Defense of the NIV

[evangelist6589]

There are NIV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the NIV is far from perfect, but as brother Rippon recently pointed out, there are many, many places where the NIV is more literal. I do not like how the NIV takes away some deep meaning theological words, but then again words such as "he is the atoning sacrifice" sounds clearer in modern english over words like propitiation. I am not a expert in the languages as I am an evangelist. I am going to let Rippon and others defend the NIV in this thread.

 

[Robert Snow]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING!!!

Don't you know it's Rippon's job to post this? :laugh:

 

[Baptist4life]

There are KJV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the KJV is far from perfect, but , there are many, many places where the KJV is more literal.



:laugh::laugh::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

There are ESV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the ESV is far from perfect, but , there are many, many places where the ESV is more literal.

 

[Baptist4life]

There are ESV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the ESV is far from perfect, but , there are many, many places where the ESV is more literal.

:applause::applause: :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

I do not like how the NIV takes away some deep meaning theological words,

Aside from propitiation which you mentioned a bit later on...what other "deep meaning theological words" do you think the NIV removes?

 

[Rippon]

Granted the KJV is far from perfect, but , there are many, many places where the KJV is more literal.

You are under a false impression. Just because renderings may be cast in a more literal form does not = perfect.

Many times a literal reading is not a superior way to translate.;and it may be gibberish at that.

 

[Rippon]

There are ESV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the ESV is far from perfect, but , there are many, many places where the ESV is more literal.

See post #7 to disabuse you of your false notions.

 

[evangelist6589]

Aside from propitiation which you mentioned a bit later on...what other "deep meaning theological words" do you think the NIV removes?

Cant remember at this time.

 

[evangelist6589]

There are KJV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the KJV is far from perfect, but , there are many, many places where the KJV is more literal.



:laugh::laugh::thumbs::thumbs:

Is that your best argument, or is this post a way of saying that you do not know what you are saying? No one hates the KJV, and I myself have 2 hard copies of it.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Is that your best argument, or is this post a way of saying that you do not know what you are saying? No one hates the KJV, and I myself have 2 hard copies of it.

Your main complaint seems to be that the NIV is more literal. You say that you are not arguing for superiority, but then why use the term MORE literal?

Also, when you say it is MORE literal, more literal COMPARED TO WHAT MANUSCRIPTS?

 

[Baptist4life]

There are NIV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the NIV is far from perfect, but as brother Rippon recently pointed out, there are many, many places where the NIV is more literal.

You are under a false impression. Just because renderings may be cast in a more literal form does not = perfect.

Many times a literal reading is not a superior way to translate.;and it may be gibberish at that.




So says Rippon, at least. Funny how he made that comment to my post (which a direct copy and paste of your post), but not to your post. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rippon]

Funny how he made that comment to my post (which a direct copy and paste of your post), but not to your post. :smilewinkgrin:

I know it's hard to keep up with things because of your advanced age.:laugh:

You had lifted and altered the OP. Rm did the same in post 4. I took care of your altered OP in post 7;and Rm's in post 8.

Doth thou now understandeth?

 

[John of Japan]

There are NIV haters and they always like to find fault and doing so seems to be one of their main goals in life. Granted the NIV is far from perfect, but as brother Rippon recently pointed out, there are many, many places where the NIV is more literal.

Actually, Rippon did no such thing. He only gave his opinion about literalness in his comparison. Many of his examples were faulty, due to his lack of good lexicons (Strong's doesn't cut it) and his lack of knowledge of Greek grammar. If I get time I'll debunk some of that.

 

[evangelist6589]

Actually, Rippon did no such thing. He only gave his opinion about literalness in his comparison. Many of his examples were faulty, due to his lack of good lexicons (Strong's doesn't cut it) and his lack of knowledge of Greek grammar. If I get time I'll debunk some of that.

