NIV problem, part II

BrianT · Oct 17, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
Who killed Goliath? NIV in 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan did.

So does the Hebrew. The NIV is the more faithful translation here (perhaps there is another explanation you haven't thought of), while the KJV "corrected" this verse.

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?

It was not uncommon to refer to a "block" of books of the prophets by the name of the dominant prophet. As is also the case in Matt 27:9 which is attributed to Jeremiah, but is from Zech 11:13. This same "Isaiah" reading is in ancient "good Bibles", like the Peshitta.

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?

Both. Jesus distributed them, via the disciples. Just like God used Satan to cause David to take a census, which removes the "problem" of comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1.

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)?

Matt 5:22 doesn't say that to be angry is to sin. It says that the person who is angry is subject to judgment - i.e. that anger will be evaluated by the Judge to see if it was sinful or not.

The previous verse says "whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (KJV). Same phrase, referring to judgement (not sin). God killed people. If verse 22 is a problem in the NIV, verse 21 is a problem in *every* Bible (including the KJV).

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

Probably not, but this is related to Mosaic law about the activities of a mother and new male child (Lev 12:2-4) - it does not deal at all with a sinful condition.

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?

Both. Salvation is now, ongoing, and future. (Rom 13:11, Phil 1:19, 1 Thess 5:9, 2 Tim 2:10, Heb 9:28, Heb 10:39, etc).

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

Stumbling blocks make people stumble.

I sort of see how some might see these as problems, but I also see how they can be as easily explained and accepted as similar "problems" in other versions like the KJV.

Ransom · Oct 17, 2003

AV Defender said:

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.

I'll say. Didn't Gail Riplinger tell us to watch out for New Age Bibles that referred to God or Jesus as the "one"?

carajou · Oct 17, 2003

The first point I had made in my post is that Christ is the foundation of the Christian faith, hence the word cornerstone. The second point is that the Editors of the NIV got it wrong when they changed "cornerstone" to "capstone" in several New Testament verses.

Acts 4:11 "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner" (KJV)

They're talking about a stone (Christ), which was rejected (by the ruling elite), and which was set down in front of them as the cornerstone of an up-and-coming faith they didn't like.

I have here the Greek New Testament, the Textus Receptus, the TR with variants, as well as various other translations in the English language, and I have yet to find the Greek word for capstone. If the NIV is a better English translation, more faithful to the Greek than any other, based upon all those ancient manuscripts, where is the word "capstone" in Greek?
Thus is the Greek New Testament of Acts 4:11, as best as this website will allow a transliteration:

outov estin o liqov o ecouqenhqeiv uf umwn twn oikodomwn oikodomountwn o genomenov eiv kefalhn gwniav

The translation of this verse is "the stone the builders rejected, has become the head of the corner". It does not say "...has become the capstone". It's a different word altogether. Unless someone wants to claim "scholarly enlightenment" and either attempt to find the word capstone in the ancient and modern Greek lexicons, or try to put a spin on the above verse and "prove" it says capstone.

So, what I get in response are those who claim I'm a member of the KJV-or-nothing crowd, when I've never made that claim. I get a "doctor" who claimed I have a "cut-and-paste mentality", when a check of the good "doctor's" own posts clearly show a "cut-and-paste mentality" on his part. And I get a "scholar" who does not know what a lead-in paragraph is, and thinks I should be writing for his private reading pleasure. If such people choose to be insultive from the get-go, I can be just as insultive right back.

Oh, "Doctor" Gordon, the Greek words you have stated in your first response to my post ("Greek words = head, top and angle, corner, quarter", remember that?) don't look Greek to me...they look awfully like English. If you're going to speek Greek, put Greek up there.

Lacy Evans · Oct 17, 2003

Originally posted by carajou:
So, what I get in response are those who claim I'm a member of the KJV-or-nothing crowd, when I've never made that claim. I get a "doctor" who claimed I have a "cut-and-paste mentality", when a check of the good "doctor's" own posts clearly show a "cut-and-paste mentality" on his part. And I get a "scholar" who does not know what a lead-in paragraph is, and thinks I should be writing for his private reading pleasure. If such people choose to be insultive from the get-go, I can be just as insultive right back.

