in there.

Scott 8-)

 

[yesha]

So, which then would you consider a better translation:

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (NIV)

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (NIV)

And do you believe that these are identical in meaning?

 

[asb4God]

The choice is not between your two options:

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (not the NIV) and

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (NIV)

but between

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (NIV) and

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: (KJV)

This is important because the key to interpreting this is the phrase "in the day;" b'yom in Hebrew. We have already discussed this aspect. The included "just" in the NIV is an interpretive choice based upon the meaning of "in the day."

Scott 8-)

 

[yesha]

There are two issues here. The first is the appropriate translation of "b'yom," which is translated "in the day" in, I think, all the translations. Should it be "in the day" or "in that day" or "on that day"? These carry different meanings, of course. That is what is happening when we see v. 23. "but I gave them this command:"

This is an interpretive issue, not an issue of "omission." Scholars disagree over whether or not "in the day" means on the day they left Egypt or in the days after leaving Egypt. In fact, it was not on the day, but in the days after; therefore, the translaters are making a decision about what they think is meant here. The NIV is deciding that what is meant is in the days after, while the others argue that it means "on that day."

In the day seems fine to me. But I don't see how this has any relavance as to whether or not this verse says something that can be correctly translated as "did not just". "For when I brought them out of Egypt" covers any possible day this could refer to, and regardless of what this day was, it says, 'I did not command them'.

I agree that this is an interpretive issue. The niv gave an interpretation, going beyond what is necessary for a translation. I don't believe ANY other translators, even in extreme paraphrases were so bold as to translate it like this!

Jer 7:22

(ALT)

(ASV) For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

(BBE) For I said nothing to your fathers, and gave them no orders, on the day when I took them out of Egypt, about burned offerings or offerings of beasts:

(CEV) At the time I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I didn't command them to offer sacrifices to me.

(Darby) For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt;

(DRB) For I spoke not to your fathers, and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices.

(EMTV)

(GNB) I gave your ancestors no commands about burnt offerings or any other kinds of sacrifices when I brought them out of Egypt.

(GW) When I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not tell them anything about burnt offerings and sacrifices.

(HNV) For I didn't speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

(ISV)

(KJV+) For3588 I spoke1696 not3808 unto (853) your fathers,1 nor3808 commanded6680 them in the day3117 that I brought3318 them out of the land4480, 776 of Egypt,4714 concerning5921, 1697 burnt offerings5930 or sacrifices:2077

(KJVA) For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

(LITV) For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out from the land of Egypt, concerning matters of burnt offerings and sacrifices.

(MKJV) For I did not speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

(MSG) When I delivered your ancestors out of Egypt, I never said anything to them about wanting burnt offerings and sacrifices as such.

(WEB) For I didn't speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

(Webster) For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

(WNT)

(YLT) For I did not speak with your fathers, Nor did I command them in the day of My bringing them out of the land of Egypt, Concerning the matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice,

and then there's the niv,

Jer 7:22
22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices,
(NIV)

You really don't see a problem here?