RE: Is the NIV accurate?

In some places, it is the most accurate of versions, and in some places, no. That's when it gets hard.

Each version, King James included, HAD to get 'filtered' through the understanding of the people choosing the correct words to correspond to the Hebrew and Greek. It is never easy.

For the most part, though, I think the NIV has fewer errors than many of the others. The ones my husband and I have found almost always are those caused by a 'modern' understanding of certain things -- which the earlier translators were not handicapped with! And very often a simple and direct translation of the words ends up being much more accurate than anything else.

There are areas where they all fail, actually. In the gospel of John, there are, in the Greek, three times when Jesus says "ego eimi," or "I am I AM," identifying Himself as the same God who spoke to Moses and who was worshiped historically by the Israelites. But you will not find that phrase in any English translation I know of, King James included, as it must have been considered 'bad grammar' and thus 'corrected.'

And that is a mistake that is CORE to the meaning of the entire Bible!

Where I personally have landed in all of this is that I think any of the standard translations are good for Bible reading. Whatever you are the most comfortable with. If you decide to go into in-depth Bible study, however, get an English parallel of several translations, a Hebrew-English parallel (Old Testament), a Greek-English parallel (New Testament), a Septuagint, and a t least a couple of good concordances for looking up words, their usages, and root meanings.

Yes, it is expensive. But you can learn a lot that way. On the other hand, a simple reading of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation each year (4 chapters a day will do it easily) can yield untold new treasures each year. At the risk of being flogged by the KJV-only folk, I like to use my NIV for the yearly reading. When my husband and I do Bible study together, we use both the new King James and the NIV, and that often spreads into various other versions and reference books! We've learned we have to put a time limit on ourselves, actually, for one thing leads to another, leads to another, leads to another.....

But then, I'm up for spiritually fat....

Is there such a thing?

 

The NIV is a very accurate version. It does take a functional equivalence (FE) view of translation which means this (simplistically put): communication of meaning and intent takes priority over translation of words.

While that may sound like heresy, it is actually a very sound method of translation in any language whether ancient or modern. FE takes idioms and translates them into like idioms. The KJV does this often. For instance, Rom 6:2 "God forbid" literally reads "May it never be." The God (theos) is not found in the verse. "God forbid" accurately conveys the meaning of Paul. Thus it is a functional equivalent rather than a literal translation. In Matt 27:44, the KJV reads "cast the same in his teeth." The problem is that "teeth" is found nowhere in the verse in any Greek mss. The idiom is one of heaping insults on someone. Thus the modern versions (NIV, NASB,NKJV) all give a literal translation while the KJV takes functional equivalent approach to translation.

A modern example that shows the validity of FE is a little lesson I learned in Brazil. While learning Portuguese (and not very much of it at that), I was practicing on someone. I was asking "how old are you" and did so by trying to translate word for word. The Brazilian looked at me like I was crazy. He had no idea what I was talking about. When I finally got to someone who knew both languages, they corrected me. In Portuguese, when you want to ask how old someone is, you ask (literally translated to English) "How many years do you have?" A literal translation makes you look like a fool going either way (from English to Portuguese or from Portuguese to English).

Overall, the NIV is a good translation for reading. It is accurate as a whole.

Helen,

Your comments on "ego eimi" are confusing to me. I am not sure what you are saying. "Ego" is the first person singular pronoun (I); eimi is the first person singular indicative verb "to be." Thus ego eimi is "I am;" not "I am I am." While "eimi" by itself could be rendered "I am" the inclusion of the personal pronoun is one of emphasis. It emphasizes the subject, not the verb. Thus ego eimi, is "I am" with the emphasis on "I am." John 8:58 is the most familiar of these occurrences probably (Before Abraham was, I am). You are right that it could be a reference to YHWH in the OT.

However, your reasoning to get there seemed a bit out of line.

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I Am A Baptist Board Fan:
I am wondering, is the New International Version of the Bible accurate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not as accurate as the NASB, ESV and NKJV. Too much interpretation instead of translation. It omits certain key theological terms and concepts like propitiation, Lord of Hosts, and several others. And some translation choices leave me scratchin' my head saying "What?"

[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

Gotta agree with Chris. The NIV is just a bit too interpretive for my taste. And, it's a shame since it has soooo many resources (reference Bibles, study Bibles, audio Bibles, other reference works based on it, etc).

 

The NIV is a fairly accurate translation of an inaccurate underlying Greek text. At times it over-uses dynamic equivalence, which, in my opinion, should be used sparingly and only when the logic of language dictates it.

