Versions of the Bible...

[Edward]

Whoa. I opened a can of worms, didn't I? Myself, I'm thinking that as a child in Christ, it may be allright to read easier to read versions of the scripture. As one grows in Christ a natural leaning to more intensive study with efforts to read original writings would be the direction to go. Studies are intensified and academic excellence is the thing to strive for. This may leave certain versions behind as one grows. Lord, let me not be deceived.

I can see evidence in this thread of younger and more mature studiousness in it's posters. While some versions of the Bible are easier to understand, they seem to get the gist of it enough that the Holy Spirit can work on us to reveal truths to us. This may be a good thing for us that are children in Christ. Later as we grow in Christ, I believe an effort should be made to discern the finer points and accuracies of the texts. So you all may be correct to a point, for where you are in Christ. I appreciate all of your help and guidance.

For the record, I have no problem following Hammers train of thought. You seem very mature in Christ. Your points are well taken.

I have different versions of the Bible, and a Strongs Concordance. I do compare the texts of the different versions at times. I understand that the changing of a single word or phrase can sometimes put the verse into an entirely different light, perhaps incorrect even! Thus the reason for the thread. I will ponder all of these things, continue to pray, and grow in Christ.

 

[Carolyn]

I would probably use NIV to teach grade school children. It is much easier to understand when read aloud because the language flows better. I study from NKJV or NASV, especially since my new e-sword has eliminated the Strong's numbering from the NKJV. I use Zodihates' "Complete Word Study Dictionary" a lot. It is good to compare versions, too. Most of the words said to be absent from the Alexandrian text were used by the early Church Fathers in their letters, so there is not doubt to the authenticity of say, the last part of Mark. I think the one verse still in question is perhaps from 1st John. Anyhow, my comprehension due to dyslexia is greatly hindered by KJV so I have never read it to any extent.
A few of the newest versions may try to make God a she or the Holy Spirit an it, for instance. That sort of thing, which defies the original language, is definitely corruption.

 

[Nick]

I would probably use NIV to teach grade school children. It is much easier to understand when read aloud because the language flows better. I study from NKJV or NASV, especially since my new e-sword has eliminated the Strong's numbering from the NKJV. I use Zodihates' "Complete Word Study Dictionary" a lot. It is good to compare versions, too. Most of the words said to be absent from the Alexandrian text were used by the early Church Fathers in their letters, so there is not doubt to the authenticity of say, the last part of Mark. I think the one verse still in question is perhaps from 1st John. Anyhow, my comprehension due to dyslexia is greatly hindered by KJV so I have never read it to any extent.
A few of the newest versions may try to make God a she or the Holy Spirit an it, for instance. That sort of thing, which defies the original language, is definitely corruption.

I grew up in the church and we used NIV (1984 of course) in the Sunday School program.

The Sunday school program I teach at the moment uses CEV. The bulk of the group is about 5-8 years old, so it is suitable and an easy read. While I would not recommend CEV for study, it can be good to support your story in Sunday school, but I would really encourage another version like the NIV for kids, especially when they begin study on their own.

 

[rrowell]

I appreciate your concern, but why should someone unfamiliar with the NIV not challenge you? Why do you boast such authority?

I've read the NIV and the notations make all changes clear. They even provide alternative readings. I've also researched a bit of people's complaints about the NIV, none of which I find warranted. In fact, it has revealed to me that the NIV can actually be more accurate in some cases. For example, Revelation 22:19 in the KJV reads:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

While in the NIV it reads:

And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Pastor Dewey Williams calls this a part of the NIV Infection, "changing" the term "book of life" in the KJV to "tree of life" in the NIV. This supposes that the NIV is trying to update the KJV, as though the Bible were originally written in English! That truly seems to be the assumption behind his paper. But a study of the original Greek, the language which this verse was originally written in and from which both the KJV and NIV have translated it, reveals that it is actually the KJV translators which missed the mark on the translation. Take a look at the Greek here. The word in question is "xulon," which means wood or can indicate an article made from wood, including a tree trunk. It has nothing to do with a book whatsoever.

