NIV problem, part II

A previous topic asked if one could find a specific textual or translation problem with the New International Version of the Bible. Being the new guy on the block, I just had to resist the "hello's", the "how are ya's" and the "nice to be here's" (I am, by the way!), and I had to weigh in about what is wrong with the NIV.

John opens his gospel with a powerful statement as to exactly who and what Jesus is:

"In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 KJV)

Imagine someone re-writing that verse to make Jesus less than what He is...for example: "In the begining was the Word, and he might have been with God, and he might have been God." This little change would have taken away from the true meaning of the verse, would it not? And if the reader could no longer trust that line to be true, how about anything else pertaining to eternal life?

Throughout the Bible is found the word "rock", and in this connotation I mean those specific verses which imply a steadfast foundation with the Lord. Consider the following verses:

Deut 32:4 "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

Deut 32:15 "But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation."

2 Sam 22:2 "And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer."

2 Sam 22:47 "The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation."

Ps 18:2 "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower."

Ps 31:2 "Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me."

Ps 92:15 "To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him."

1 Cor 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (KJV)

In several places in the Bible, there is a similar word, and that word is "cornerstone". It's the foundation stone that is first laid down before a building is put up. Psalm 118:22 says this about the Lord: "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner" (KJV). In Acts 4:11, Peter declares before the ruling elite in Jerusalem that Jesus "...is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner" (KJV). In architecture, you cannot put up a building of any kind without first laying down that stone, so the Bible makes perfect sense when it says to get Jesus in your hearts FIRST.

This is Acts 4:11, but in the New International Version:

"He is the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone" (NIV).

A "capstone", in architecture, is the last, final stone placed on a building. It is a direct opposite of "cornerstone". What the translators of the NIV implied is that it's OK to build the building of your life's work...go ahead and put Jesus last! That is what is meant by "capstone". In nearly all references to Jesus as the cornerstone in the New Testament, the NIV has replaced this word with "capstone". As a result, I cannot trust this version.

Build the house on the cornerstone of Jesus FIRST, and He will liken you to the man who built his house on a rock "and the rain decended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock" (Mat 7:25 KJV)

Great first post carajou and welcome to the BB. It's amazing IMHO how the devil can twist words that will make you quote and believe a lie. He did it with Eve and he has had 6,000+ years to perfect it. The nails are being driven.

[ October 16, 2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: HomeBound ]

A "capstone", in architecture, is the last, final stone placed on a building. It is a direct opposite of "cornerstone". What the translators of the NIV implied is that it's OK to build the building of your life's work...go ahead and put Jesus last! That is what is meant by "capstone". In nearly all references to Jesus as the cornerstone in the New Testament, the NIV has replaced this word with "capstone". As a result, I cannot trust this version.

Click to expand...

In a KJV publication of 1632 (The Wicked Bible) the commandment was printed as "thou shalt commit adultery".

Give the NIV the same chance that people gave the KJV with hundreds of revisions and enhancenments.

By the way Jesus is BOTH the Cornerstone and the Capstone of our lives:

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

HankD

Hi carajou, welcome.

Yes, that's one issue that I agree that is not exactly right. However:

Originally posted by carajou:
What the translators of the NIV implied is that it's OK to build the building of your life's work...go ahead and put Jesus last!

Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's what the NIV translators implied, at all. The translation difference is clear, but the reasons and motives behind it are something totally different.

Notice that the Greek in this passage does NOT say "cornerstone", it says "head of the corner" - so there technically is a little leeway here. What is the "head"? Usually, the "head" is on the top, and the "foot" is on the bottom - "head" implies something on the top. Also consider the purpose of Peter's statement: the stone which was rejected turned out to be the most important stone of all - that which was thought to be of no value is the focal point of the whole building. That's the main meaning of the verse, regardless of which reading is correct, and that meaning is still present either way.

Christ is the dominant figure in the church, he is the "head". When one draws a hierarchical diagram of an organization, one usually draws it in the shape of a triangle, the top corner being the head and leader. In the Church, that top corner position belongs to Christ.

But despite all that, I agree with you that "capstone" is not correct: "cornerstone" is better (and that's what the NIV's footnote says, BTW), and "head of the corner" (as the KJV has it) is probably the best, although a little harder to understand.

For what it's worth, the NIV uses "cornerstone" in reference to Christ in Isa 28:16, Zech 10:4, Eph 2:20 and 1 Pet 2:6.

Robertson's Word Pictures states the greek can
mean either the chief stone under the building
or the highest corner stone right under
the roof (ie. capstone).

Here is what he says:

The experts, the architects, had rejected Jesus for their building (Psa_118:22) as Jesus himself had pointed out (Mat_21:42; Luk_21:17). This very Rejected Stone God had made the head of the corner (either the highest corner stone right under the roof or the corner stone under the building, Isa_28:16) as Jesus showed, as Peter here declares and repeats later (1Pe_2:6.).

