Merits of the NIV

1. we're talking about the MERITS of the NIV, not the NIV. so the post *against* the NIV was irrelevant.

Merits means worth or excellence;high quality

you can not talk about the worth of someting with out actually discussing the subject.

the statement in the beginning was: "anyone have any thoughts por/con"

I chose the con because I don't believe the NIV to hold any merit. I am allowed to support my opinion, am i not?

2. why won't Ruckmanites exercise FAITH in the NIV in such verses rather than try to explain away the clear textual and translational superiority of the NIV in those verses? one doesn't need to be NIV-only to appreciate its strengths n power, it being the Word of the King.

the subject isn't about "Ruckmanites" nor the reasons why they don't exercise faith in the NIV in such verses. so i won't bother to respond to that question.

If you feel the NIV to be superior then that is your right. We will all give an account to The Lord. Amen brother?

 

Hi Brother KJV1611Only

I do disagree. There are many here on this board that has a great deal of knowledge of Greek/Hebrew and has a good understanding of how translations are done. And they also have a very scholarly understanding of the manuscripts.
I can see in your post here that you seem to have a desire for truth. I respect that and appreciate your desire to express your convictions it in a calm matter. It also appears that you have an open mind, a mark of a good student.

Brother, may I invite you to listen to the links I am going to provide for you? I pray that you do. When you are finished I would like you to listen to more, and I want to recommend a couple of books for you to read.

Gail Riplinger and James White part one

Gail Riplinger and James White part two

God bless.

 

Hi Brother Chet..thank you for the information and perhas i was hasty in my comparison of the knowledge that is represented in this Baptist Board.

I will most certainly have a listen to those sights you recommended.

I have several of Gail Riplingers books as well as videos of her material I am interested in hearing the information that is on these sights.

God bless you Brother

 

I hope you will pardon the long list of verses. I felt it necessary to cite them since someone made the accusation that the NIV deletes teh blood of Jesus. These verses show that accusation to be totally unfounded and based on ignorance of what the NIV does say.

Addtionally, KJV1611 made the remark that the NIV was bad because it had been revised 6 times. I laughed out loud because that is less than the KJV has been revised if my memory serves me correctly.

Then he complains that the NIV has deleted words and when he shown that the NIV has more words, he complains that they have added words. It is a great argument when it works both ways.

If you compare the KJV to the NIV, you will find dozens of additions and, last I checked, there was a curse on those who add to the word of God. Of course, that is only to show that the argument works both ways. How sad it is to see people so mislead by false teaching.

[ April 22, 2002, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

And while I am here, let me share with you the latest from "Dr." G(od) A(nd) Riplinger from the latest edition of the Church Bus News edited by Wally Beebe. In the "Church Bus News" that came Saturday, I found the following of interest. (I am not making this up; it is right off of page 8 (bottom of the right hand column). The editor says:
______________

"Yesterday, I talked with Dr. G. A. Riplinger and asked her to give me input on something. What is the difference between putting in written form (a new translation) the simplified or explained words, and the pastor or teacher looking up specific words, to pass on definitions to teh flock? It then become a credibility issue, who do you believe? I have at least 12 lexicons (Greek-English dictionaries, e.g. Thayer's) in my library. If I wanted to expand on a word for a sermon's stake, I usually go to my Textus Receptus Interlinear , and see which word was used in the Greek of the KJV and then look i up in a lexicon (sometimes in my classical Greek dictionary, the usage of Greek words in the \Greek plays of the pre-1600s era.) All of that is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. And , few people will have the library to accomplish that task.

Dr. Riplinger suggests you use, what she calls, the "built-in Bible dictionary." You take the word in questions, look for sound that match other words, look up the same word used elsewhere in Scripture and see how it was used. I said, "Give me an example. How about 'charity'? The up-daters are always trying to change that one to 'love.'" I think there are 27 usages in the Bible where "Charity" is the word translated. She pointed out that Charity has sevearl similar sounds found in other words. There is the "ch", the "r" and the "T". (chrt, close to Christ!) In each usage the word refers to Christians with Christians. So by using the built-in dictionary you find the definition, "Something between Christians."
____________________

I laughed out loud (and then cried when I thought of all the effort I put into learnign Greek and Hebrew when all I had to do was know phonics). The real answer to "What's the difference ..." is probably about 15-20 minutes of preaching time while the pastor explains outdated words and outdated syntax that are both readily understood in a modern version.

