NIV problem, part II

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

 

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"?

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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, 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

 

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.

 

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

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.

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.

 

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!

 

Non-TR man!

 

Archangel, you proved my point.

Everyone has there own bias including you and I.

HankD

 

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. </font>[/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."

 

Non-TR man! </font>[/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.

 

Strange then that he should be responsible for the following

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