Personally, I think the NIV is irrelevant. If a person cannot, or will not, use the KJV, the ASV or its updated sister, the NASB, are much better bibles, but still translated from an inferior underlying Greek text. If you want a version other than the KJV based on the same text, I would suggest the 3rd Millennium Bible, The KJVII, Jay Green's Literal Translation (very much like his KJVII), in that order.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
, the NASB, are much better bibles, but still translated from an inferior underlying Greek text. If you want a version other than the KJV based on the same text, I would suggest the 3rd Millennium Bible, The KJVII, Jay Green's Literal Translation (very much like his KJVII), in that order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I left most of your quote to ask a few questions about parts of it, but I am having trouble with the board blanking out completely when I edit and go back. So, I am very aware I am not following rules by including your complete quote, but tonight it doesn't appear that my computer will allow this.

You mention the NASB as a superior translation to the NIV. I tend to agree. I have tried to put this all together into one area; however, can you either point me to a place or provide the answer as to the main areas of the text stream of the new translations that differ enough to give you grief due to your studies of the Byzantine text, etc.? In other words, not counting the origin of the other text streams what is your major grief with the text itself specifically?

I recall once you said you had a problem with the NKJV due to (I believe) some translation "tense" errors or something to that effect. Regardless, IS the NKJV really based on the Byzantine text stream as advertised? I have never really studied the NKJV in any detail.

What is the history of the 3rd millinnium Bible, how old is it and who translated it, etc.--just some basic info about the translation -- doesn't have to be a book report.?

I do read this correct, right? It uses the Byzantine text stream, but it is my understanding the KJV translators utilized many sources including English versions such as the Geneva translation--which can be seen by comparing verses of which MANY are identical. I assume that under your view the Geneva is simply an earlier version of the KJV that just wasn't quite in its complete stages, is this true?

Finally, I know you do not like MV's at all that do not use the Byzantine text stream, but have you reviewed the ESV to any extent. I have been using mine as a comparison with my pastor. He quotes many, many verses during his sermons and my responsibility (well, it is kind of a --help him out situation) is to follow every single passage in the ESV and determine if there are differences. So far, to date, I have found the ESV is so close to the KJV that if it is true that there is such a difference in text streams, is it possible that they relied on the Byzantine?

These are not questions to trick you -- although I have read many of your posts, I do not understand the specifics of what the problem is with the other text streams except for the fact that "some" of them came from Alexandria, etc.

Thanks,

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


Not as accurate as the NASB, ESV and NKJV. Too much interpretation instead of translation. It omits certain key theological terms and concepts like propitiation, Lord of Hosts, and several others. And some translation choices leave me scratchin' my head saying "What?"

[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris, could you and maybe Pastor Larry give me your thoughts on this theory of mine.

It seems that from reading the introduction and methods used for translating (I use the term loosely) the NIV that one of the standard required was very easy readability. When reading the NIV, I am reminded of reading a third or fourth grade reading level book. This may be fine, but do you think this might have been part of the NIV's problem--that the actual editors had their hands tied to certain (how to put this?) low level or simple words that it resulted in the problems that we now see in the NIV? I am not saying this is the only problem, but doesn't it seem like it could be a major causal factor regarding the resulting book?

 

The simple way to answer is, yes, the NIV is accurate. It is not as accurately literal as the ESV, NASB, etc. But it is preferable to translations such as the NRSV, RSV, and some others. It is especially suitable for devotional reading. It is based on the superior mss and is very understandable. But I prefer the ESV. It is just as readable and much more literal.

 

On the NIV:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Zondervan Bibles

I don't think their hands were tied so to speak. I think the last sentence above shows their idea: Faithful communication of hte meaning of the original writers. To me, that is the point of translation. A literal translation that misses the intent is useless. We should not however, ditch literalness in an effort to be overly simple (such as the Amplified Bible). There is a mix that we must pursue.

I would differ with some of the NIV's translational choices because of interpretation issues, but that is true of every version. For instance in Gen 49:10 (where I preached this morning), I think the NIV got it right where the NASB, NKJV, and KJV missed it. Shiloh should be translated as a verbal, not understood as a proper name. But there is difference on that. The NASB, KJV, and NKJV practiced interpretation when they read "Shiloh;" the NIV practiced interpretation when they read "To whom it belongs." The meaning is the same either way. If Shiloh is a proper name, it refers to the Messiah to whom the authority to rule belongs. If "to whom it belongs" is the meaning, then it does refer to Messiah anyway.

I guess I just don't share the concerns that some have.

 

The problem with the NIV - and all dynamic equivalent versions - is that they enter the realm of hermeneutics instead of translating. Now all translations interpret to a point, or else translation is impossible. But the NIV makes some interpretive jumps at several points.

