Daniel 12:4 in the NIV

[robycop3]

Now, while some may occasionally consider me to be slightly against the KJVO doctrine, I thought I'd show I don't just pick on KJVOers:

Is this a goof in the NIV? Daniel 12:4... But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

Same verse, NKJV: “But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

KJV: But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Bishop's Bible:But thou O Daniel shut vp the wordes, and seale the booke till the time of the ende: many shall go about here and there, and knowledge shalbe encreased.

We see that just about every other version separates the prophecies of travel and knowledge, while the NIV says the travel is to increase the knowledge. Is this a goof in the NIV or not? (Please, no KJVO discussion, pro or con)

 

[TC]

I'm not really sure about that. It would depend on what the underlying text said. I can see both sides equally well. When more people travel and come into contact with others, knowledge will increase. I also had to travel to other places to increase my knowledge when I went to college.

 

[TCassidy]

The most literal reading of the Hebrew gives us "and knowledge shall be increased" which means exactly the same thing as "to increase knowledge." Cranston has made this error several times before, usually in connection with the so-called "Granville Sharp rule" in the NT. The word "and" is a conjunction. It can serve as a connective or as an appositive. In this case it is a connective, connecting cause, travel, with effect, increase of knowledge. Both mean the same thing. I have often stated that the problem most people have understanding the bible is not that they don't understand Hebrew and Greek but that they don't understand English!

 

[greek geek]

robycop3,
You pose an interesting question. As far as I can tell, the NIV is the only translation to translate the last part of Dan 12.4 to indicate result/effect. They are alone in their stance. But the Hebrew DOES allow for such a translation.

The word translated in most translations in this verse as "and" (the waw conjunction) has many possible meanings depending on context. Beginning Hebrew students learn to translate this word as "and"; which is the meaning a good portion of the time. But as you progress in studying Hebrew it becomes fairly obvious that "and" does not always fit the context. In this verse, "and" is a possible meaning. But so is "to" (introducing a consequence or result).

Hebrew is a very narrative language and does not work how English does. So when the translators come to this conjunction, with several options for the meaning of the conjunction they had to make a choice based on the context. And the context allows for both translations. So while the NIV stands alone here, it is a valid translation of the Hebrew.

As a side note: When I was looking up this verse I noticed that there is another variant reading that is even more interesting. The New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and the New Revised Standard Bible have the translation "and evil (or wickedness) shall increase." That is definitely a variant! This difference comes from the Septuagint (Gk translation of OT), which reads "evil" instead of "knowledge." There are no Hebrew manuscripts that support this reading, but the Greek translators apparently misread one letter in the word. The only difference in the Hebrew word for knowledge and evil is one letter. The only difference in the two letters is one little tail. Apparently the Greek translators missed seeing the small tail on the letter, and misread the word. Now that is a mistake!

 

[robycop3]

The most literal reading of the Hebrew gives us "and knowledge shall be increased" which means exactly the same thing as "to increase knowledge." Cranston has made this error several times before, usually in connection with the so-called "Granville Sharp rule" in the NT. The word "and" is a conjunction. It can serve as a connective or as an appositive. In this case it is a connective, connecting cause, travel, with effect, increase of knowledge. Both mean the same thing. I have often stated that the problem most people have understanding the bible is not that they don't understand Hebrew and Greek but that they don't understand English!

Not at all the prob, DC! It appears that the Hebrew makes two laconic statements that stand alone, but are part of the same prophecy. It seems as if the NIV tries to connect them, to make the increase in knowledge dependent upon the increase in travel, or that the purpose of the travel is to increase the knowledge. It appears the English is quite plain in the NIV, and in the other versions.

However, I see where Greek Geek is coming from. If "to increase" is a possible rendering, I am satisfied. I just wondered why the NIV is the only major translation that has that rendering.

 

[william s. correa]

I believe that your zeal to defend the modern versions shows you are not interested in the facts of the matter of Daniel 12:4, at least not at this point. Perhaps one day a brother will show you something like how the NIV calls Satan Jesus in Isaiah or how Mark 1:2-3 in the NIV is wrong or how the NIV strips away some of the most important verses concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ! But then again, that would require that you listen.
As I stated in my last posts , I stand on my position. If you want to debate,then debate truth not facts. If you want to increase your understanding:2Timothy 2:15. If you want to read that version that's on you. As I said I'm not in the educating buisness just Hell,Fire an Damnation preaching that might convert someone. I am interested in those who want to consider and judge whether its right or wrong in light of the scriptures!There are plenty of people out there that will argue with you, I'm not one of them.:Fish:

 

[Phillip]

As I stated in my last posts , I stand on my position. If you want to debate,then debate truth not facts. If you want to increase your understanding:2Timothy 2:15. If you want to read that version that's on you. As I said I'm not in the educating buisness just Hell,Fire an Damnation preaching that might convert someone. I am interested in those who want to consider and judge whether its right or wrong in light of the scriptures!There are plenty of people out there that will argue with you, I'm not one of them.:Fish:

I warn you, Mr. Correa, to be very careful. I am not sure exactly what you mean here, but I do NOT want to see you 'judging' someone based on the Bible version they choose, or the statements they make regarding an English translation whether or not it is the KJV. Leave it up to the moderators to determine if a person's post is out-of-line or not. I have had to warn you about attacking modern versions in the past and now I'm warning you about judging those who read them. Please be careful and let us allow God to 'judge' people, not you. Clear?