Click to expand...

However, my own conviction based upon other passages that show Jesus as being the foundation stone is that cornerstone is the better translation in this case.

-kman

This may be the posters "first" post - but it is a rerun of the same old same old cut and paste argument.

Folks, Greek words may be translated legitimately by a variety of English words. Know that is scary, but it is true!

Some English versions will use a different word than the AV version did - words that are JUST AS VALID and not "right" or "wrong".

KJV (whichever revision) says "head of the corner"

Greek words =
"head, top" and "angle, quarter, corner"

So the AV "head of the corner" is okay. That is valid translation of the two greek words.

So NASB translates this as "cornerstone". That's okay, too.

NIV translates this as "capstone". That's okay because a "head" of the "angle" is the capstone.

There is no problem here. Just the same "cut and paste" if-it's-different-than-the-the-KJV-it-must-be-wrong" mentality.

There is no problem here. Just the same "cut and paste" if-it's-different-than-the-the-KJV-it-must-be-wrong" mentality.

Click to expand...

I will have to disagree with that assertion;take into consideration Revelation 4:2;who is sitting on the throne?? Lets look at the differences:


NIV:Revelation 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with SOMEONE[???!!!!] sitting on it.


KJV:Revelation 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

I think there is a little more than just "cut and paste" going on here.

Hello, can we have a little scholarship here?
I've still got three KJVs on my computer
desk. I like to check the scriptures.
I like to go to the book they are in
instead of having to check two or
three books before i find the verse.

In case you are new, here are the names
of my three different KJVs:
KJV1611
KJV1769
KJV1873

Thank you for your serious consideration
of this scholarship request.

Originally posted by carajou:
Imagine someone re-writing that verse to make Jesus less than what He is...for example: "In the begining was the Word, and he might have been with God, and he might have been God." This little change would have taken away from the true meaning of the verse, would it not? And if the reader could no longer trust that line to be true, how about anything else pertaining to eternal life?

Click to expand...

This cut & pasted paragraph has
nothing to do with this topic. Before you
cut and paste stuff and expect me to read
it, please read it and select only that
which is applicable. Thank you.

Originally posted by AV Defender:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There is no problem here. Just the same "cut and paste" if-it's-different-than-the-the-KJV-it-must-be-wrong" mentality.

Click to expand...

I will have to disagree with that assertion;take into consideration Revelation 4:2;who is sitting on the throne?? Lets look at the differences:


NIV:Revelation 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with SOMEONE[???!!!!] sitting on it.


KJV:Revelation 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

I think there is a little more than just "cut and paste" going on here. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, there is more going one here.
The statements are not forthright.
Here is the verse in the KJV:

Reuelation IIII:2 (KJV1611):
And immediatly I was in the spirit:
and beholde, a Throne was set in
heauen, and one site on the Throne.

The Greek source obviously doesn't tell
who sat on the Throne. Because you
hinted that the problem was in the NIV
and not in the Greek source,
your statement is not upright.

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Folks, Greek words may be translated legitimately by a variety of English words. Know that is scary, but it is true!

Click to expand...

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a coworker who was a staunch NIV man. I showed him Micah 5:2 in both versions:

KJV
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

NIV
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

Now if this person had an origin in ancient times he is not God, but if his goings forth are from everlasting he is God. Might I remind you that this is the verse whereby believers knew within 10 of where the Messiah would be born. My friend said “look up those words in the lexicon and let’s see what they mean”. We did. The lexicon gave both words, and other words, in both instances. My friend said “see there, that’s my point, it could mean either, the word has both potential meanings”. I looked at him square in the eyes and said “it could mean either, but it doesn’t”. That guy gave me the strangest look, it was almost as if he were thinking. Seriously, it had never occurred to him that if the words have contradictory meanings that only one could be correct.

Now Bob here would have you believe this is something scary, but it is not. That is where preservation comes in. Preservation is partly the manuscripts, but it is even more so the translation into other languages. Maintaining and copying manuscripts is one thing, but translating into an entirely different language is an order of magnitude larger problem since there are literally thousands of places where the word could have different meanings. This is where God really shines. He miraculously preserved His Word so perfectly in the English language that even the detractors of the KJB still use it and preach from it, although it is not their final authority. I have compared versions extensively and I have no reservations in saying that the only Bible out there worthy of being my final authority is the KJB. It is the gold standard of Bibles. Praise God for His miraculous preservation.

Though no NIV apologist, I have to point out that the Hebrew word there mowtsaah can mean origin. The KJV uses it another way in 2 Kings 10:27.

