Can the NIV be trusted?

What if it contradicts the King James Bible?

That's as far into your jibberish of a post that I am reading. Whether the NIV can be "trusted" depends on who does the potential trusting. More to the point, you-- or must I say "thou"?-- cannot be trusted.

[ September 17, 2002, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

In Isaiah 9:3, the King James Bible says: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: ..."

In Isaiah 9:3, The NIV says: "You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; ..."

Where the KJV word is "Multiplied" and the NIV is "Enlarged", the original Hebrew word is rabah which means to "bring into abundance", or "increase".

Where both versions say "increased", the word is gadal which more properly means "to make large".

As for the word "not", it only seems to appear in the KJV, and no other. I don't have a direct refernce for this, but a little bit of digging seems to indicate that the word "not" in the KJV wasn't supposed to indicate that their "joy was not increased", but could instead have been meant to pose the statement in similar fashion to "was not their joy increased?". From what I can tell in my limited knowlege of Hebrew syntax, the word is not negated in the original Hebrew word gadal. This is further substantiated by the observation that the word "and" which precedes "not" is absent in many earlier copies of the KJV.

So it's not that one is the word of God more than the other; rather, a bit more study is required to get more of a comprehsnsion of the original Hebrew meaning. Such problems are inhierent in any attempt to translate between two languages. Lest we all take up Hebrew, those are just things we need to come to understand.

[ September 17, 2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

YES

 

Pioneer, why don't you tell us that there are two underlying texts instead of trying to make it look like they are from the same text and one has "intentionally" left something out? Why all the deception on your part? I can tell you at this particular moment, I would trust my NIV over YOU any day of the week.

AJL

 

In the King James Version the words "the brother of" are in italics which means those words were not in the original Hebrew. The translators added them to clarify the issue.

In another post you complained about how we shouldn't add to the words of God. You don't have a problem with the KJV doing that here?? It appears to me the NIV (and NASB, etc) is more accurate to the original Hebrew.

Isn't this an example of dynamic equivalence in the King James Version?

-kman

 

Can you be trusted when all these issues have been addressed, but you ignore the responses?

It is the word of God translated into the words of man.

I'll look at this one later, but my suspicion is that it is like Job 13:15, which the KJV says "I trust in him" and the RSV says "I have no hope" - where the RSV is translating from the actual text, and the KJV is translating from a marginal note in the Masoretic.

The NIV 100%. The KJV has added the words "the brother of". Even the italics of these words should tell you this. If the NIV is "lying" so is every Hebrew manuscript in existence, and you therefore implicitly deny the word of God existed before the KJV.

 

On Isa. 9:3 the NET translation notes say:

So it appears that the NIV is correct.

On Sam. 21:19 the NET translation notes say:

So the KJV seems to have rightly added the phrase brother of. But as already pointed out, it is in italics which means it was not in the original language. The 1769 KJV does not have a footnote to explain, but the NIV does.

Pioneer Brother, you are making the same mistake I did when I was caught up in KJVOism. You are making the KJV the standard. While it is a good translation it is not the standard. The original Hebrew or Greek is the standard. I can’t read Greek or Hebrew but I can read from a variety of dictionaries on the meaning of these words, and various commentaries on the transnational differences. More often than not when I am finished all my searching the NIV translation of the Bible is found to be very accurate.

 

Let us go to the REAL KJV1611:

Ifaiah IX:3a (KJV1611):

Thou hast multiplied the nation,
and !! not increased the ioy:

!! Or, to him

Alternate reading of Ifaiah IX:3a (KJV1611):

Thou hast multiplied the nation,
and to him increased the ioy:

The inspired 50 translators of the AV
noted that "not" was NOT the only possible
translation. This is real noticable IF
one uses the REAL KJV and not MODERN
VERSIONS of the KJV

 

Pioneer,
I would say that the KJV is wrong in Isaiah and the NIV is wrong in 2 Samuel. In neither case is any bible doctrine at stake, unless the person who killed Goliath is stated in your church statement of faith.