I'm up to here with "Doctors" and "Scholars".

incorrigible (in kore je bel, -kar-)adj.
not corrigible; that cannot be corrected, improved, or reformed, esp. because firmly established, as a habit, or because set in bad habits, as a child
n.
an incorrigible person
incorrigibility or incorrigibleness
n.
incorrigibly
adv.

Lacy

Askjo · Oct 17, 2003

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Anglican priests translate 5 Greek documents into an English version that is PERFECTLY PRESERVED?

5 Greek documents? Most naturalistic scholars oftenly said the KJV derived from between 5-7 documents. They are wrong. However history disagrees with you.

God perfectly preserved His Words in many accurate translations such as KJV (English), Olivetan Bible (French), Luther Bible (German) and others.

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.

I researched and learned the facts about Greek/Hebrew MSS that KJV and modern versions translated from. I read information from a famous source. This information falsely said NIV derived from 5,000+ gone back to 2nd century and the KJV derived from 6 MSS in later date. The truth is that I checked list of MSS where these passages in the KJV agree with. I found many answers from the KJV gone back to 2nd Century. To me is that I saw the conflict between modern versions and KJV and these MSS back to 2nd Century. The fact shows that modern versions contain the Word of God.

NIV and KJV agree each other on John 1:1, for example, because this passage is identified to the wording of the autographs.

BrianT · Oct 17, 2003

Originally posted by carajou:
The translation of this verse is "the stone the builders rejected, has become the head of the corner". It does not say "...has become the capstone". It's a different word altogether.

True. But it doesn't say "cornerstone" either. All Bibles employ some level of dynamic equivalence, here and there.

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I'm up to here with "Doctors" and "Scholars".

Does your dentist use 16th century techniques, or 20th century techniques?

Ed Edwards · Oct 17, 2003

Originally posted by BrianT:
Does your dentist use 16th century techniques, or 20th century techniques?

That reminds me

I've got to have some leech therapy.
on Monday.

rsr · Oct 17, 2003

Askjo said:

This information falsely said NIV derived from 5,000+ gone back to 2nd century and the KJV derived from 6 MSS in later date. The truth is that I checked list of MSS where these passages in the KJV agree with. I found many answers from the KJV gone back to 2nd Century.

Pardon a non-scholar from breaking in here. I wasn't aware of any New Testament texts dating to the second century.

Archangel7 · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by rsr:

Askjo said:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />This information falsely said NIV derived from 5,000+ gone back to 2nd century and the KJV derived from 6 MSS in later date. The truth is that I checked list of MSS where these passages in the KJV agree with. I found many answers from the KJV gone back to 2nd Century.

Pardon a non-scholar from breaking in here. I wasn't aware of any New Testament texts dating to the second century. [/QUOTE]The 20th century saw the discovery of many important papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament. The oldest is P52, a fragment containing a few verses of John's Gospel dated to c. 125 A.D. Some of these ancient papyri contain substantial amounts of text. P66 has most of John, while P75 has most of Luke and John. Both MSS date to c. 200 A.D.

What is perhaps most significant for the dicussion at hand is that the textual character of the early papyri is far closer to MSS like Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) than to the Greek MSS behind the KJV.

HankD · Oct 18, 2003

Dear rsr,

There are definitely "staunch" NIV folk around.

Although I don't use it as my primary Bible, its greatest strength (IMO) is that it is in the language of the common (koine) man.

I only wish that there could be a TR version of the NIV.

Also:
Archangel and I have debated his statement as to P66 and its alignment to the Aleph/B and/or the Traditional Text. It is not clear cut, it is subjective and prejudicial to the researcher.

http://logosresourcepages.org/received.htm

HankD

[ October 18, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

rsr · Oct 18, 2003

Thanks for the information.

HankD · Oct 18, 2003

rsr, if you missed the URL I gave (I posted/inserted it later) here it is again.

It is a good read.

http://logosresourcepages.org/received.htm

HankD

Pastor Larry · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I'm up to here with "Doctors" and "Scholars".

And yet you have not had it as much as we have had it with the KJVO folks. We have shown objective irrefutable evidence that the KJV is not the only word of God and yet you are incorrigible in your unbelief. The doctors and scholars you despise are the only reason you have a KJV and those very doctors and scholars agreed with us, not with you.

