NASB and NIV, True and Trustworthy.

John Miller asks: "My big question concerning the NIV is why are there so many veres's that are missing."

It's not that verses are missing in the NIV or NASB, it's that verses are added in the KJV and NKJV.

 

To cite the Textual Commentary:

Several concluding comments:
1. The NIV translation is based on difficulties in teh Greek. While some agree here that the "harder is better," the NIV has followed the idea that it is too hard to be authentic and has chosen an easier interpretation.

2. The verb "received" is a 3 person singular without gender in Greek. It could as easily refer to Abraham as Sarah, and if it is true that "power to conceive" is only used of the male role in child conception and birth then the NIV has properly understood the text.

3. As for steira, it is missing from several important manuscripts as well as the majority, as noted above. This is a place where those evil men Westcott and Hort sided with the majority text and the TR by omitting it. It is also a place where the modern eclectic text sided against Aleph, which proves wrong the KJOnly claims that the MVs always follow the dreaded aleph. I think it gives evidence that the eclectic text is not some slavishly driven conspiracy to make aleph look good. It is dedicated to the evidence at hand.

In any case, this is a difficult passage to translate. The NIV, while using some interpretation, is not clearly wrong. There is a good case that can be made for their point based on the text. Ultimately, the same case can be made from the TR or Majority text because the meaning of the words in question does not really stem from textual variants.

 

Are you 100% positive of this?

Neal

 

No, are you 100% positive on the other side?

I'm not 100% positive, but I am 100% convinced of it.

[ January 07, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: sodzei ]

 

What I would say about Ruckman would be censored so for your perusal.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Grady/Final_Authority.html

 

(Deleted because I didn't realize I was in the "Baptist-Only" section. Apologies.)

[ January 14, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: tragic_pizza ]

 

I never claimed that all of the verses left out in MVs are because they are deleting from the Word of God. I am just saying that is mighty brave of you to have 100% confidence that in every instance there is a difference between the KJV/NKJV and others you will say that the KJV/NKJV adds verses. Yes, it is evident in some places this is the case, but 100% of the time? Hardly.

Neal

 

I am not concerned with the KJVOnly debate. I am, however, highly interested with whether the version I am reading is accurate in telling me what God said. The NIV makes no effort in this direction. It uses what they call "dynamic equivalence". That means they are trying to tell me what they think God meant. That is like second hand knowledge versus first hand knowledge, which is better? Is it better to see a ball game or listen to the radio and have someone tell you their opinion of what is going on. Good announcers will be pretty close but it is still their opinion and not as accurate as seeing it yourself. This is why I do not trust, recommend, or respect the NIV as a Bible translation. It has its worth as a commentary, opinion, or something like a paraphrase, but, I do not consider it as a Bible translation.
The NASB however, is, IMHO the most accurate literal translation available. Perfect, no, but quite good.

[ January 15, 2003, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Artimaeus ]

 

I think you have a little misunderstanding of the NIV and dynamic equivalence (since you have missed defined both ) ... The NIV is a very good attempt at an accurate translation. Ken Barker has a little book describing it that would be very helpful. It is a very accurate translation.

As for DE, it is not someone trying to tell you what they think God meant. It is trying to use similar constructions from the parent language to the daughter language so that the truth communicated is the same. It recognizes the use of grammatical structures and idioms that are unique to language and translates them from one language to the other by means of DE to communicate the message that God intended us to understand.

I preach from the NASB myself, though on many occasions I wish I didn't. However, on some I am glad that I do. However, a number of people in my congregation carry an NIV some carry a KJV. Contrary to what many have said, there has never been any confusion about what the word of God says.

 

My personal preference is also the NASB, although I may prefer the ESV before long.

The issue with DE is that every translation implements it to some degree, including the KJV and the NASB (probably more in the KJV than the NASB).

If one is going to attack all DE, that individual would have to read and preach from an interlinear to be consistent.

 

My issue with the KJV is that the English language is so dynamic. Meanings of words change so quickly and mean different things in regions of the world. King James era English is different from what we speak today. Even current "Queens English" is much different from what we use in the US. What they use in CAlifornia is not quite the same as is used in New York. Also, have they not found and recovered older and more complete scrolls since the KJV was prepared?