Seriously, I think this illustrates how increasingly far off base these people are (as if we needed more proof). The problem is that they are getting airtime in some churches claiming to be fundamental. This is pure and utter foolishness. Yet people see this kind of stuff and say, "Wow -- I never knew that." And we should respond, "There's a reason you never knew that."

We must stand up and expose these people for the charade that they are. When we tolerate this stuff in the name of "difference of opinion" or "Christian graces" we are undermining the Scriptures themselves and the words that are in the text. We should not tolerate someone who compromises the doctrine of bibliology in this way. Much of this KJVOnly movement grows worse and worse by the day I think. And they are becoming more vocal about it. They are elevating this woman to a place of higher and higher status even allowing her to speak at some of their conferences and the like (1 Timothy 2 is no longer in the KJV I suppose). Here is an evangelist asking a woman with degrees in Home Economics for advice on how to study Scripture without using original language lexicons.

 

Larry I say this in Grace. I think you are very mistaken in your thoughts. I don't agree with you at all And I strongly disagree with the manner in which you make your replys.

Like I have said you have your beliefs that's what you will answer for. I have mine beliefs that I will answer for as well. I appreciate being able to share with the rest of the group, although I know my views are not popular to say the least. but thank you for the space to post.

God bless

 

Which verses above do you disagree with? Which of my thoughts about the blood of Christ do you disagree with? Since you have not specified them here I am not sure how to answer you.

It is interesting to me though how you make the accusation that the NIV doesn't like the blood of Christ and then when you are shown to be inaccurate and incorrect there is not a forthcoming apology for your misrepresentation of the word of God. Why not just address the point and tell us which of the above verses shows the NIV's dislike of the blood of Christ?

There is a lot of frustration among orthodox fundamentalists over the accusations that you make above. We know them to be untrue and we can show from Scripture that they are baseless. You might not like the NIV as a translation and that is fine. But to make the accusations you make above are incorrect and are based on either misinformation or willful deception. There is no other option that I can see.

 

1611, what if I were to show you misquotes from Riplingers book "New Age Bible Versions" where she mis-represents several authors and their works?

What Pastor larry demonstrated with the whole phonetics thing is basically what much of her thoughts boil down to. NONSENSE. Also, I stopped reading Ruckman because of the words he uses (ni%&ers, jacka#$, et.al) even when talking about other believers. They don't step on my toes brother, they insult my intelligence and the straight forward teachings of the Word.

Thanks
Michael

 

I am not certain what parts of the previous messages TomVols considers to have been proven false, but it is a fact tbat the NIV, when compared to a Byzantine based translation, omits Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24, plus it omits parts of 147 other verses. We know, of course, that these omissions are due to variants in the underlying texts, but, if you believe as I do, in the Byzantine priority position, these verses have been omitted from Holy Writ.

As to the readability discussion, it is very clear that the KJV consistanty uses shorter words and scores better on the Fleisch-Kincaid reading level study, but it must be remembered that many of those short words which give the KJV such a good score are not easily understood by the average 21st century English reader, and that goes even more strongly for children.

And, of course, we know that no "lesbian sits on the board that publishes" the NIV. Miss Mollencott was a consultant in the area of English style and had no known input to translational choices, nor did/does she hold a position on either the translation committee or the board of directors of the publisher.

But, all if all, it is difficult to claim that the NIV and the KJV are essentially the same, although it does seem evident that no major doctrine has been eliminated from the NIV (with the possible exception of the requirement for baptism stated in Acts 8:37), it can be claimed that the NIV does tend to weaken some evidences for certain doctrines.

 

This is without a doubt one of the most moronic things I have ever heard. Imagine the unbelieving world's response to hearing that?? Such idiocy brings reproach on the name of Christ, to portray His followers as such simple-minded dolts.

 

PRO:
Was the first versions to really make the Bible accessible to the greater English reading community in a fairly accurate version.

The words can be easily understood by any reader above the 5th grade.

CON:
Not as literal as it could be.

Fails to translate important words and terms accurately (sarx should be flesh; Lord Almighty should be Lord of Hosts; leaves out propitiation, etc).

Too interpretive in many passages.

Monolithic textual notes ("Oldest and best mss ...")

Reads blandly; unmemorably.

Controlled by the IBS, and now is the foundation for the abysmal TNIV.

The ESV/NASB are far superior in accuracy and fidelity to the text.

 

Actually, you missed my point. My point wasn't to try to use that chart to show the NIV superior, although many KJVOnly people do just that in terms of the KJV. My entire point was to show that such charts are relatively meaningless in the broad scheme of things as your checking on a couple of the references proved. The SAME thing is true when you check the charts in KJVOnly books. Believe me, I have.

