Proverbs 3:3 KJ -vs- NIV

Here's where I usually start with such questions:

strong's #02617

strong's #0571

 

The KING JAMES BIBLE is the word of God .The MV's tend to water down the truth and I feel are dangerous.Here is a site with much pure info.
biblebeliever .com or
http://lanset.com/kjvpreaching/knox2.htm

 

Steve K. said:

The MV's tend to water down the truth and I feel are dangerous.

I feel an adult contemporary song coming on, myself.

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings . . ."

 

Really?

I find it very interesting that Philippians 2:6 NIV says that Christ was God in his very nature, while the KJV says he was merely "in the form of God."

Which of those two waters down the deity of Christ?

Not the NIV.

 

Actually, it doesn't. Those who know the language that the Scripture was written in know that chesed means love or mercy and 'emeth means truth, faith, or faithfulness depending on the context.

The NIV got it right here.

sutdying the issue would prove this statement inaccurate. The NIV has been shown time and time again to be a very good translation. Convenience and easy reading are not the top priority. Truth is and the NIV, by those who know, has a very good reputation. Unfortunately, it has been slandered by well meaning people who don't understand all the issues involved. The NIV is not my favorite for preaching but it is, nonetheless, a very good translation.

 

AdoptedByGod, you seem like a reasonable guy. Think about this: when you say "watered down", this is in comparison to what? The KJV. You have thus created a circular argument, using your premise (that the KJV is how scripture should be) to prove your conclusion (that since the NIV is different, the KJV is superior). You then think the NIV is "watered down". However, it is logically just as possible that one could start with the assumption that the NIV is just how scripture should be, and that the KJV has *added* to the word. One would then think the KJV is "beefed up". Both approaches are circular, and adding to God's word is just as wrong as taking away from it.

Instead of comparing these to each other, and going by what sounds better, we need to compare *both* to manuscript evidence. When this is done, we see that the NIV is not "watered down", but because of manuscript evidence may actually be closer to what was originally written than what is "familiar".

God bless,
Brian

 

AdoptedByGod said:

Its incredibly easy to see that the NIV does a great job watering down God's Word.

Well, I used the NIV for years as my primary English Bible, and I still attend a church with NIVs in the pews. If it "waters down" God's Word, I haven't seen it yet.

Perhaps you could tell me what part of God's truth I've been missing all these years.

 

I have one question... I know nothing about translation practices but here is the question... If two words are changed to different words... From mercy and truth... To love and faithfulness... Would not then all the words of mercy and truth throughout the OT scriptures also be changed to love and faithfulness?... According to the strongs definition of the words and if not why not?... if the word was love and faithfulness others would try to change it to mercy and truth... Man is never satisfied and is Brother Glen

[ January 20, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Glen,

The problem with your position is that a word does not have a single meaning all through the Bible. It has only one meaning per usage but in different contexts it has different meanings. This is called semantic domain.

The word "chesed" used in PROV 3:3 means love or mercy or lovingkindness. The word 'emeth means truth or faith or faithfulness. If you get our a lexicon and look this up, you will see why the NIV translated it the way it did. It is not a wrong translation. It is a right translation.

Thus, the words were "changed to different words." They were translated according to their meaning. The KJV recognizes this when it tarnslates chesed as "lovingkindess" in JER 31:3. According to your standard used here, the KJV fails because it did not translate "chesed" as "mercy." It rather translated it similarly to what the NIV did.

This issue is not as simple as comparing English to English. We must go back prior to that.

 

quote;Actually, it doesn't. Those who know the language that the Scripture was written in know that chesed means love or mercy and 'emeth means truth, faith, or faithfulness depending on the context.
Get your hip boots on boys it's getting ready to get deep and stinky!
Adopted by God stick to the truth and light God gave you don't be persuaded by deceit and watered down truth.The KING JAMES BIBLE is the word of God.Check out the sites I listed and see.

 

quote;AdoptedByGod, you seem like a reasonable guy.
Snow job! Watch him!What he means is he doesn't think your strong on what you believe and he can trick you.

 

Definition
Reasonable guy, n., (REE-zon-a-bul gi)- 1)One who agrees with Steve K in spite of the evidence against his opinion...

Stevie, When are you going to answer my questions about GA Ripscripture?

 

Pure info? Pure lies?

I don't use the NIV much, I don't really like it myself because I do not agree with much of the translation philosophy. That aside, I think they got it right in this case. At least I agree that they do because MY final authority, the ESV, agrees with them! By the way, I am taking Hebrew now and am learning that many Hebrew words have very wide ranges of meanings too.

Neal

 

Did anyone ever tell you that you're *really bad* at understanding what other people mean?

 

Me neither... and give the Devil his due (and I do literally mean the Devil), the KJVO's have a point when they argue that liberal higher critics contributed to the NIV. To the best of my knowledge, this is true and for me sends up red flags.

Perhaps someone else has better info. but I don't buy books written by liberals. I frankly don't trust them.

 

Who?

 

Who?</font>[/QUOTE]I am sorry that I cannot find that reference. The gist was a quote from Barker (I think) that the committee contained a rougly equal division of those ascribing to verbal inspiration and inerrancy and those that rejected it.

The best I could find tonight was a listing of the translators and their schools. I know that a school does not necessarily an indictment made but there were several with degrees from notably liberal schools such as Harvard and Northern Baptist Seminary.