 

Yes....

Duck!!!! Here it comes....

 

So then, we should have a New York Bible, and a California Bible, and hey, we could even have an Indiana Bible for us Hoosiers

Okay, I'm just being sarcastic here. I read that sentence and couldn't resist.

God Bless!!!

Adam

 

My personal preference is also the NASB, although I may prefer the ESV before long.

The issue with DE is that every translation implements it to some degree, including the KJV and the NASB (probably more in the KJV than the NASB).

If one is going to attack all DE, that individual would have to read and preach from an interlinear to be consistent.</font>[/QUOTE]I did not misdefine dynamic equivalence, I merely gave you the dynamic equivalent of it.
An example of what I mean would be if the original text said it was raining "cats and dogs" and the NIV said it was raining "buckets" then I would have a problem because they are attempting to tell me what God meant instead of what God actually said. The difference is whether or not you think the Bible is verbally inspired or not. I want to know what God SAID first and then you can tell me what you think he meant. I understand spome of the difficulties of translation and that a minor degree of modification (DE) is necessary in ALL translations. The NIV however, is quite good at treating the idea of telling me what God SAID as not that important and they want to tell me what He meant. An example from the NIV (There are MANY, MANY if there were only a few I wouldn't say anything).
In I Thess 2:7 the NIV says, "...like a mother caring for her little children"
In I Thess 2:7 the KJV says, "...even as a nurse cherisheth her children"
This is not meant to "prove" my point, only to give an example. Now you can argue till the cows come home about what the word "trophos" means in Greek (nurse, nurturer, wet nurse, caregiver, etc,), but, it does NOT mean mother. There is a perfectly good word for mother in the Greek and God chose not to use that word. Tell me what God said, as close to a quote as is humanly possible and then we will have common ground to discuss what He meant.
I don't just want the "gist" of what He said.

 

"I don't just want the "gist" of what He said."

Then which do you prefer in Romans 3:4 10 other times in the epistles?... "God forbid", which can only be described as "dynamic equivalence" in the KJV? or the literal "May it not be" in the NASB and others I have read?

 

But "raining cats and dogs" only communicates in a culture where "raining cats and dogs" is understood as an idiom for "torrential downpour." In some languages, people would be looking to the sky for cats and dogs, and in that case, communication would have failed. Therefore, the idiom must be translated into the language in a similar idiom that can be understood. The point of translation is clarity, not confusion.

I disagree. DE is not incompatible with verbal inspiration. ONe could argue that translating at all is a compromise of verbal inspiration. We would both agree that they would be wrong. But the question would be, If God inspired the Greek and HEbrew (which he unequivocally did), then what right do we have to change it to something else. To use your line, "just tell me what God said." To me, this is the logical end of your connection.

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the better translation is nurse or nursing mother as the NASB says. But the NIV has not grossly erred here.

The same can be said about many words. That is why there is a semantic domain ... the same word can mean different things and different words can mean the same thing.

To me, 1 Thess 2:7 is an example of something I think the NIV did poorly, but there are examples in all versions of that.

I would simply say that DE is not the devil is disguise, as some would make it out to be. It has a proper place with judicious use.

[ January 16, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The chief editor of the NIV is quoted in Riplingers book NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS and proven to be a heretic concerning salvation.
I'll pass on anything he has his hands on.
The qoute is true!

 

Steve K, the quote is true in the sense that the words are in fact from him. However, when you twist the word order and add sever of these, ..., you are intentionally maligning what the person said and meant.

Only Ruckman could battle Riplinger for being the world's worst people in relation to translation knowledge.

 

Riplinger is quoted as having said that God dictated her book to her thus the name GA Riplinger, as in "God And" Riplinger. GA said that God gave her the "acrostic algebra" that she used to prove the equation NASV+NIV=SIN.

She has proven by her own words that she is a heretic. I'll pass on anything she has her hands on.

 

I have to disagree with you Kal el.The MV's do a better job than anyone else at twisting words.But the people I know that use MV"S tend to use the phrase "Ye hath...said?" alot.