Pastor Larry · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
5 Greek documents? Most naturalistic scholars oftenly said the KJV derived from between 5-7 documents. They are wrong. However history disagrees with you.

History is right. Erasmus used less than a dozen manuscripts to complete his TR. The KJVO crowd is misinformed.

God perfectly preserved His Words in many accurate translations such as KJV (English), Olivetan Bible (French), Luther Bible (German) and others.

Exactly. And all of these Bible differ from one another thus proving that the word of God is not found in only one set of words. You are right ... there are many accurate translations and we in the 21st century are blessed to have them.

NIV and KJV agree each other on John 1:1, for example, because this passage is identified to the wording of the autographs.

And where they disagree, it is more likely that it is the KJV who has left the autographs rather than the NIV. The NIV uses a better Greek text because it takes advantage of God's preserved texts. It does not limit itself by ignoring what God has preserved for us.

Archangel7 · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by HankD:

Archangel and I have debated his statement as to P66 and its alignment to the Aleph/B and/or the Traditional Text. It is not clear cut, it is subjective and prejudicial to the researcher.

http://logosresourcepages.org/received.htm

Sorry, but it is a fact that P66 agrees more with the text of Aleph and B than it does the TR. Your website's discussion of P66 is misleading in two significant ways.

(1) It states "Dr. Gordon Fee has shown that in John chapter 4, P66 agrees with the Traditional Text (and thus the King James Bible) 60.6% of the time when there are textual variations." This is a wildly misleading interpretation of Fee's figures, which simply report the raw percentage of agreements between any *two* MSS without indicating what percentage of these agreements are shared in common by the rest of them. To see how misleading this is, consider other numbers in the same study. Fee reports that B *also* agrees with P66 60.6% of the time, and that P66c (the corrector of P66) agrees with B 67.2% of the time -- a slightly higher percentage than the TR, which agrees with P66c 65.6% of the time! To determine the textual character of P66, one must set aside the places where P66, B, and the TR all agree, and *then* look at what pattern of variation emerges. And what emerges is that P66 resembles B more than it does the TR.

(2) It states that "While P66 is a mixed text it does demonstrate so called Byzantine readings well before that era," followed by a table of examples. The examples are misleading because none of them can really be classified as "Byzantine readings." One of them (Jn. 6:46) is not found in *any* known MS, Byzantine or otherwise; two of them are also found in "Western" texts (Jn. 5:17 in D, and Jn. 6:69 in the Old Latin), and all the rest are found in B, which is hardly "Byzantine!"

As for the rest of the web page, its misleading statements and outright errors would take an article of comparable length to point out. Caveat lector -- let the reader beware!

Askjo · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by Archangel7:
Dr. Gordon Fee

Non-TR man!

HankD · Oct 18, 2003

Archangel, you proved my point.

Everyone has there own bias including you and I.

HankD

Taufgesinnter · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I'm up to here with "Doctors" and "Scholars".

And yet you have not had it as much as we have had it with the KJVO folks. We have shown objective irrefutable evidence that the KJV is not the only word of God and yet you are incorrigible in your unbelief. The doctors and scholars you despise are the only reason you have a KJV and those very doctors and scholars agreed with us, not with you. [/QUOTE]And since they used the same methodology on MSS available for their time as is today, of necessity the KJVOs must call the translators of the KJV "naturalistic scholars."

Archangel7 · Oct 19, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
Dr. Gordon Fee

Non-TR man! [/QUOTE]Correct -- he's not a "TR man," as you put it, because the *facts* and the *evidence* are deciedly against the TR being the best Greek text of the New Testament.

HankD · Oct 19, 2003

Correct -- he's not a "TR man," as you put it, because the *facts* and the *evidence* are deciedly against the TR being the best Greek text of the New Testament.

Strange then that he should be responsible for the following

Dr. Gordon Fee has shown that in John chapter 4, P66 agrees with the Traditional Text (and thus the King James Bible) 60.6% of the time when there are textual variations (Studies in the Text and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, by Epp and Fee).

Of course one can apply the skew of subjectivity and come up with a counter explanation. A daily event here on the BB.

It does make life interesting.

HankD

NIV problem, part II

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>

New Member

Well-Known Member

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>

Well-Known Member

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member