NIV Acceptability

How is calling the Word of God perverted and fit for use as a coaster respectful?? I do not think that everything that says "Bible" on the front of it is holy. I do believe that every faithful translation is the word of God. That, incidentally, is exactly what the Scriptures teach.

Why don't you compare those passages in het NIV to the KJV and tell us why the KJV thought it was okay to add to God's word?? Why did they feel the liberty to change what God said?

You have yet to show anything missing from the NIV. Comparing the Greek evidence, it seems most clear that the TR added to teh word of God, not intentionally, but because of accidental mistakes over the years. God preserved a remnant of manuscripts for these later days to ensure that we had his word. The TR is a fair compilation of the Greek manuscript evidence. It was done from a very limited number of manuscripts; it was changed many times; in fact the TR that is most popular today was compiled some 300 years after the KJV was translated. It contains many things that have been added over the years. But having said all that, there is remarkable consistency in the manuscript evidence that underlines God's providential work in teh preservation of his word.

It doesn't matter to me which version you like and use. I encourage you to use and love it and live by it. But I encourage you to back off the hateful rhetoric towards God's word simply because you have a different preference on an issue that God has given us no revelation on.

 

MrSimoens,
Do you have an actual copy of the 1611 edition?

 

Faithful translation? And what is a "faithful translation" Larry?

You say I have yet to prove that anything is missing from the NIV...tsk. Does that mean you looked up the verses I posted earlier? If so and you found nothing missing when compared to a KJV then I must clap for the new line of NIV publishers. However, I don't think this is the case. I will venture to guess that your NIV didn't have Acts 8:37 in the text. It might have had it in a footnote. If this is indeed the case, then why is this? Why would an NIV even bother with writing Acts 8:37 in a footnote if it's not worthy enough to be in the actual text? I don't know. I have seen some NIVs that have excluded the WHOLE verse (Acts 8:37) from the entire bible. And of course when this is done they just skip write on over it and go from Acts 8:36 right into Acts 8:38. They are still keeping with the same numbering scheme as the good old KJV. I wonder why.

Bapterian, an actual copy? As in parallel? Yes.

 

Because the manuscript evidence points to the probability that the verse was not originally in Acts, but was added later. How do you know Acts 2:38 was "deleted" from the NIV, and not "added" to the TR and thus the KJV?

Because they want the remaning numbers in the chapter to be consistent with other Bibles. Verses are numbered, not by divine inspiration, but for reference. The numbering system does not belong to the KJV, it is simply a system for identifying verses. Renumbering would mess up this common identification system.

No, I think he was asking if you have one that was acutally published in 1611, and not a later edition or reprint.

 

Brian, I don't quite understand what you are getting at with this question. I never thought Acts 2:38 was deleted from the NIV. Besides, if it was it wouldn't be added to the KJV later, the NIV was published after the 1611.

I understand the point of keeping the references the same in the scripture. My point (though not clearly stated, lol) was that I'm not sure when the references were established. I'm just saying that the NIV publishers thought it necessary to remove certain verses after they had already been established in the referencing scheme. ***attack on scripture removed***It seems to me that the KJV is the standard most often used. Court rooms, television, etc. I doubt this is because it is the least accurate (more sarcasm, sorry).

[ June 27, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Typo mistake, I meant Acts 8:37. I must be tired. How do you know Acts 8:37 was "deleted" from the NIV, and not "added" to the TR and thus the KJV?

You illustrate the core fault of your argument: you assume the KJV is the starting point by which all else should be compared. Of course the NIV "deletes" Acts 8:37 if the KJV is the starting point. But the KJV is *not* the starting point - I'm saying that both the NIV and the KJV should be compared to the manuscript evidence. The manuscripts predate *both* of them, and the manuscript evidence points to Acts 8:37 being *added* (i.e. not originally part of Acts).

Chapter numbers were added by Cardinal Hugo in the 13th century AD. Verse numbers were added in 1551 (to Stephanus' TR, which by this date, had things *added* to it when we now compare it to older manuscript evidence), and the first English Bible to use the verse numbering system was the Geneva Bible.

No, you are confusing two separate issues. The first issue is what the text should read, based on manuscript evidence. The second issue is how to number the verses (once the text is established) so the numbers match what everyone is used to, for ease of reference.

But popularity doesn't mean superiority, either. It just means it's the most familiar.

[ June 27, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

I love the NIV. Sure it is an imperfect translation like all translations that came before it.

But it strikes the balance of being in the common man's language yet is faithful to the meaning of the original.

Many translations are either so literal(like the NASB or KJV) that they sacrifice clearity in the receptor language(in this case English).

Others go to far(like the Living Bible) and just paraphrase everything in site.

I believe after studying and teaching from the NIV for about 10 years that it is faithful to the original meaning but it does not sacrifice clearity in the receptor language in it efforts. It is very balanced.

1 Corinthians 14:8-11(NIV)
"8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me."

God originally gave us his word in the common man's language. He chose not the fancy greek that the poets used - but common trade language - Koine Greek.

That is how men should understand it today - just as fresh and easy to understand as those who first received it 2000 years ago.

I would ask this question instead of the one originally posed - "What is/are the acceptable use(s) for the KJV?"

What are the acceptable uses for a 400 year old elizabeathen english translation?

I would and still do use it for comparison just like I do the NASB, the Tyndale bible and many other translations.

Would a give it to a new Christian - nope, I would give them an NIV.

Would I teach or preach from it(I am not a preacher though) nope - the NIV.

IFBReformer

 

To be honest, I believe the KJV should be the stopping point. ***attack on scripture removed***. I can't speak on behalf of what the NIV was translated from, but I can in regards to the KJV. That being the Greek Textus Receptus. That is what I think all Bibles should be compared to for accuracy. Not all Greek manuscripts are accurate either. I find the KJV complete in its entirety, infallible and I believe that it contains everything God wanted English speakers to know. As for the NIV, I can't say the same. I don't know what manuscripts you are talking about that predate both of the bibles and that say Acts 8:37 was added to the KJV. As far as popularity, I don't think the KJV is as popular as the NIV, NRSV, NAB, etc, I think it used to be, but isn't anymore. But that there is a reason such institutions and producers of tv still use it.

But what does this all come down to? I'm not sure. I rest in the KJV, you can rest in the NIV, that is fine. You can be led to Jesus Christ from either one and be saved. Shouldn't that be the concern? I think so. What was sarcastic in nature to begin with has apparently offended some people. I don't discredit the Word of God one bit, but it is the NIV translation and the publishers I'm skeptical about.

[ June 27, 2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

No,he said the niv was only good for a placemat, table prop, etc. He made no mention about the niv being a Bible.

 

yes,great.But wouldYOU have left his statement at that??

 

I dont think so. OMISSION is the problem when it comes to God's word;see Gen 3,Numbers 22:12-13,Luke 4:10.

 

So you don't think additions can be made to God's word?

 

I'm sure it could happen;lets take in consideration what the Lord Jesus Christ said about OMISSION:John 16:9,Of sin, because they believe not on me;

All of that because of OMISSION!!!!

 

I'm sure it could happen;
</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, OK. So if it could happen, how do you know it didn't happen in Acts 8:37?

 

If you would bother reading the Scripture I posted you would see that man and Satan will OMIT parts of God's word.Do you deny that Satan is interested in the Bible and what God said?? Do you deny that Satan would TAKE AWAY the word,according to the previously posted verses and Mark 4:15?

 

Of course,the reason their not there is because the niv came from Papal manuscripts.