So, can I conclude that the KJV is corrupt? Absolutely not! It would be as silly as saying that the NIV is corrupt. I find all assertions like that an exercise in immaturity. As long as people are reading the Bible I have no problem with the translation they choose.

First problem with the NIV is they used Egyptian Alexandrian (critical text) in place of the Byzantine (Majority Text)...

They found what they call "older text" in a church in Egypt that the Papyri the text was written on is older than any other manuscript found, but that does not prove the text that is written on it is older.

If you have a older Papyri that says Jesus walked on honey, and a thousand newer Papyri that says he walked on water, you have a old piece of worthless paper...

Kirt Aland is one of the proponents of the Alexandrian text, Alexandrian text-type is only found in Egypt, the only reason it can be claimed they are "Older" is because Egyptian climate is better for preservation of "papyri" and so other parts of the world so not to become lost had to be reprinted, but Alexandrian text-type is ONLY found in Egypt, not proven to be ever found out side of Egypt. But despite this, Aland states even the Egyptian text was later subjected to the "corrosive effects" of the Byzantine text-type (Aland, pp.65,56). But note, nowhere does he say the Alexandrian text had a "corrosive effect" on the Byzantine. So scribes in the Egyptian church eventually tried to bring their text into conformity with the Byzantine text, but the reverse did not happen.

If we look at the Majority text (the manuscripts found all over the ancient world) the Greek word you say is "xulon," in Rev. 22:18 is actually "βιβλου" or "biblos" which is the inner bark of the papyrus plant or (as Strong's puts it: "properly, the inner bark of the papyrus plant, i.e. (by implication) a sheet or scroll of writing:--book."

If that's not enough we can look at how many times the NIV leaves out "θεος" or "theos" better know by the English speaking world as "God", to me an abomination to leave out the name of the Author, don't you think?

 

[Free]

If we look at the Majority text (the manuscripts found all over the ancient world) the Greek word you say is "xulon," in Rev. 22:18 is actually "βιβλου" or "biblos" which is the inner bark of the papyrus plant or (as Strong's puts it: "properly, the inner bark of the papyrus plant, i.e. (by implication) a sheet or scroll of writing:--book."

I just have strong doubts that what we know as a book would have been known in the ancient world. They had papyrus and scrolls, not books per se.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

My only point is that to say "scroll" could possibly be more correct than "book," but that either would suffice.

If that's not enough we can look at how many times the NIV leaves out "θεος" or "theos" better know by the English speaking world as "God", to me an abomination to leave out the name of the Author, don't you think?

Of course that just begs the question of whether the word was there in the first place. Each supposed instance would have to be considered one at a time.

 

[Hammer]

I just have strong doubts that what we know as a book would have been known in the ancient world. They had papyrus and scrolls, not books per se.

In the first century, at nearly the same time and place Revelation were written, a man named Martial wrote, "You who are keen to have my books with you everywhere and want to have them as companions for a long journey, buy these ones which parchment confines within small leaves..."

The ancient world had all kinds of books. In fact, the Greek word for "book" is not at all limited to scrolls - even if your random opinion were correct, that they only had scrolls in the first century. Improvements in technology, such as better paper that is more easily bound, doesn't justify you or the corrupt and hypocritical NIV locking something down to a more primitive form of the same thing. In other words, the NIV shouldn't use the word "scroll" even if Revelation were written on a scroll.

"Biblos" is not limited to scrolls. Revelation isn't known to be written on a scroll. And, a "scroll" isn't relevant, "book" is relevant.

 

[Hammer]

First problem with the NIV is they used Egyptian Alexandrian (critical text) in place of the Byzantine (Majority Text)...

I'm going to take the position that honest people can differ on this. Also, that there's not a significant difference between the two texts.

