Micah 5:2 in the NIV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Where in the world did the NIV team get origins from?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must be that JW, New Age, Liberal, Intellectual, Mormon, Moonie, Free Mason, Illuminati, Tri-lateral, CFR conspiracy that G. A. Riplinger warned us about!!

In all seriousness, the NIV makes me uncomfortable from a philosophical stand point. I don't like the idea that someone is translating AND interpreting at the same time.

I think the popularity of the NIV is more to be lamented than celebrated.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
I don't like the idea that someone is translating AND interpreting at the same time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is impossible to translate without interpreting. It is an indispensable reality to any translation work, whether Bible or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the popularity of the NIV is more to be lamented than celebrated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am interested in why you believe this? Admittedly, I am not comfortable with all the translational choices of the NIV but overall I think it is an excellent translation. I am curious as to your reasons for this. (BTW, I am not going to lambast you for it ... just curious).

 

There is an answer for Micah 5:2. Unfortunately it is in my office rather than my head so I will look it up and at least give the reasons for it. I can't remember what I believe ... I will have to look it up.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]

I am interested in why you believe this?...QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My discomfort with the NIV begins with the stated philosophy of translating thought for thought. I recognize that all translations are a balance between formal and dynamic equivalency. However, IMO the more dynamic a translation is the more we must be concerned with the beliefs and biases of the translators.

My understanding is that the NIV translation group came from across the very broad spectrum of 'Christianity' and included the liberal as well as the conservative....maybe even leaning toward the liberal. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) The notion that theological liberals influenced decisions on meaning in a translation with a stated goal of producing a meaning for meaning text makes me uncomfortable.

My hope is that when the KJV is replaced as the standard English version, it is by a formal equivalency translation. Perhaps even the ESV which has been discussed here. I personally like the NASB but it does not appear to be as popular as the NIV. The broad acceptance of the NIV threatens this possibility.

 

Originally posted by Scott J:


My hope is that when the KJV is replaced as the standard English version, it is by a formal equivalency translation. Perhaps even the ESV which has been discussed here. I personally like the NASB but it does not appear to be as popular as the NIV. The broad acceptance of the NIV threatens this possibility.


Amen, brother. Couldn't agree more.

 

NIV and NASB are based on the same corrupted text from the evil Doctors Westcott and Hort. These two heretics used as their parent texts two of the worst corruptions ever discovered, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS.

Dean John William Burgon (a godly conservative scholar from Oxford)described the evil character of these MSS, "most scandalously corrupt... most shamefully mutilated... depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth--which are dscoverable in any known copies of the Word of God."

In these versions is the hidden venom of the serpent: "Yea, hath God said...?"

Sow doubt, reap unbelief; sow unbelief, reap a multitude of corrupt contaminated versions.

Doctors Westcott and Hort were ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. This dastardly duo was neck deep into the occult, necromancy, spiritism, communicating with evil spirits in the "Hermes Club" and "Ghostly Guild." These guys were self-confessed unbelievers, infidels, unregenerate, reprobates, servants of Satan, doctors of deceit.

These counterfeit Bibles are paving the way for the counterfeit "Kingdom of God" the coming one world church, soon to be here.

God's deliverance from the Dark Ages was sealed with the greatest English translation of history, the King James Bible. Thank God for the King James Bible!