Thanks
Michael

 

One merit of the NIV I can think of is that it is one of the few modern versions (along with the NLT and NKJV and maybe a few others) that *explicitly* says Christ is God, in verses like Rom 9:5. There were many pre-KJV Bibles that read this way, but for some reason the KJV weakened this key verse, and many Bibles since have followed the KJV's lead here. Same sort of thing in 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13 - verses in which Christ's deity is *explicit* in the NIV, and not explicit in many other versions including the KJV.

Brian

 

Yes, the NIV renders the Deity of Christ more clearly in many places where it is weaker in the KJV or others.

Thanks
Michael

 

KJV1611ONLY,Finally someone who agrees with me.You are going to learn something on here,not many people on here will agree with us.Pastor Larry and Chris Tempel just shoot off at the mouth. The same goes for Tom Vols and several more on here. Mr. Cassidy is not kjvonly but I agree with a lot of what he says.He tore me to pieces on the kjv issue,but that just made me study the issue more and I am more kjvonly now than ever before.I guess what I am trying to say is " Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,neither cast your pearls before swine."

 

My feeling is that the NIV gets too bad of a rap from many conservatives. This morning, I had some extra time, so I read through Isaiah. If I had been using my KJV, I wouldn't have made it past chapter 4 or 5, because I would have become too frustrated at how hard the English was to understand. Even the NASB (which is my favorite English translation) would have been too difficult for what I was doing. The NIV, because of its clarity, allowed me to read through the whole book and get a good overview of the book. I have learned not to put too much confidence in the exact wording in any given text, because the translators did tend to interpret passages (at least more often than the NASB, KJV, and ESV); however, for reading through large portions of text, I believe it is the best option. My personal view is that the NIV is a bit too "free" with translation to be someone's primary Bible. However, it is a wonderful translation, which I wish were used more often in my circles.

[ April 22, 2002, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Mikayehu ]

 

Larry, I just wanted to quickly respond to you. I don't disagree with you about the blood verses you found. I did say that the NIV attacks the Blood of Christ and I think i used Col as an example. I noticed you didn't have that one listed. an attack doesn't mean an all out distruction an attack can be slow and subtile like a virus.

"I laughed out loud (and then cried when I thought of all the effort I put into learnign Greek and Hebrew when all I had to do was know phonics). The real answer to "What's the difference ..." is probably about 15-20 minutes of preaching time while the pastor explains outdated words and outdated syntax that are both readily understood in a modern version."

I disagree with you here. I have always been taught by pastors (who also know Greek and Hebrew)that you don't need the greek and hebrew that the Bible defines itself that is part of the uniqueness about Gods word. I have always been taught to find the meaning of a word by compareing scripture with scripture.

"Seriously, I think this illustrates how increasingly far off base these people are (as if we needed more proof). The problem is that they are getting airtime in some churches claiming to be fundamental. This is pure and utter foolishness. Yet people see this kind of stuff and say, "Wow -- I never knew that." And we should respond, "There's a reason you never knew that."


"We must stand up and expose these people for the charade that they are. When we tolerate this stuff in the name of "difference of opinion" or "Christian graces" we are undermining the Scriptures themselves and the words that are in the text. We should not tolerate someone who compromises the doctrine of bibliology in this way. Much of this KJVOnly movement grows worse and worse by the day I think. And they are becoming more vocal about it. They are elevating this woman to a place of higher and higher status even allowing her to speak at some of their conferences and the like (1 Timothy 2 is no longer in the KJV I suppose). Here is an evangelist asking a woman with degrees in Home Economics for advice on how to study Scripture without using original language lexicons."

I disagree with your manner as well as your comments..They are very hateful. Just because we say God's word is in one book instead of two or three you want to attack us?? we belive the Lord Jesus Christ to be our Lord and we stick to Bible and nothing but Bible. how you could possibly say we compromise the docrtine of the Bible is just beyond me. I know Calvinist who believe the KJVonly do they also compromise the doctrine of the Bible or is it just non-Calvinist and women who are more accomplished than yourself whom you hate? and you call yourself a pastor? I'm glad your not mine.

 

When you compare to the NIV, do you consider Acts 4:25 in the KJV to be an attack on the divine inspiration of scripture? Do you consider Jude 1:25 in the KJV to be an attack on the pre-existence and Lordship of Christ? Why or why not?

 

I see no hate in Pastor Larry's comments. Why are you deliberately trying to misrepresent him?