 

[william s. correa]

Huh?

I meant nothing just testing the Spirits,as we are to do; not judging!I assure you;you have missunderstood me! I have learned from all of you but am Still KJVO in English for todays readers! And Have lots of respect for the BB.

 

[Phillip]

I meant nothing just testing the Spirits,as we are to do; not judging!I assure you;you have missunderstood me! I have learned from all of you but am Still KJVO in English for todays readers! And Have lots of respect for the BB.

I accept your explanation. Thank you for straightening this out. Although we may not agree, I respect your right to believe the way you wish regarding translations.

 

[william s. correa]

Wew

I accept your explanation. Thank you for straightening this out. Although we may not agree, I respect your right to believe the way you wish regarding translations.

Thanx and God Bless!:Fish:

 

[robycop3]

Wm. Correa:[/i]I believe that your zeal to defend the modern versions shows you are not interested in the facts of the matter of Daniel 12:4, at least not at this point.[/i]

Oh, but I'm QUITE interested. otherwise, I wouldn'ta started this thread.


Perhaps one day a brother will show you something like how the NIV calls Satan Jesus in Isaiah or how Mark 1:2-3 in the NIV is wrong or how the NIV strips away some of the most important verses concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ!

Perhaps that day has already come sone 20 years ago, and perhaps I checked behind those peoples' assertions and found they were full of baloney. I pointed out to you the other uses of "morning star" in the KJV and I shall remind you that Mark 1:3 INDEED corresponds with Isaiah 40:3.

But then again, that would require that you listen.

I listen...and I VERIFY. That's a lot more than YOU'VE shown us so far. Seems YOU just blindly accept whatever propaganda looks good to you, w/o examining it for VERACITY. See how easily I trashed your Isaiah and Mark arguments? That's because I have listened and learned from a lot more than a coupla KJVO schmoozemeisters.

As I stated in my last posts , I stand on my position.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO BE INCORRECT.


If you want to debate,then debate truth not facts.

FACTS are TRUTH. TRUTH consists of nothing but FACTS. You have been shown the FACTS about the Isaiah 14:12 thingie, & the Mark 1:3 thingie, as well as the FACT(truth) that there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. We have even reminded you that you can continue to use just the KJV w/o the smelly dead bird of the KJVO myth hanging around your neck, as C4K Doc Cassidy, & several others here do.


If you want to increase your understanding:2Timothy 2:15.

That verse is in every Bible I own. The older versions have "studie, study", while the newer ones have "work diligently, do your best" to reflect the correct rendering of "spoudazo" in TODAY'S English.

If you want to read that version that's on you.

If you wanna push the KJVO myth, that's on YOU.

As I said I'm not in the educating buisness just Hell,Fire an Damnation preaching that might convert someone.

And you're not gonna properly do it by preaching a FALSE DOCTRINE, no matter how correctly and thoroughly you preach everything FROM SCRIPTURE. Preaching should be SCRIPTURE-BASED ONLY, and the KJVO myth is NOT Scripture-based.


I am interested in those who want to consider and judge whether its right or wrong in light of the scriptures!There are plenty of people out there that will argue with you, I'm not one of them.

That's cuz ya know yer gonna LOSE, every time.

 

[Eliyahu]

Daniel 12:4

I checked with Hebrew Bible and confirmed
KJV is correct again.
NIV doesn't make sense because the knowledge doesn't increase by travelling here and there.
Hebrew Tirbeh is Qal, not the Niphal, but it already contains Passive meaning or Intransitive meaning of Increase or Grow, and vah works as AND. Therefore we can easily confirm that many people will run to and fro, and the knowledge will increase or shall be increased.
If anyone wants to translate it as NIV, there should be Lamed instread of Vav.

I think Tourism industry will like NIV translation!:laugh:

 

[william s. correa]

John 16:16

John 16:16King James Bible A little while and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.NIV, delete because I go to the Father.​

Again, I remind you that apparent changes or deletions leave the door open for conflicts . These things are dangerous. When an un-believer reads, he can conclued that facts are not truth . Lets look at Daniel 12:4 KJB" 4

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Now in the NIV 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.