For instance, in 1 Cor. 7:1-2 in the ESV, it says:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." [2] But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

The NIV says "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

The Greek does not mention marriage at all; in fact, verse 1 seems to contradict verse 2 in the NIV. The NASB says "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman," accurate and the most literal interpretation of the three.

There are many other weaknesses of the NIV, not the least being the elimination of key theological terms like propitiation.

Overall I'd say the ESV is what the NIV should have been. Essentially literal, yet readable.

Having said all that, its probably safe to say that more people have been converted under and studied the word through the NIV (and its foreign language cousins) than any other translation in history.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
For instance, in 1 Cor. 7:1-2 in the ESV, it says:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." [2] But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

The NIV says "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

The Greek does not mention marriage at all; in fact, verse 1 seems to contradict verse 2 in the NIV. The NASB says "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman," accurate and the most literal interpretation of the three.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This passage is another classic case of hermeneutics in translation. The question is, when Paul says, "Now concerning the things your wrote about," what were those things?

Some believe, as the NIV and ESV indicate, that there was a teaching that people should not marry or have sexual relations within marriage. So Paul is saying this, "Now concerning the things you wrote -- namely that one should not marry or have sexual relations -- I am telling that in order to avoid fornication you should actually marry." In other words, Paul is saying that marriage is perfectly acceptable in spite of what people are teaching. That is why later in the chapter he says that the spouses are not to withold sexual relations from their spouse except for a time. In this sense, Paul is giving the false teaching in v.1 and correcting it in v. 2.

Contrary to what many people say, I do not believe Paul is forbidding a man to touch a woman in v. 1. He is citing the false teaching that he will refute in the following verses. This, I believe, is becoming the dominant opinion among the exegetes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are many other weaknesses of the NIV, not the least being the elimination of key theological terms like propitiation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for this issue, I am sympathetic with your position. However, what good is the word propitiation if no one knows what it means? For me, I would would prefer to keep the word propitiation and include a marginal note of explanation. The NIV simply chose to explain it in the text rather than in the margin. I don't think there is anything sacred about "propitiation" as a word -- after all, the apostles didn't even use it -- they used hilaskomos. Why don't we just use that word? Well obviously because people wouldn't understand it until we told them what it meant.

I don't even use the NIV except for reading and comparison. However, as I said, I think a lot of the arguments against it are weak.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

Again, I must agree with your statement about the NIV that most of the arguments against it are wrong and (my opinion) nobody seems to get it through their head that they are all translations with translational and interpretational errors based on archaic languages and multiple manuscripts that must to compiled in an effort to find that which is most accurate to the original, which we have lost.
As I said before, you remind me a lot of my pastor. (Maybe you are him -- just using a pseudonym. haha
Anyway, because we are a relatively small church there seems to be two extremes in our church and that is new young Christians--very dedicated to the Lord, and older men and women who most have been through a lot of physical problems and have been in church all their lives--so they tend to have a lot of faith. We have a wonderful church family with very little dissention. But, using this as an example of the spread, many of the older Christians like the KJV not because they think it is more accurate, but simply because they grew up with it and to them it is a familiar scripture. So, our pastor preaches from the King James and uses a LOT of scripture references every time he preaches, often jumping from the old testament to the new to make comparisons about how the New covernant relates to the old relationship with God the father and Jesus who at the time was not known as a man.
He will explain terms in the KJV and most of the time his explination of single difficult words comes from the NIV because it has a tendency to make difficult words simple for even the children to understand. This seems to work very well and keeps everybody happy. I don't know if many people know that he uses the NIV as a reference (although I think he has said it from the pulpit), but we have talked about it and I usually carry two or three translations to church. Usually an NASB, KJV, was carrying and NIV too, but have probably replaced it with my new ESV which I am making comparisons with and find it extremely well matched to the KJV, but have not studied it based on Greek or Hebrew, but I understand from many of the supporters that it is very accurate in that aspect also.
My pastor hadn't even heard of the ESV which I got mine, he is usually too busy studying to watch the news on the internet boards, etc. He seems to think there are too many translations now and we don't need any more, but after I explained the reasoning behind the ESV, he is interested in finding out my thoughts on it as we continue to make comparisons. I cannot understand the complaints about the two manuscript streams because the ESV is SOOOO close the the KJV that they seem to come from the same source, which indicates to me that there is REALLY little difference between the manuscript streams, except for possible far out manuscripts such as the dead-sea scrolls.
I am very interested in getting Dr. Cassidy's view on why and exactly WHAT about the Byzantine manuscripts that not only makes him feel they are more accurate, but what are the inaccuracies of the older manuscripts.
It seems to me that everybody blames the new translations on two Alexandrian manuscripts which were only referred to like a LOT of manuscripts when the newer versions were written such as the Septuagint (which Dr. Cassidy does not believe exists, but is a manuscript none-the-less that needs to be at least studied, regardless of the debate on its age), and many other manuscripts written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
The big issue between the NIV, ESV and KJV is that the gospel is preached at the same (what I will call) "amplitude" and "accuracy" in each of the mainstream trannslations. A KJVO can say they changed a word and diluted it, but to me it appears that the change of word (not only represents probably a better translation in today's language) but, it reflects what the oldest Biblical manuscripts we have available actually says. So, the KJV cannot be used as a standard of comparison, because it too is no more than a translation with translational errors. I feel that any of the good mainstream translations preach the same level of gospel and bring people to Christ just as easily, if not easier in today's language. After all, does the Holy Spirit actually help Christians who are right with God (or not--if he is convicting them) translate or provide understanding in the minds of Christians as and while they read the Bible? I know that I can go back to the same verse ten years later and it was relevent to something in my life then, but today it now becomes relevent to something in my life today. I feel the Bible's scripture (all of it) that is relevant to any age or era of time. AND, that relevancy may change with changing of social climates. The Bible is a living book with the Holy Spirit behind it to provide that "life" to the scripture.