I look forward to that post. In the meantime I want to ask if you have ever read the book The King James Only Controversy by James White? If so what do you think of the many arguments he makes in there for the NIV, and against KJV Onlyism? He seems to know his Greek/Hebrew and there are various places where the NIV translates superior and one of the best and most well known i the Johaninne comma where the KJV/NKJV have an insertion that is gone from the best and later MS evidences. Also I will point out there is a longer ending to Mark that may not be original. The NIV/ESV point that out to the reader while the KJV/NKJV ignore it. There are various other places where the NIV/ESV use better and more recent MSS evidences. Also to note that the KJV/NKJV have inserted verses in various places that are gone from the NIV/ESV as the verses may not be original. Some of these are Mt 17:21, Mk 9:44, & Acts 8:37.


Some examples of the NIV/ESV's superiority one of which is the updating of old archaic language.

Numbers 23:22 (KJV) 22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8 (KJV) 8God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Job 39:9 (KJV) 9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

The modern versions update this word as there is no such thing as a "unicorn."

Isaiah 13:21 (KJV) 21But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

What is a satyr? Its a mythological creature.

James 2:3 (KJV) 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Gay clothing?

These are just a few of many...... Bottom line John is that The KJV/NKJV are good translations and poetic. However the NIV/ESV are more reliable.

 

[John of Japan]

I look forward to that post. In the meantime I want to ask if you have ever read the book The King James Only Controversy by James White? If so what do you think of the many arguments he makes in there for the NIV, and against KJV Onlyism?.

First of all, you're barking up the wrong tree. My view of the NIV has no connection to the KJVO controversy. But yes, I have and have read White's book, James Price's book (he gave me my copy, signed by him), Rick Norris's book (he gave me my copy, signed), Stewart Custer's copy, etc.

He seems to know his Greek/Hebrew and there are various places where the NIV translates superior and one of the best and most well known i the Johaninne comma where the KJV/NKJV have an insertion that is gone from the best and later MS evidences. Also I will point out there is a longer ending to Mark that may not be original. The NIV/ESV point that out to the reader while the KJV/NKJV ignore it. There are various other places where the NIV/ESV use better and more recent MSS evidences. Also to note that the KJV/NKJV have inserted verses in various places that are gone from the NIV/ESV as the verses may not be original. Some of these are Mt 17:21, Mk 9:44, & Acts 8:37.

I'm not on the same page as White in textual criticism--and he is not a textual critic, by the way. All you are doing here is repeating White. You have apparently not studied it yourself. So why are you being so positive about "better and more recent MSS evidences"? The truth is, the Byzantine priority position is getting a lot of exposure nowadays in scholarly circles. (I suggest Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black.) On the other hand, the eclectic text of the NIV has many verses that exist nowhere in the mss in that form. (See Dr. Maurice Robinson's essays in Translating the New Testament, ed. by Porter and Boda.)

First of all, concerning the Johannine Comma, noted textual critic Dr. Maurice Robinson (SEBTS) has collated every single mss on this passage, and his book will be published later this year, hopefully. Last month I sat in his office and discussed it with him, and he showed me the SEBTS library copy. It's a tremendous work, and anyone from the eclectic camp who does not deal with Dr. Robinson's findings will have no credibility concerning John 8, in my view.

Secondly, concerning the longer ending of Mark, I am firmly in the camp that the longer ending is the correct one. There are many scholars who believe so, including some in the eclectic camp, such as Dr. David Alan Black (my son's mentor--got to see him also last month). See Dr. Black's essay in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views, and Dr. Robinson's essay in that book is excellent also.

But note that the NIV includes both of these passages, even if in brackets. So there is a strong position among the translators that those two passages are original.

Some examples of the NIV/ESV's superiority one of which is the updating of old archaic language.

Numbers 23:22 (KJV) 22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8 (KJV) 8God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Job 39:9 (KJV) 9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

The modern versions update this word as there is no such thing as a "unicorn."

