One Baptism
Active Member
I have watched and read thousands of pages and hundreds and upwards of hours on this subject. Will you discuss?That source was completely and utterly false. I had to stop reading it after the first paragraph because it was blatantly obvious that the author knows nothing about the NIV translation process and purpose of a thought for thought dynamic translation vs the word for word formal equivalent translation. Not to mention that the KJV was translated from a few late Byzantine manuscripts. The NIV was the product of the textual criticism of literally thousands of manuscripts from a much earlier Alexandria manuscripts which are known to be more accurate.
Beginning, and before I get into the OT sources ["... the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of the Hebrew Text. They were consulted, as were the Samarian Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variants within the Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. ..." - New International Version Preface (1983) or similarly - New International Version Preface (2011) ], let me ask you then, According to the NIV member Kenneth L. Barker, what were the primary sources of the NIV in its Greek textual base?:
"... "What Greek text was used by the translators of the NIV New Testament. It was basically that found in the United Bible Society’s and Nestle’s printed Greek New Testaments, which contain the latest and best Greek text available.
"In many passages there is no way of being absolutely certain as to what was the original reading because the best Greek manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, have variant readings. In such cases the translators were asked to weigh the evidence carefully and make their own decision. Of course such decisions were subject to reexamination by the Committee on Bible Translation." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Edwin H. Palmer, edited by Kenneth L. Barker, Chapter 4., The Rationale for an Eclectic New Testament, p. 53.) ..." - The NIV.
"... The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. ..." - Foreward/Preface to the 2011 NIV - New International Version Preface (2011)
Do you agree with Edwin H. Palmer, and Kenneth L. Barker [NASB, NIV], that the primary sources utilized as the Greek textual base for the NIV, were basically the editions of UBS [United Bibles Society] and [Eberhard] Nestle's [and Kurt Aland's etal.] Greek New Testament/s?
If you agree. Then we can move to further questions about the man/men behind them, the Jesuits and Carlo Maria Martini, S.J.,, and the textual basis themselves of the Codex Aleph, Codex B, Codex A, Codex C , D, E, the egyptian/alexandrian papyrii, etc....
If you do not agree, then please state why, and give the source/s with quotation/s which offer more accurate information.
Last edited: