Merits of the NIV

You make a good point, and such should be the use of the NIV or even the NLT, to get the gist of a book, especially some OT ones. And rightfully, you cite that a more literal rendering is best for study.

However, a translation like the ESV (or even the old RSV) is suitable for reading and study.

 

Luke 18:10-14 (ESV)
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. [11] The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. [12] I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' [13] But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' [14] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

 

hi Brian..what is your point about the verses? I looked them up and they read almost the same. The NIV adds many words to the text however.

as far as Larry's comment i was speaking more of the last paragraph when i said his comments were hateful. which to me they were. that's my opinion i don't think i misrepresented him in anyway. I read what he wrote and that is how I took his comments.

 

Acts 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
25 Who (pronoun refering to the antecedent "God" in verse 24) by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

It seems to me to be saying that God spoke through the mouth of David. That seems to be a reference to inspiration.

Jude 25 To the only wise God, our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

The words "by Jesus Christ" are considered by many to be an interpolation due to a scribal gloss. There are some who consider the entire doxology to be such. But the absense of the words is due to a peculiarity of the textus receptus. All English bibles starting with Tyndale omit the words "by (or through) our Lord Jesus Christ" (or words to that effect). Cranmer (1539) puts the words in italics as well as enclosing them in (parentheses). The Rheims of 1582 contains the reading, but that is probably due to the influence of the Latin Vulgate.

However, an exegesis of the words, as they appear in the KJV, would include the fact that the words "the only wise God our Saviour" does not detract from the deity of Christ, but instead clearly ascribes to our Saviour, the title of God.

 

This is the last time I will post this warning to the Bible Versions/Translation forum.

NO NAME CALLING!

In the future I will delete such posts without warning.

Larry, dial it back.

KJV1611only, dial it way back!

 

You've said that before Thomas. Unfortunately, we have to say that way too often round here. Permit me to add also for all of us to add a couple extra ounces of humility.

[ April 22, 2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Childish and baseless insults deleted]

[ April 22, 2002, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

KEVO, knock it off. You've been warned before and we've had a lot of patience with you, but any more of your nonsense and you're outta here. See Mt 5:22 when you get some time.

[ April 22, 2002, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

If you treated the issue fairly, the point would be obvious.

Brian

 

I know what you were referring to and I showed that your statement had no basis in fact. The NIV is very clear on the blood of Christ. When you look at Col 1:14, most people believe based on the evidence available that "through his blood" is an interpolation from Eph 1:7. There is substantial support for its exclusion in Col 1:14.

I was speaking tongue and cheek in illustrating the absurdity of doing word studies by consonants in English translations. The statement attributed to Riplinger is pure and utter foolishness.

There was nothing hateful there. I am very concerned that the biblical doctrine of inspiration is being undermined by people like Riplinger, Ruckman, and others. There is no hate in confronting false doctrine. We need to stand up and say what needs to be said. We should do it tactfully but clearly and forcefully. You should compare my statements to Peter Ruckman's and Riplinger's because then you will see that I have said nothing hateful or in a hateful way.

I am not attacking you because you believe that God's word is in one book. I am pointing out errors, lies, bad theology, disobedience to Scripture, denial of biblical doctrine, and misrepresentations.

So do we. Come visit my church and you will see what the final rule of faith and practice is here.

Anyone who believes that the KJV is the only word of God in teh English language has compromised biblical doctrine. The KJV is a very good translation of the Word of God. It has demonstrable errors in translation, questionable choices in translation, inclusion of passages that are most likely not a part of the original based on the multitude of evidence available. A calvinist who is KJVOnly has compromised the biblical doctrine and I will respond to that as well.

I have no problem with people who are more accomplished than myself. I learn from them and use them. In fact, many many people are more accomplished than myself. That is not the issue. When doctrine is mistaught, everyone -- from the newest believer to the most educated doctor -- should stand and cry foul.

I had a guy who almost quit coming to church here because he had been taught false doctrine about the KJV. When I pulled out a Greek New Testament and asked him to read it, he had to admit he was taking someone else's word for what the Scripture said. It then opened the door to a reasonable and reasoned discussion about the texts that God has preserved for us through the years and how they play into translation. After several meetings, he wasn't fully in agreement but he understood his misunderstanding and was no longer ready to run me out of orthodoxy. I am convinced that when people sit down with the facts and honestly evaluate them, they will not be KJVOnly. They may prefer the KJV, the Majority Text, the TR. They may think other Bible's are not the best translation (such as Thomas does). But they will not be KJVOnly.