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
NIV and NASB are based on the same corrupted text from the evil Doctors Westcott and Hort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No neither of these Bibles are based on the W-H text. You are wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> These two heretics used as their parent texts two of the worst corruptions ever discovered, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is one of the more common false accusations from the KJVO camp. None of the modern Greek texts are based solely on these two mss. It just so happen that most of the early evidence supports the Alexandrian and not Byzantine family. None the less, my understanding is that UBS, NA, NIV, and NASB all follow the majority text in places against older evidence that is not deemed reliable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dean John William Burgon (a godly conservative scholar from Oxford)described...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is this a quote of a quote or have you really read Burgon's writings?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In these versions is the hidden venom of the serpent: "Yea, hath God said...?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Have you read them and found this for yourself? If you have the courage to actually read what you condemn then why not start out with the NASB at John 1:1-18 then flip over to Titus 2:13. If you really want to validate your position, study the KJV, NASB, and others comparatively for awhile as I do. Many times I read the KJV and miss things that come out clearly when I compare to the NASB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doctors Westcott and Hort were...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you have one shred of factual evidence to support anything that you posted then cite it. Otherwise, please demonstrate some character by not making venomous, unsubstantiated accusations against men who cannot defend themselves. BTW, the writings of these men or their contemporaries are valid. The distortions of Riplinger, Gipp, Ruckman, et al. are not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These counterfeit Bibles are paving the way for the counterfeit "Kingdom of God" the coming one world church, soon to be here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...Or maybe the abundance of understandable, accurate Bibles is God's way of giving mankind its last best chance to receive the gospel.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God's deliverance from the Dark Ages was sealed with the greatest English translation of history, the King James Bible. Thank God for the King James Bible!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, the KJVO's would plunge us back into the religious dark ages by denying laypeople a Bible they can understand....just like the RCC did with the Latin Vulgate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This quote does not guarantee perfect transmission of the text of the Bible nor does it identify a good family of Bibles nor any of the other nonsense propagated by KJVO's. Your willingness to play fast and loose with scripture application demonstrates a lack of respect for any Bible including the KJV.

Your apparent willingness to believe at face value the distortions and historical revisionism of KJVO writers who attack dead men's characters without any sense of fairness has serious spiritual implications.

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
My understanding is that the NIV translation group came from across the very broad spectrum of 'Christianity' and included the liberal as well as the conservative....maybe even leaning toward the liberal. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) The notion that theological liberals influenced decisions on meaning in a translation with a stated goal of producing a meaning for meaning text makes me uncomfortable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe all the translators on the NIV team were committed to inerrancy and they did come from a wide spectrum of evangelicalism. I do not believe there were any liberals on the team, at least who were liberal at that time. They may have since changed.

 

Psalm145 3 said:

Doctors Westcott and Hort were ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. This dastardly duo was neck deep into the occult, necromancy, spiritism, communicating with evil spirits in the "Hermes Club" and "Ghostly Guild."

KJV-only lie.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:

Dean John William Burgon (a godly conservative scholar from Oxford)described the evil character of these MSS, "most scandalously corrupt... most shamefully mutilated... depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth--which are dscoverable in any known copies of the Word of God."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dean Burgon was an Anglican (just like Wescott and Hort) that believed in baptismal regeneration. He did not agree with W-H on method but he did agree that the TR needed extensive revision. He also did not agree that any particular text had been providentially preserved without error. The linked article contains numerous quotes from Burgon verifying these facts.
http://www.kingjamesonly.org/Articles/WHAT%20DID%20JOHN%20WILLIAM%20BURGON%20REALLY%20BELIEVE%20ABOUT%20THE%20TEXTUS%20RECEPTUS%20AND%20THE%20KING%20JAMES%20VERSION.htm

 

Back to the subject for which this thread was started (after that useless interchange).

The word is umotza’otav, a hapax legomenon, derived from yatsah, to go or come out. BDB, Gensenius, and KB recommend “origins” as the correct translation.

Origins – would indicate family roots and show that the coming ruler would have hereditary rights to the throne. This would show that the ruler had come from David’s line, which had been reigning for over 300 years at the time of writing (see Clark and Mundhenk, Allen and Smith [ICC]).

Goings forth – periodic manifestations of this ruler since creation, such as theophanies. This would imply that the ruler is a God man. Some take this expression to go back to eternity, some to the patriarchal period where theophanies first started (see Feinberg, McComiskey, Martin, Keil, Hengstenberg, most Christian theology books).

Most lexical sources take view 1 (origins); most theology books take view 2 (goings forth). View one is not heretical or unorthodox. It simply states that he is in the right dynasty.

The two other phrases also contribute. “From of old” is a temporal clause used also in Micah 7:20 with a clear reference to time, not eternity. It probably refers here to David’s family rather than the manifestation. David’s family was “from of old.” “From days of eternity” (“ancient times” – NIV) is usually used in a historical framework (Is 63:9, Amos 9:11, Mal 3:14). In Micah 7:14, it is used in reference to the Exodus, clearly a historical time period not referring to eternity.

Thus the NIV translation of “origins” refers to his family line and can easily be harmonized with the other uses of the phrases. It is the translation preferred by the lexical works and is not unorthodox by any stretch. I am not saying I prefer that one, only that it is not a wrong translation.

