ARE THERE ANY "CORRUPT" ENGLISH VERSIONS

New World Translation, and although I don't think it is as bad as the NWT I don't like the Living Bible. Still making up my mind about The Message.

 

Sure! The NIV. It regularly leaves out or mistranslates words like oun (Pronounced: Oon). John 11:5-6 is a good example. The NIV says: [5] Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus [6] YET when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ESV has a much better translation:

John 11:5-6 (ESV)
Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. [6] So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Verse 6. The greek word OUN is there. It means therefore! But then NIV translates it "YET"

The verse actually says, according to the greek and the rightly translated ESV, that because Jesus loved them, THEREFORE (rendered "So") He stayed so Lazarus would die!

WOW! That changes the meaning a bunch! What it means is found in v. 4:

John 11:4 (ESV)
But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

Because Jesus loved them, He wanted to display His glory to them. He did this when He raised Lazarus. What more could we want as humans that to experience God's glory!!! Jesus gave the most unimaginably beautiful gift: To see His glory and Lordship and mastery of EVERYTING in action.

Because He wanted to give this gift, Lazarus had to die. Because He loved them, He had to let Lazarus die. To fully display His magnificient glory, He had to let Lazarus die.

Sorry, I got pretty worked-up over that. I didn't mean to preach....even though I did.

However, this is but one example of why I do not like the NIV. To be sure there are much worse. For example, the Jehovah's Witness Bible is pretty messed up.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

For the umpteenth time, no one is attacking those who only use the KJV. We are opposing the idea that only the KJV is the Word of God in English.

We believe more clearly in both concepts than do KJVO's. You all are simply wrong about how inspiration applies to the KJV and how preservation occurred.

You are absolutely right. To say that the translation "God forbid" used repeatedly by the KJV in Romans is a bad translation is not "BASHING THE KING JAMES". It is simply stating a fact. To say that the evidence supporting the KJV at I John 5:7-8 is terribly weak is not "BASHING", it is simply the facts.

The repeated pattern here is that KJVO's make charges against MV's then KJVO opposers show them how the same argument can just as credibly be applied to the KJV.

You want to talk about translators? The KJV translators are then open game... and they provide some big targets with their theology and practices.

Want to talk about minority readings? The KJV has several.

Want to talk about contradictions? The KJV has a few.

Want to talk about poor translations? Again the KJV has a few.

You can't have a double standard. If you want to attack God's Word in MV's then you must be willing to see the same criteria applied to the KJV.

Absolutely... in bunches! I agree that the proliferation of translations can produce problems. I believe that the NKJV, NASB, and ESV (as far as I have seen) are good translations in addition to the KJV. (I am speaking the versions in popular use not the LITV, WEB, YLT, ASV, etc. that you find on Bible software).

I agree that the NIV uses an incorrect translational approach. The NWT is an atrocity. I don't use nor care for paraphrases... if I want a Bible story book, I want it to say "Bible Story Book" on the cover. If I want a Bible, I don't want someone's highly interpretive rendition of what they think the text means.

I don't like what I have seen from or about the TNIV, NRSV, RSV, Holmans, and Message. I am sure there are others but by and large, I would rather affirm what I like rather than trying to list all the things I don't like.

That said, I know people who are using Bible versions that I don't favor and growing spiritually. It is rather amazing how truly "mean" a translation can be and God the Holy Spirit still use it to sanctify a child of God.

 

If I understand what "that" is then yes it was necessary. You attempted to establish certain premises. Before answering "honestly", I believe it was necessary to deal with the false premises/foundations first.

 

Scott said:
if I want a Bible story book, I want it to say "Bible Story Book" on the cover.

AMEN!! Preach it!

 

Yes, the NIV is at the top of my avoid list. I wonder why they have removed the word homosexual? Does anyone know where the translators of the NIV are right now and how they live their lives?

 

I don't. The NIV *contains* the word "homosexual". It's the KJV that doesn't. Now do you "wonder why the KJV removed the word homosexual"? No, of course you don't, because that would be fair and we can't have consistency when promoting KJV-onlyism, right?

No. Does it matter? I know how some of the KJV translators lived their lives though. Wanna hear about it?

On topic: the NIV is certainly not perfect, but I think it's one of the best versions out there. The only well-known English translation I would call "corrupt" is the NWT.

God bless,
Brian

 

What are you insinuating here? Is this something you know of for sure, or would words like these be possibly libelous?

 

What are you insinuating here? Is this something you know of for sure, or would words like these be possibly libelous? </font>[/QUOTE]I do apologize for saying that in a confusing way. I am not out to slander anyone. But, I am curious if you know where the translators of the NIV are today. I am interested in knowing this.

 

I am sorry, but the words left out are Sodomite. I know nothing about them personally. I was wondering if some of you scholars do.

 

Call didn't call them sodomites or sons of Belial. Get our your Greek and Hebrew texts to see what God called them.

You did start with some very bad premises which prejudiced the discussion from the beginning. Having said that, the NWT, NLT, the Message, the NCV, are all versions that I do not recommend for various reasons.

Contrary to what Archangel said, I believe the NIV is a very good translation. As well as Archangel knows Greek and the issues involved, he should be aware of BAGD, p. 593 (4th edition), bottom left hand column where it says "Oun seems also to be used adversatively." Listed as evidence are John 9:18, Acts 23:21; Acts 25:4; Acts 28:5; Rom 10:14. All of these are verses where "therefore" is not an appropriate translation.

The reality is that for most of the translations in teh NIV, there is very good reason for them. We might not agree with them (as I don't on occasion), but there is good support for it.

All in all, the NIV is a very good translation and should be regularly used in conjunction with other good translations.

 

None of the homosexuals I have ever seen like it when you condemn what they do regardless of what you call it. God calls it sin... anyway we express it so that homosexuals know that God calls it sin is fine.

 

None of the homosexuals I have ever seen like it when you condemn what they do regardless of what you call it. God calls it sin... anyway we express it so that homosexuals know that God calls it sin is fine. </font>[/QUOTE]What does the NIV call it?

 

Here it is:

Don't you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

 

Here it is:

Don't you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders </font>[/QUOTE]I am glad to see that is does address the topic of homosexuality and I stand to be corrected. Thanks for sharing, Russell55.