 

amen

 

The moderator warning about name calling goes also for unsolicited attack emails. Let this be a public warning. If you're caught doing this, you could lose your posting priviliges. Admins can trace you via your IP. You cannot hide. Don't try.

 

what is an unsolicited attack email?

 

As opposed to a solicited e-mail attack?

 

Michael,
By that I refer to persons emailing others without any intent or invitation to privately discuss a matter for the express purpose of insults and the like. It's a cowardly thing and not becoming a Christian gentleman or lady.

Thomas wrote:

Correct. Remember, you're only supposed to insult people who ask you to

 

I have a particular fondness for the NIV.
It is readable and clear. The text is
laid out well in paragraphs. It is a
good translation, worthy of the praise
it has received over the years. It lacks
the "stuffiness" of some of the more
literal translations.

OTOH, it is not a good, precise study
edition of the Scriptures. The best
choices for study are the ESV, NASB,
and RSV. The HCSB is excellent too.

But I like using the NIV. It is a good,
clear translation in contemporary English
that is not too tied to the Wycliffe/Tyndale/
KJV tradition (which I love BTW). I
probably recommend the NIV more than any
other translation when a person wants a
Bible for reading purposes.

Clay

 

DocCas,
Since you will not answer your private messages, maybe you will answer this.

I thought this was a BAPTIST board and that only baptist could post here except in designated areas. Is this true? If it is true, why do non-baptist, like KJV1611only, who according to his profile, is not Baptist post here? If it is not true, which part of this board is restricted to baptist only?

[ October 03, 2002, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Terry Herrington ]

 

Hello,

I guess my 2 cents is as valuable as anyone's on this. I grew up as a Christian on the King James, I grew to love it, memorize, study it and use it. I had a pastor who believed that it was the Word of God, and that was simply the end of the discussion. Not in a "bad way" like he wouldn't discuss the issue. For him it just wasn't an issue. He believed the King James was the Bible, and he was determined to use the Bible, rather than argue about it.

Since then, I have for myself tried to study the issues underlying the whole debate, and for a while due to influences in school my confidence in the ability for anyone to say we have the Word of God in our hand was shaken.

Since leaving school, I've done some more reading and studying. I guess I fall into the King James camp of the DBS & men like David Sorenson in MN.

I try not to let this be an issue in my church. The King James is the standard of our church ~ and it is my standard ~ and so that is what we use, teach from, preach from, and all we knowingly allow those teaching etc. to use (I say "knowingly" because there have been a few times when I've bought some material thinking it was one thing & finding out it was something else.

I try to be careful since that is what I believe I should do. I also try to be studied up enough on the issue to accurately reflect the debate if / when I need to discuss it with those who attend. I do not run people off if they come through the door with another English translation. We simply use what we believe is the Bible God has chosen to preserve in the English tongue. When / where this engenders questions, I answer them as accurately as I believe I can.

If someone in my church really wants to explore the issue, I point them to the writings of others I believe I can trust, usually men I respect for being more skilled in presenting the arguments, and doing it well. So I usually recommend something by Dr. Waite or Dr. Sorenson (I am leaning more & more to Dr. S's work, "Touch Not the Unclean Thing" ~ I admit for a long time I let the cover fool me, and then actually read the book and found out it was really well-balanced, fair, accurate and all around well-written.

I am personally persuaded in large measure by the arguments concerning the underlying texts. Therefore I rest on the King James as being God's Word kept intact for the English speaking world. If another person has a different opinion on the Greek or believes a different English translation is best, then I commend them to the Lord they serve who will ultimately judge them. (Rom. 14.) I don't believe I should label them an heretic unless I find some heresy in their teaching. Coming to a different conclusion and conviction than I have about the Bible is not heresy, even though I may sincerely believe them to be wrong and wasting time. That's probably close to what they think of me, too. Amen? Amen.

I frankly think we waste too much time arguing over this question, but I respect those who believe we need to argue it. In part, that's why I like having a ready arsenal of just enough information to satisfy those who ask. But for my own self, I would rather USE the Bible than argue ABOUT it.

Ok, there's my 2 cents. Have a nice day. (And I'm not sure I'll see any responses to this; no offense, I just don't log on that often.)

[ October 03, 2002, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Shumer ]

 

Good man. Good book. I know David, and went to seminary with his brother Steve who was a good friend. I highly recommend his book. And I agree! The cover art gives the impression the book is something entirely different from what it actually is.

 

Duh! The problem was taken care of clear back in May! He has not posted on any forum for 5 months!