Now observe the change and deletion of the words Shall be, which put doubt on a verb also a heavy strain on the doctrines, taught by Christ.There is a profound difference. The authors of this particular 'version' have put controversy and confusion in their work through constant changes in Manuscripts that have been available for centuries. My opinion is that if I had to pick the lesser of Any two Modernistic views It may even replace the NASB !. In My Opinion!

 

[Bro Tony]

17Some of his disciples said to one another, "What does he mean by saying, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,' and 'Because I am going to the Father'?" John 16:17 NIV

William lets be completely honest here if we are going to critique the translation. The NIV does not leave out the reason Jesus said they would not see Him. Verse 17 tells us this-- there is no change in message because the phrase was not in verse 16 of the older manuscripts used by the NIV translators, the whole message is there. I say this as one who does not really care for the NIV, but lets not cut and paste to give the impression that the NIV doesnt give the whole message in this passage because it does.

Bro Tony

 

[robycop3]

While not knowing Hebrew as Eliyahu, I had come to the same conclusion because the NIV was the only major translation that makes the prophesied travel a condition for gaining the prophesied knowledge. That's why I started the thread separate from the "NIV vs KJV" thread.

However, that does NOT support KJVOism...it merely points out a discrepancy in the NIV. We can, and sometimes have, pointed out many such discrepancies in the KJV, such as "strain AT a gnat...". The KJV is NOT the only version that 'got it right', so Mr. Correa's argument vapor locks again.

Moderators...If no one else adds anything substantial to the views thus far expressed by a number of Hebrew readers, within about 24 hours, wouldja please consider closing this thread, as it will have served its purpose?

 

[william s. correa]

Yes

17Some of his disciples said to one another, "What does he mean by saying, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,' and 'Because I am going to the Father'?" John 16:17 NIV

William lets be completely honest here if we are going to critique the translation. The NIV does not leave out the reason Jesus said they would not see Him. Verse 17 tells us this-- there is no change in message because the phrase was not in verse 16 of the older manuscripts used by the NIV translators, the whole message is there. I say this as one who does not really care for the NIV, but lets not cut and paste to give the impression that the NIV doesnt give the whole message in this passage because it does.

Bro Tony

But the text is Daniel 12:4raise:

 

[william s. correa]

Acts 4:27,30

Acts 4:27,30King James Bible 27. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou has anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together. 30. By stretching forth thine hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. Now look at the NIV change holy child to holy servant in both verses. The same appears in Daniel 12:4 Change is not always good! And Some may see it as Slave as in this passage!Galatians 4:7King James Bible "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. NIV, change Servant to Slave. Also the name Christ deleted! changing it to God or deleting the passage.

 

[Bro Tony]

But the text is Daniel 12:4raise:

I know William you were the one who brought John 16 into the picture. You used it as another example where the NIV changes the Word of God. I am merely pointing out that your attempt to discredit the NIV in this case did not hold water. If you bring it up to prove your point, then it is incombent on you to support your contention. And I noticed you are doing it again by bringing up Acts and Galatians. If someone shows you where you are mistaken there are you going to say "But the text is Daniel 12:4"???

Bro Tony

 

[Ed Edwards]

Two witnesses

his scripture is quoted above:

//Let every word be established in the presense
of two or more witnesses!//

My two English witnesses to God's Perfectly & Providentially
Preserved Holy Written Word are the New King James Version (nKJV)
and the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003).
What are your two English witnesses?

Deut 19:15 (KJV1611 Edition):
One witnesse shall not rise vp against a man for any iniquitie,
or for any sinne, in any sinne that he sinneth:
at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses,
shall the matter be stablished.

Deut 19:15 (HCSB ):
One witness cannot establish any wrongdoing or sin against a person,
whatever that person has done.
A fact must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Deut 19:15 (nKJV)
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits;
by the mouth of two or three witnesses
the matter shall be established.[/FONT]

 

[robycop3]

william s. correa:Acts 4:27,30King James Bible 27. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou has anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together. 30. By stretching forth thine hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. Now look at the NIV change holy child to holy servant in both verses.[/i]

The Greek word in question in both verses is 'pais', which the KJV often translates as 'servant', 'manservant', or 'maid'. While the NIV's rendering may not be the best, it's certainly not incorrect.


The same appears in Daniel 12:4 Change is not always good! And Some may see it as Slave as in this passage!Galatians 4:7King James Bible "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. NIV, change Servant to Slave. Also the name Christ deleted! changing it to God or deleting the passage.

Once again, the source from which you're copying is WRONG! Mr. Correa, as I said earlier, you really should VERIFY what those people write before you accept their words as true!

The greek word here is 'doulos', which indeed can mean slave, bondsman, etc. A doulos was more than just a servant. He/she was more bound to the 'master' than a 'hired hand' was. I believe Paul was referring to the fact that all of us are serving one of two masters...God, or the devil. Thus, he used a stronger word than 'pais'.

Your source pulls yet another "Casey At The Bat", Mr. Correa.