If that's not enough we can look at how many times the NIV leaves out "θεος" or "theos" better know by the English speaking world as "God", to me an abomination to leave out the name of the Author, don't you think?

The KJV doesn't use "theos" at all. Both the NIV and KJV uses the word "God" roughly 1200 times. It's silly to quibble about a slightly different word count (deriving from variations in the source manuscripts). It was silly 10 years ago to complain that the NIV doesn't use the word "God" as much as the KJV. It's doubly silly now that there's a new NIV which really is corrupt and you're complaining the NIV says "God" 1201 times instead of 1205 times (or whatever the actual numbers are).

If you have a older Papyri that says Jesus walked on honey, and a thousand newer Papyri that says he walked on water, you have a old piece of worthless paper...

But, your real example isn't Jesus walked on Honey, it's that the NIV uses a word 1201 times instead of 1205 times.

 

[rrowell]

I'm going to take the position that honest people can differ on this. Also, that there's not a significant difference between the two texts.

Majority Text is found all over the ancient world with many many manuscripts that all match each other, Alexandrian is only found in one church in Egypt, the paper it was written on is older, but cannot be found the text written on it is older. more and more scholars today are changing their thoughts on the authenticity of the Alexandrian text.

The Psalmist tells us Gods word will be kept for ever:

Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)
⁶The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. ⁷Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

To say the Alexandrian text is correct, and the Majority text is not is saying people have been carrying around tainted bibles for hundreds of years... total denial of the Providential Preservation as recorded in Psalms 12:6-7 and others... absurd.

Revelation 22:19 (Stephanus)
¹⁹και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου (Majority Text "Book") της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω

Revelation 22:19 (TR)
19. και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου (Majority text "Book") της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω

Revelation 22:19 (Wescott-Hort)
¹⁹και εαν τις αφελη απο των λογων του βιβλιου της προφητειας ταυτης αφελει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο του ξυλου (Alexandrian text - "Wood") της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας των γεγραμμενων εν τω βιβλιω τουτω

Revelation 22:19 (KJV)
¹⁹And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:19 (NIV)
¹⁹And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

There is a big difference between a tree, and Papyri ("book", "Scroll" are not "tree")

The KJV doesn't use "theos" at all.

Your kidding right?,

one example: Strong's " 2316 theos theh'-os of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very:--X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward). see GREEK for 3588"

Matthew 6:33 (Stephanus)
³³ζητειτε δε πρωτον την βασιλειαν του θεου και την δικαιοσυνην αυτου και ταυτα παντα προστεθησεται υμιν

Matthew 6:33 (KJV)
³³But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Matthew 6:33 (NIV)
³³But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

NIV takes out "God" replacing it with "his" (no foot notes)

But, your real example isn't Jesus walked on Honey, it's that the NIV uses a word 1201 times instead of 1205 times.

It leaves "God" out of the original text, and what does Rev. 22:19 say in either version about leaving words out?

 

[rrowell]

I just have strong doubts that what we know as a book would have been known in the ancient world. They had papyrus and scrolls, not books per se.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

My only point is that to say "scroll" could possibly be more correct than "book," but that either would suffice.

I too find no problem interchanging "book" and "scroll", they both are indicative of something written upon...

However I have a problem with the NIV translating even the Alexandrian text's word ξυλου to "Tree" when ξυλου means "wood" or "inner bark" of which the Papyri is in fact made from the inner bark of the Papyrus plant... it is a slant put into the English text that does not in my opinion fit either the Byzantine (Majority) or Alexandrian (Critical) text.

The NIV was created by the Zondervan publishing company in effort to out sell the KJV and took the desire for more sales (money) in higher account than making a more readable version of the original text, it was injected with as much doctrinal division to appeal to as many denomination as possible simply to out sell the KJV, if you don't believe me, just look at the preface to the NIV and the so called "scholars" pulled together to create the thing.