Isaiah 13:21 (KJV) 21But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

What is a satyr? Its a mythological creature.

James 2:3 (KJV) 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Gay clothing?

These are just a few of many...... Bottom line John is that The KJV/NKJV are good translations and poetic. However the NIV/ESV are more reliable

Again, these arguments are non sequiters. My negative view on the NIV (and how did the ESV get into the discussion here?) is mainly based on the translation philosophy, though I disagree with its Greek text also.

This is a defense of the NIV, is it not? I'll discuss the NIV with you, but not the KJV, the ESV or anything to do with the KJVO arguments. I simply don't do that in public, having 45 supporting churches of various views.

 

[evangelist6589]

First of all, you're barking up the wrong tree. My view of the NIV has no connection to the KJVO controversy. But yes, I have and have read White's book, James Price's book (he gave me my copy, signed by him), Rick Norris's book (he gave me my copy, signed), Stewart Custer's copy, etc.

I'm not on the same page as White in textual criticism--and he is not a textual critic, by the way. All you are doing here is repeating White. You have apparently not studied it yourself. So why are you being so positive about "better and more recent MSS evidences"? The truth is, the Byzantine priority position is getting a lot of exposure nowadays in scholarly circles. (I suggest Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black.) On the other hand, the eclectic text of the NIV has many verses that exist nowhere in the mss in that form. (See Dr. Maurice Robinson's essays in Translating the New Testament, ed. by Porter and Boda.)

First of all, concerning the Johannine Comma, noted textual critic Dr. Maurice Robinson (SEBTS) has collated every single mss on this passage, and his book will be published later this year, hopefully. Last month I sat in his office and discussed it with him, and he showed me the SEBTS library copy. It's a tremendous work, and anyone from the eclectic camp who does not deal with Dr. Robinson's findings will have no credibility concerning John 8, in my view.

Secondly, concerning the longer ending of Mark, I am firmly in the camp that the longer ending is the correct one. There are many scholars who believe so, including some in the eclectic camp, such as Dr. David Alan Black (my son's mentor--got to see him also last month). See Dr. Black's essay in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views, and Dr. Robinson's essay in that book is excellent also.

But note that the NIV includes both of these passages, even if in brackets. So there is a strong position among the translators that those two passages are original.
Again, these arguments are non sequiters. My negative view on the NIV (and how did the ESV get into the discussion here?) is mainly based on the translation philosophy, though I disagree with its Greek text also.

This is a defense of the NIV, is it not? I'll discuss the NIV with you, but not the KJV, the ESV or anything to do with the KJVO arguments. I simply don't do that in public, having 45 supporting churches of various views.

Actually I did not refer to Whites book once in my arguments as I simply was writing from memory. It sounds allot like how you responded that you do not have a handle on your arguments. I await a reply from someone that can fully address my arguments instead of always referring me to read some essay or book.

 

[Oldtimer]

Once again, John, thank you for your posts in these threads.

Greatly respect the honor that you give God's word through your demeanor in these discussions.

 

[John of Japan]

Actually I did not refer to Whites book once in my arguments as I simply was writing from memory. It sounds allot like how you responded that you do not have a handle on your arguments. I await a reply from someone that can fully address my arguments instead of always referring me to read some essay or book.

As soon as you make an argument defending the NIV as per your OP, I'd be glad to address it. Again, my argument against the NIV is the translation theory behind it, dynamic equivalence. DE has as its goal what is called "reader response," which is that the modern reader has the same response to the text that a first century reader does. I disagree with that. I believe that this method leads to paraphrase, as Dr. James Price points out in his book, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation.

The book recommendations were sincere. I have noted that you like to read. If you want to study textual criticism, those books will give you a good start.

 

[John of Japan]

Once again, John, thank you for your posts in these threads.

Greatly respect the honor that you give God's word through your demeanor in these discussions.

Thanks friend. I do love the Word of God!