While the NASB translates as does the KJV, contextually the essential meaning of both is still the same, and nothing relative to the eternality of Christ has been harmed with either translative option. Matthew Poole's commentary on this verse says it very well:

as he is the Son of God equal with his Father, is eternal: this asserts the eternity of his Divine nature.

Click to expand...

Look at Amos 4:4 in different translations.

I forgot that VanGemeren notes the idiomatic usage of the word in question in Micah 5:2, like a sunrise-source, "rising in the light of. " cf. Num 24:17. Again, the Christ-centered meaning of Micah 5:2 can't be missed, regardles of the translation.

Isn't it ironic that you find noted KJOers that deny the eternality of Jesus? Actually, sad is more like it.

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

a staunch NIV man

Click to expand...

I suppose this species must exist, but I have not met a specimen. I know folks who like the NIV or prefer it, but I wouldn't describe them as staunch.

Interesting discussion, that we have had a couple times before I think

If you want to take individual texts and compare versions, that is fine, it can be done both ways, there are plenty of places in the KJV that are not true to the Greek text, and that without careful language study can lead to incorrect doctrine and application, that is why IMHO, a good student of the Bible will study using mutiple translations and at least some Greek study helps to determine the specific contextual meaning of a particular word. The Bible cannot mean what it never meant, and the author had a specific purpose for the words used, that is not negotiable. There are so many tools out there to help you understand what is intended by some passages that tend to be somewhat unclear or even misleading in a given translation

I happen to "like" the NIV, although it does have areas of weakness, like the KJV, NASB, NLT, etc.

I would not consider myself "staunch" however

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
This reminds me of a discussion I had with a coworker who was a staunch NIV man. I showed him Micah 5:2 in both versions:

Now if this person had an origin in ancient times he is not God, but if his goings forth are from everlasting he is God.

Click to expand...

I agree, the KJV has the better reading here. If for no other reason that people can understand the NIV's reading as you have portrayed. But that understanding need not be the only one, nor even the correct one.

I notice that the NIV *doesn't* say "origin" (singular). It says "origins" (plural). To me, that means it *can't* be talking about the "origin" of Jesus himself, but the "origins" that belong to him, i.e. things he started. That's just how I read it, and I have no problem with the NIV's reading, except for the fact that it can cause *others* to misunderstand. But that's not a new problem in Bible versions, people have been misunderstanding translations long before the NIV. I once even met a man who misunderstood a word in the KJV, if you can believe it!

But if you want to play the "your version denies the eternal preexistence of Christ" game, two verses come to mind: Rev 3:14 (which my JW friend says proves, from the KJV, Jesus was the first thing created), and Jude 1:25 (where the NIV says "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages", and the KJV says, well, it doesn't say anything about that )

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
Now Bob here would have you believe this is something scary, but it is not. That is where preservation comes in. Preservation is partly the manuscripts, but it is even more so the translation into other languages. Maintaining and copying manuscripts is one thing, but translating into an entirely different language is an order of magnitude larger problem since there are literally thousands of places where the word could have different meanings. This is where God really shines. He miraculously preserved His Word so perfectly in the English language that even the detractors of the KJB still use it and preach from it, although it is not their final authority.

Click to expand...

I genuinely cannot think that you seriously believe what you just wrote. God did a "miraculous" act in 1611 have 45 baby-baptizing Anglican priests translate 5 Greek documents into an English version that is PERFECTLY PRESERVED?

We have been round and round, but you cannot truly believe what you wrote, can you? Tell me you were tongue-in-cheek!

Here are a couple of other well known errors that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread or the original:

Who killed Goliath? NIV in 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan did.

Did Isaiah really write "Behold, I send my messenger" as NIV says he did in Mark 1:2,3 or did Malachi write it instead?

Did Jesus distribute the loaves and fish to the people as the NIV claims in John 6:11 or did the disciples as the NIV claims in Matthew 14:19?

Did Jesus sin when He was angry with the moneychangers in the Temple (John 2:13-16), since the NIV tells us in Matthew 5:22 that to be angry is to sin? Did God sin as well since He is "angry with the wicked every day" - Psalm 7:11(KJV)?

Did Jesus need purification after He was born as the NIV seems to imply in Luke 2:21,22?

If you put your trust and faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus and truly repent of your sins with a broken and contrite spirit, are you 'saved' or 'being saved' as the NIV states in 1 Cor. 1:18?

Does Jesus cause men to fall as the NIV implies in 1 Peter 2:8?

Another cut-and-paste list. Michael (welcome!) I think every one of these has been answered and shown to be more of the only sect's "myths" about the NIV.

Please do a search for each of these problem texts - both here and on the theology forum. You'll find all have been adequately answered.

And in most cases when you say "the NIV says" you need to look first at the original inspired Greek and Hebrew and find out what IT said. Think you'll be surprised to find out how many times it was the AV translators who changed the meaning, not vice versa.