Does this sound like a line of reasonable thinking for most Baptists (remember, I am Southern Baptist). I am not necessarily looking for an answer from KJVOs on this particular post, because I already know pretty much all that can and has been said.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Philip:

The ESV is translated from the Masoretic text as foudn in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd Ed., 1983) and on the Greek text in the 1993 UBS Greek New Testament, and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th Ed) Nestle and Aland. It does not follow the KJV texts.

 

But why are many verses omitted from the NIV? For example:

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28 (this one is an OT prophecy recorded in Isaiah 53:12)
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

Also, here is a comparison of Isaiah 14:12

KJV
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (how) art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NIV
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How you are fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn...but you are brought down to the grave.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hebrew word for "star" is "kokab" and "kokab" is not found in Isaiah 14:12. In other verses, the NIV correctly translates "kokab" as "star", so the translators do know the Hebrew word for "star". Not to mention the fact that JESUS is referred to as morning star:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Revelation 22:16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> KJV

These are just some things I don't understand...it just doesn't seem necessary.

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: Kathy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But why are many verses omitted from the NIV? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The verses were “omitted” only if you standard is the KJV. One of the issues in the debate is whether or not those verses are authentic. Most agree that they are not. Some believe that they are. It is at least as likely that scribes in later centuries of textual copying added those verses, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

On Isaiah 14:12, this verse has been discussed elsewhere. The Isaiah passage is a discussion about how to translate a word that is used only one time I believe. The word is helel, and refers to the King of Babylon, possibly as a personification of Satan, though this is not clear. Isa 14 is not clearly referring to Satan in any case though a strong argument can be made in its favor. Helel comes from a word that means shining or shining of the sun in its uses in Job. Thus “morning star” is an entirely appropriate translation of it.

You are right about the Hebrew word for star. However, many times, words have built in concepts such as “helel” being a morningstar. I imagine that the people who tell you that the word for "star" is not in the verse making it a bad translation do not also tell you that the word of God is not in Rom 6:2 even though the KJV has it.

The Rev passage has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Many have tried to connect those two verses to prove some sort of “conspiracy” among modern versions but the test simply will not stand. It is not sound argumentation to look for similar phrases and then make them identical. For instance, both Ezekiel and Christ are called the son of man. They are not identical. There were two kings named Jeroboam. They are not identical. There were two disciples named James (the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphaeus). They are not the same person. Therefore there is no reason to assume that the phrase “bright and morning star” refers to the same thing each time it is used, especially when the context clearly precludes it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kathy:
But why are many verses omitted from the NIV? For example:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>These verses are left out of the NIV (when compared to the KJV) because the NIV is based on a different Greek textform than the KJV.

As to "Lucifer" vice "morning star" the former is more likely correct. The Hebrew is an absolute, and thus should reflect a proper name. I would have little problem if the NIV read "Morning Star" - as a proper name rather than as it reads. Who is being refered to is a matter of interpretation, not translation.

 

I have scanned some of the posting about KJV versus various translations.

The posts remind me of the middle ages discussions by learned religous leaders and others about - "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" - You can't see the correlation? Answer, there is no correct answer to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin any more than there is a definitive answer to which is the most correct Bible translation.