[ September 17, 2002, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Terry Herrington ]

 

Okay, time to inject a little reality into the argument, uh, I mean, discussion.

The Masoretic Text was compiled by the Jewish Masorete scribes in the last few hundred years of the first millenium A.D., with the oldest available editions dating between 900 and 1100 AD. The Mesoretic Text is the Hebrew scriptures used to translate the OT. It's accuracy is virtually universally accepted. When compared to the much older Dead Sea Scrolls, it's accuracy is considered by some to be incredible to the point of being miraculous, and does much to prove the accuracy and reliability of the Bible.

Now we come to the real rub in many of these cases involving the Old Testament text.

As part of their great dedication to accuracy, whenever a scribe felt that the text he was copying wasn't right (e.g. he felt a previous scribe had made a mistake, the text didn't read as tradition indicated, etc.), he would not change the text he was copying, but instead write a note in the margin. The marginal note reflected what the scribe felt the text should say, for whatever reason. The marginal note is called the "qere" (pronounced "keh-ray"), and the actual text the note was associated with is called the "ketiv" (pronounced "keh-teev"). "Ketiv" basically means "to be written" (ie. what should be copied to preserve accuracy), and "qere" basically means "to be read" (ie. what to use instead when reading the text aloud).

What does all this have to do with the differences between the KJV OT and the modern versions? I am glad you asked!

Many times, the KJV-translators translated from the "qere" (the marginal note in the Masoretic Text), rather than the "ketiv" (the actual text itself of the Masoretic Text). It should be pointed out here that qere readings are not unique to the KJV. Most if not all English translations have them where translators felt they were justified. Qere/Ketiv pairs come in several forms. Some are synonymous in meaning, but sound different. Some sound identical, but have totally different meanings. Some are different both in meaning and sound. Some are very similar in both meaning and sound.

Most scholars believe the ketiv reading is a gloss or a marginal note, and so translate the word in the text, the qere. However, there is a substantial number of Hebrew scholars who believe the ketiv reading is a scribal correction of an error in the text of the manuscript (the qere) so when translating they chose to follow the ketiv. The KJV Old Testament committees seemed to believe as did this latter group.

Look at this verse in the KJV: Job 13:15(KJV) "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him."

The NASB agrees: Job 13:15 (NASB) "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him. Nevertheless I will argue my ways before Him."

And so does the NIV: Job 13:15 (NIV) "Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him; I will surely defend my ways to his face."

But what's this? The NIV footnote: Footnote: Or He will surely slay me; I have no hope -- / yet I will

And the RSV (along with the NRSV): Job 13:15 (RSV) "Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope; yet I will defend my ways to his face."

So, does Job have hope or not? That is an example of qere/ketiv. The qere (marginal note) is one word, pronounced "lo", and means "in him". However, the ketiv (the actual text) is also one word, also pronounced "lo" (but spelled differently), and means "no" or "not". The NIV footnote and the RSV accurately give the ketiv (main text) reading, while the KJV, NASB, and main text of the NIV give the qere (marginal note) reading. So, which reading is correct? Good question.

However, that does not solve the entire problem. In most cases, the KJVOs concern is not based on a problem with the text, but with how the text was translated. That is the case with "the brother of" being inserted in 2 Samuel 21:19. When we read the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 21:5, we see the text says "the brother of." So, it would seem that 2 Samuel was harmonized with 1 Chronicles. Why? Well, it could be there is a phrase missing in the text of 2 Samuel, or it could be that a grammatical indicator has been lost which would make the word "Goliath" into a possessive noun meaning "he who belonged to Goliath" or "the brother of Goliath." However, what we must remember is that, in this case, the addition of the words in italics does not introduce an error of fact into the English text, so, it would seem to me, that reading is superior to the reading which does introduce an error of fact concerning who killed Goliath.