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
It would be nice if we could get a translation board going which deals only with the dynamics of translating and translations - formal vs dynamic equivalence, TR/MT vs Critical Text, theological issues, etc, and where KJVO discussion would be banned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On that I agree wholeheartedly. This KJVO stuff gets old after a while. Maybe a moderator or two would look kindly on that suggestion.

 

I'm with you Pastor Larry and Chris. Chris, I got my ESV Logos update so I'll be posting quotes in that some. So far I love it. If you have any verses you'd like to see, let me know. Na-Na-Na, Na-Na, Na!

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Amen!

 

The NIV perverts The Lord's Prayer into The Devil's Prayer!
LUKE 11:2-4: The KJB reads, ". . .Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." The NIV removes everything that refers to a Holy God in heaven -"WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Everything that distinguishes God from the Devil is REMOVED! "OUR FATHER" of the NIV is "NOT IN HEAVEN" and "DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!" I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44)


God bless the saints of God!

 

I have an NIV study Bible here and I think the text notes imply the reason for the use of 'origin' (even if I or we disagree with this decision!). It is freely admitted that the actual translation is 'goings out' (or, I presume, 'going forth'). However the last part "from of old, from ancient times" actually translates to give a sense of 'from days of eternity.'

Thus the combination of these two may have led them to consider the meaning of 'origin' to be more appropriate. However my disagreement would be with the idea that Christ had an origin!

Unless one is to consider his earthly physical heritage, starting with Adam...

As a side note, my husband and I do Bible study together and he uses the KJV and I use the NIV and we compare as we go. There are a reasonable number of times when the NIV really is preferable for word choice as per the meaning we would understand today. There are also a reasonable number of times when the KJV is clearer in what appears to be the intended meaning. Our recourse is often to go to the Septuagint to see what the earliest known copies had to say! And there are times when BOTH the KJV and the NIV differ radically from the original due, probably, to Origen's interference in translation to the Masoretic. We have found some passages, to give an example, that seem to be Messianic prophetic passages which are changed entirely in the Masoretic. This makes good sense, though, since every effort was being made to deny the validity of that new upstart heretical cult of Christianity!

And one last point. I have been a deaf interpreter (before arthritis attacked my thumbs) and I know for a fact that if I try to 'interpret' word for word I will lose just about all the deaf. It is absolutely imperative to get the meaning across no matter WHAT signs are needed! Idiomatic expressions are, naturally, the worst. For instance, when the sentence was, during one interpretation session, "I went into the Board of Education meeting and kicked a few tires," I could not sign "kicked a few tires." What sense would that have made to any of them? I signed "... them I challenged strongly."

The Hebrew language is rich in idioms. What is a translator to do? One idiom I discovered quite by accident that I have never heard any pastor anywhere discuss, and I think it is really a profound one. I was asked by one of my deaf friends, during a deaf women's Bible study that used to meet here, "Why Jesus say we salt?" Instead of giving her the standard answer of "because salt preserves" or "because salt adds flavor," I told her I would have an answer for her the next week. And then later I spent a couple of hours tracing every reference to salt I could find (God bless the editors of the Concordances!) in the Bible. Right up until the end there were no surprises, only the fact that there seemed to be a differentiation between salt wastelands and the sort of salt Jesus was talking about. I was about to quit when I thought of one more way it was used -- in the phrase "lose its saltiness", which you may remember from the Sermon on the Mount.

That phrase was the key. In Matthew 5:13 and Luke 14:34, Jesus is quoted as having used the word "moraino" for losing saltiness.

But here is the same word in Romans 1:22 (NIV here): "Although they clsimed to be wise, they became fools..." The word 'fools' there is 'moraino.'

And again, in 1 Corinthians 1:20: Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish [moraino] the wisdom of the world?


So is it possible that when Jesus told the Jews who were following Him that they were the salt of the world, they understood that He meant God's wisdom in the world?

This use of 'salt' would also correspond to the two uses we see: salt wastes (man's wisdom) and God's salt -- Him in us -- or His wisdom.

So what's a translator to do? How far does one go? It's always a difficult question. The joy of the Bible is that with ANY of the standard translations, the message of man's sinfulness and God's redemption through Christ comes through loudly and clearly and there is no excuse for anyone to miss THAT boat!