The most correct translation is in the perception of the observer/user.However it is to be noted that the accuracy of the translation is dependent on Jesus Christ not in the perception of the observer.

Through out the posts, at no time did I read a post wherein anyone quoted biblical content for comparative purposes between the translations. Why do you suppose no biblical content was posted?

Try this on for size:

KJV - John 3:1-18

Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art
a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except
God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest
not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that
we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe,
if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world
through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
......................................

Now let us look at THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE - John 3:1-18

1. There was one of the Pharises named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Council, who came to Jesus by night. Rabbi, he said, we know that you are a teacher sent by God; no one could perform these signs of your unless God were with him. Jesus answered, In truth, in very truth I tell you, unless a man has been born over again he cannot see the kindom of God. But how is it possible, said Nicodemus, for a man to be born when he is old? Can he enter his mother's womb a second time and be born? Jesus answered, In truth I tell you,no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born from water and spirit. Flesh can give birth only to flesh; it is spirit that gives birth to spirit. You ought not to be astonished then when I tell you that you must be born over again. The wind blows where it wills; you hear the sound of it but you do not know where it comes from, or where it is going. So with everyone who is born from spirit.
Nicodemus replied; How is this possible? What! said Jesus, Is this famous teacher of Israel ignorant of such things? In very truth I tell you we speak of what we know, and testify to what we have seen, and yet you all reject our testimony. If you disbelieve me when I talk to you about things on earth, how are to believe if I should talk about the things of heaven?
No one ever went up into heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son Man whose home is heaven. This Son of Man must be lifed up as the serpent was lifted up by Moses in the wilderness, so that everyone who has faith in him may in him possess eternal life.
God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, that everyone who has faith in him may not die but have eternal life. It was not to judge the world that God sent his Son into the world, but that through him the world might be saved.
The man who puts his faith in him does not come under the judgement; but the unbeliever has already been judged in that he has not given his allegiance to God's son.
...................................

Perhaps you would like to Compare the AMPLIFIED BIBLE and other translations of John 1:3-18.
....................................
If you care to look for more comparisons look for those comparisons about Jesus wherein Jesus discussed salvation, the forgiveness of Sin, who He prayed to, the miracles Christ performed.

Then contemplate - if the Word of God is correctly translated it will deal with the miraculous birth of Christ, the Diety of Christ, the forgiveness of Sin, how and why Christ died for each of us and say the same thing in each translation, although perhaps with different words having the identical meaning of being born again after the forgiveness of your sins through Christ's death.

Those translated bibles wherein Christ did not talk about himself, as Jesus Christ did in John 1:3-18, as the only way to heaven by the forgiveness of your sins through the shed blood of Jesus Christ are psuedo Bibles in which God had no hand in the translation.

A translation wherein a belief in the Diety of Christ and his power to forgive sins by his death, thereby bringing about the spiritual birth(born again)of the physically born individual, is a God inspired translation.

It is only after the spiritual birth has occurred,(born again) after the sins of a man have been forgiven by his belief in Christ, the Son of God, with the power to forgive sins through the death of Christ that the forgiven sinner will have a place reserved in Heaven. If the translation does not make the forgiveness of sins through the death of Jesus Christ, very clear along with the unalterable fact that it is only through the forgiveness of your sins by Jesus Christ that gets you into Heaven, the translation is not of God.

I would also advise some of you who are prone to critique others with whom you do not agree, that perhaps you should also read or reread those chapters in the New Testament, Proverbs and additional areas which deal with the tongue and the damage it can do and what your tongue tells others about yourself.

I will offer no more posts on this subject.

 

i wouldnt say it is accurate according to textus receptus... NIV authors employ eclectic means of translation... ie, they chose which manuscript is the WOG instead of translating the WOG which is already made known to man.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ventin:
i wouldnt say it is accurate according to textus receptus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly does not resemble the TR but you have assumed without conclusive proof that the TR is the Word of God. The TR has not been revealed to be the Word of GOd. Some have suggested such but there are a number of obstacles that render it very improbable that the TR is the "Word of God" in the manner in which you would suggest it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ie, they chose which manuscript is the WOG instead of translating the WOG which is already made known to man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of preservation and transmission of text. There are a number of manuscripts, none of which carry the label "Word of God." Thus we must employ some means of a critical process to arrive at a conclusion. The proponents of the TR have also chosen what they consider to be the Word of God. They have simply made a different choice. The reasonings for the choice is what must be considered.

For some they have chosen the TR, with its many problems. Others have chosen the Majority Text and the Eclectic Text, each with varying differences, both strengths and weaknesses.

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]