Now, on to "Lucifer." Regardless of who you interpret "Lucifer" to have been, there are some grammatical indicators which should be pointed out in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word is "helel" and it is a noun in the masculine singular absolute. Just as "YHVH" is a masculine noun singular absolute and could mean "I am" yet it is nevertheless the Name of God.

Just as "Hadad" is a masculine noun singular absolute and normally means "shout" yet it is used throughout the scriptures to name a person called "Hadad."

Helel occurs only once in Hebrew scripture, and is used in the context of this verse as a proper name, which is why the AV translators used "Lucifer". Hebrew uses many words which could be either adjectives, nouns, or proper names. Since a person is being described, it is correct for the word to be translated as a proper name, and since "helel" essentially means "shinning one," which is what "lucifer" means in Latin, it is proper to turn "helel" into a name and call him "Lucifer."

This type of usage is very common in the OT. The term "Lucifer" for "helel" is no different than hundreds, possibly thousands, of similar instances in the OT. "Helel" means light bearer, just as "YHVH" means "I am," just as "hadad" means "shout," yet in each case and hundreds more these Hebrew words are rendered as proper names in the masculine singular absolute.

Here endeth the lesson for the day. The Professor has other things to do. Now, play nice!

 

Hey DocCas,

Where did you get that lesson on qere/ketiv?

Brian

 

Pulled it out of an old file I have saved in WordPerfect. It is an amalgam of various sources long since forgotten. If I quoted someone without giving them credit, I apologize, but I no longer have the sources for all of the information.

 

Yes, of course it can be trusted.
The NIV is a great translation.
One of the best.

 

And in the KJV, Acts 4:25 says the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers of the OT, and Jude 1:25 says Jesus is not our Lord, and Phil 1:14 says "word" - what word???

Yah, neato how this new-fangled logic thingy works.

 

Japheth said:

NO, the NIV gives Isaiah credit for somthing HE did not say. The NIV gives us "Isaiah" instead of the Prophets.

Your misunderstanding of an ancient form of Old Testament citation does not discredit the NIV.

Furthermore, if this is a problem with the NIV then the KJV is guilty of the same error. The quotation from "Jeremy the prophet" at Matt. 27:9-10 comes as much from Zech. 11:12 as it does from Jeremiah.

And Romans 13:9 the "Judgment seat of Christ" is gone

It would appear to be "gone" from the KJV as well. You didn't check your reference before citing it, did you?

I could say with equal basis in fact that in the KJV at Rom. 14:10 the "judgment seat of God" is gone.

(Of course, this is due to a textual variant, the TR reading "Christ" and the critical text reading "God," or at least their Greek equivalents.)

1st Tim 3:16 "he appeared in a body" what body?? THe KJV says"GOD was manifest in the flesh."

The pronoun "he" in the NIV has no antecedent that does not refer to God. The meaning of this verse is identical in both versions.

1st TIM 6:20 "science" is thrown out

Now you are arguing from an anachronism. In 1611, the word "science" meant what today we call knowledge. Surprise surprise, that's exactly what the NIV calls it in 1 Tim 6:20.

In fact the KJV is potentially confusing since the word "science" has changed meaning to a specialized kind of knowledge about the natural world.

and Col 2:8 no one sees that Philosophy is a bad thing.

Here you just didn't do your homework. Before you make claims like this, you should check them to make sure they are true.

The NIV most certainly says to "ee to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Col. 2:8).

Also, the NIV tells one not to study his bible

And this is a blatant false statement, as the NIV most certainly says no such thing.

 

Well, actually there is a difference. Mark 1:2 says "as it is written" and we know it is not written in Isaiah but Malichi. On the other hand Matthew 27:9 says "that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet." Jerimiah may well have spoken those words which did not make their way into his inspired writings, and Who better than the Omniscient Christ to know every word spoken by that prophet.

 

Who better than the Omniscient Holy Spirit to know ever word Isaiah ever wrote?

 

Is that what "as it is written" means? Does it include Isaiah's grocery list? His note to his wife? Or is it a phrase refering to Holy Writ?