Do any other "modern-version-ers" besides me dislike the NIV?

I agree that "objects" isn't the best translation. I also agree the NIV has occassional translation imperfections. But in my opinion there are not nearly enough to invalidate it as a translation or of the title "the word of God".

Specifically about "objects" in this verse, if I were to say that my child was the object of my affection, it doesn't take away from his value as a person. And the use of the word in the NIV does not remove human responsibility for sin (especially when reading the whole verse!) - that may be someone's interpretation when reading the verse, but a wrong interpretation doesn't necessarily mean the verse itself is wrong.

I'm not interested in defending every single translation choice in the NIV, but I do think the issue in the specific verses mentioned so far in this thread are not as serious as some make them out to be. </font>[/QUOTE]I may have been wrong with my ranting paragraph, but this change in word is not justifiable. Period. Some places it is alright, as I said, and can be explained as dynamic equivalence of the meaning. But in the instance I quoted, it is unwarranted and unjustifiable.

 

Wow, a mistake in the NIV translation. Anybody ever hear of any mistakes in the KJV1611?

 

The NIV is not as good as the original languages, but the NIV is better than the NASB ...

IMHO ...

 

Are you allowed to link to sites endorsing cult beliefs on BB?

 

the link is from biblecentre.net They do NOT endorse any cults! You are mistaken!

 

Hi Phillip, I think that remarks like yours are sarcastic, and have simply no bearing on the facts. The facts are very simple and serious, and need to be examined prayerfully and not by one-liners!

There are no less than 25 instances in the New Testament, where the NIV 9among others) omit the Name "Jesus", even though it is supported by the best textual evidence. The same can be said for "Lord", "Christ", etc. Take, for example, Romans 1:16, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ...", where "Christ" has been removed! Likewise Paul writes, "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me..." (Philippians 4:13), again "Christ" has been removed! On what evidence? Because the "best manuscripts" omit it? This line of argument is complete nonsense. Another good example is Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God", what happened to "the Son of God"? Does it not set the bells ringing loud when texts that deal with the Deity of Jesus Christ, (something of extreme importance to the entire world) seem to be changed?

So, we are NOT talking about simple errors, but those that lie at the heart of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, where the very Word of God has been corrupted in most modern versions. And, please do not suppose that I support the theory the the KJV only is without error, as I simply do not. But, when it comes to important verses as I have shown, the KJV is far for faithful to the original Greek text for the New Testament, than almost any of the modern versions!

Please, lets deal with the facts!

 

Just did a search on www.biblegateway.com and the NIV had the name "Jesus" 1280 times and the KJV only 942. The ESV also has more Jesus in it at 1058 times. NKJV has Jesus 1063 times. HCSB has Jesus 999 times. Does not look like they are removing Jesus to me.

 

Just did a search on www.biblegateway.com and the NIV had the name "Jesus" 1280 times and the KJV only 942. The ESV also has more Jesus in it at 1058 times. NKJV has Jesus 1063 times. HCSB has Jesus 999 times. Does not look like they are removing Jesus to me. </font>[/QUOTE]You would do well to examine the like I have posted earlier.

 

What of John 7:8

"Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come"

Where some of the modern versions omit "yet" from the text, which would make Jesus telling an untruth, as we read from the passage that He did go up to the feast!

 

All modern English versions I have have yet in John 7:8 except 1 - but it does have it in a footnote. I also noticed that Wycliffe's NT did not have yet here and it is older than the KJV.

 

But with some remark about the manuscript evidence? To cast some doubt on it! Like that found in the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, edited by none other than Bruce Metzger!

"The reading houto was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleyiate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (page 216)

This is the modern scholarship I refer to, where wild statements are made, that have no foundation, all such is based on pure speculation! This volume publised by the United Bible Societies, is the "check-book" for the majority of modern versions! God help us all!!!

 

icthus, the KJV added to and took away from God's Word, the Geneva Bible. The KJV borrowed wording and doctrine from the Roman Catholic Bibles.

 

The funny thing about this thread is that the KJV seems to have more proof for why things are rendered as they are than the NIV does which seems to me to say the NIV is probably not as accurate. How come nobody is showing how the NIV got the Greek correct and the KJV got it wrong?

 

APuritanMindset said:

By rendering "children" as "objects", it doesn't put a lot of value on children.

Calling men the "object of wrath" does not make them into things, it means they are the "focus of" God's wrath. Which happens to be exactly what Paul means. Maybe the NIV isn't the best possible translation, assuming more literal is better, but conveying the sense of an obsolete metaphor accurately is no grounds for calling it a poor translation, is it?

 

It is because this thread is not about the KJV. It is about the NIV and is in the process of being hijacked into another KJV versus MV thread.

 

Why is it wrong for the NIV to refer to people as "objects" in one verse, yet it's OK for people to be referred to as "things" in other verses in the KJV (Rom 9:20, Phil 2:10, Col 1:20, 1 Cor 11:12, etc.) or for the Holy Spirit to be referred to as an "it" (John 1:32, Rom 8:16, 1 Pet 1:11, etc.)?

The NIV's reading is not the best in Eph 2:3, but I'm hard-pressed to imagine anyone misunderstanding it and think "Oh, I guess this means I'm an 'object' and thus not responsible for my sin..."

 

[/QUOTE]I don't completely agree with icthus, but he has a GREAT point about being the NIV unfaithful to the Greek. Here is the NIV on Ephesians 2:3

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

Now, here is that same verse in the KJV (I use KJV for the soul purpose of uniformity in that everyone here trusts it more than some of the other translations)

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Let's do a word study shall we?

Notice the bold words in those verses. "objects" in the NIV and "children" in the KJV. The word used there in the Greek is the word "τέκνον" (teknon). This word literally means, "child (as produced): - child, daughter, son."

What justification does the NIV have in doing that? There is not even a translation note there. They just changed the word from "children" (as the Greek CLEARLY states) to "objects" (which is COMPLETELY unrelated).[/QUOTE]


---------------------------------------------

Let's see, the KJV translates "we all had our conversation" vs. the NIV's "all of us also lived among them." I wonder which one is more acurate?

 

What //other "modern-version-ers" // are KJVO? Perchance those
who use the KJV1769 edition instead
of the KJV1611 edition?

Personally i saw it was about he NIV and
will now bow out. I don't want to disucss
the NIV.

 

Paul33 said:

What justification does the NIV have in doing that?

Didn't we just go through this? The translators are interpreting an ancient idiom via its contemporary equivalent. The change is not an arbitrary, "completely unrelated" one at all.

If the NIV is a poor translation for correctly explaining an obsolete metaphor, may poor translations increase!