NIV-only?

It's a textual variant. Bruce Metzger in
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament says:

-kman

 

I would very much like to follow up on your citation but need more info. What "Talmage"? Vol. 18 of what? Is it on-line? Where did you find this quote?

I doubt that anyone would object to you citing sources of people who believed that only the KJV is the Word of God.

However, the fact remains that the formulation of KJVOnlies as a distinctive group occurred after JJ Ray plagiarized the SDA Wilkerson's book.

Preference for the KJV is not the same as KJVO. </font>[/QUOTE]JYD, Do you have more info on this citation? I think I might know where it came from but I don't have the resources to prove it one way or the other.

 

I have never heard of any other version onlyism. I am also a member of the original texts only crowd and since I am only marginally literate in English I have to do the best I can with what I have. I think the NASB is the most accurate and the KJV is the most pleasant to the ears (cultural bias acknowledged). I also think that those who are willing to accept almost any MV as authoritative are unwise. I have a very difficult time with any version whose stated purpose is to say, "Thus meaneth the Lord", rather than, "Thus saith the Lord." The following is just an example of what I am talking about.

KJV: I Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief .

NIV: I Tim 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst .

NASB: ...among whom I am foremost of all.

LNT ...and I was the greatest of them all.

TEV: ...I am the worst of them.

Four words are used to espress the same thing. Chief, Foremost, and Greatest . It seems that a ligitimate argument could be made for each of these synonyms. The antonym Worst , however, is just the opposite, and even if the expression CAN be understood to MEAN the same thing it still can't be argued that this is what Paul said. We can't discuss what scripture means if we don't know what it says. The NIV, TEV, and some of the others make no effort whatsoever to be accurate in what they are quoting, they only make a strong effort to tell me their perceived meaning.

 

So it is okay for you to do this but not a version? I think you would have a very difficult time avoiding this in any versions, since translations by nature are interpretative. If you want to know what God said in the sense that you use it here, then you really have to learn Greek. Anything else, either formal or dynamic, is to some degree, someone telling you what God meant.

But it is what Paul said. IF you read the context, he is very clearly making a statement about himself, and saying that he was the worst of sinners. Your distinction here just won't work. If you asked Paul, "Did you say you were the worst of sinners?" he would unequivocally say "Yes." Why? Because that is what he said.

There is a serious language probably when we try to divorce meaning from the word, as if the word has any value apart from meaning. The more I study this issue, the less I am convinced by arguments like you have made here. Language simply doesn't work that way; translation doesn't work that way.

OF course, there are boundaries. Those boundaries are to be determined by faithfulness to the text. This case that you have given is not unfaithful to the text.

Simply not true. This is no more true of the NIV than it is of the KJV. The TEV I can't speak to. Any translation involves interpretation. That is the nature of translation. The NIV is a very accurate translation, even though there are some things that could be done better.

 

KJV: I Tim 1:15 ...of whom I am chief .
NIV: I Tim 1:15 ...of whom I am the worst .
NASB: ...among whom I am foremost of all.
LNT ...and I was the greatest of them all.
TEV: ...I am the worst of them.

The greek word here is protos which referrs to being foremost, or primary in order of importance. Its usage in English doesn't have an exact translation, but requires contextual support. In the syntax of this verse, all of these translations make a good case for using the verbage they do. None is more accurate or faithful to the Greek than another here.

 

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
So it is okay for you to do this but not a version?

Yes, it is OK for me to do this. It is OK for you to do this, for an author, or preacher, or commentator. That is what we do, we make comments on what the text means.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
If you asked Paul, "Did you say you were the worst of sinners?" he would unequivocally say "Yes." Why? Because that is what he said.

Pastor Larry, I am not disagreeing with you on the meaning of Paul's statement. He is clearly saying that he was the epitome of sinners. Paul did NOT say that he was the "worst" of sinners. He said that he was the "chief" of sinners. I could make the argument (I'm not) that if I am the worst at something then I am not very good at it. The worst basketball player isn't very good at it. Paul was saying that he was very good at sinning. He would be drafted No. 1 in the National Sinners Association draft. If I were a literalist, a Bible thumping, Bible Believing, NIV only type person I could make a case that said that Paul was the least of sinners because he said he wasn't very good at it (the worst). You and I know that is not what Paul meant. However, we have no point of reference to discuss anything if we don't know what Paul said .

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
There is a serious language probably when we try to divorce meaning from the word, as if the word has any value apart from meaning.

I agree that you cannot divorce meaning from the word, but you are attempting to divorce the word from meaning by relegating the word to only being significant to translators and only the meaning is important to the English reader. The meaning has no value apart from the words. I need both.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Any translation involves interpretation. That is the nature of translation.

Agreed, but, there is a significant difference between unavoidable and necessary interpretation of difficult instances and an overall purpose in a translation. The NIV does make a sincere effort to translate meanings as in the example I used of I Tim 1:15. It does not make a sincere effort to translate what God actually said. Even when translating more accurately would not adversly effect the reading. Please, don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that because the NIV does SOME interpretation it is "bad". I am saying that because the NIV has as its stated purpose to tell me what the text "really meant to say" that I can not trust it to tell me what the text actually says. "Chief" or "Worst", which one did he say? The meaning is clear either way, I agree. The difference is one of accuracy.

 

The autographs? You mean where Paul personally signed the copy King James worked from?

Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean here. The only difference between the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort here is that the former has "Χριστου" (of Christ) as its last word, the latter having "Θεου" (of God). Unless you deny the divinity of Christ, there is no negation (nor contradiction) here, unless you have some private theory about what the "autographs" said. I suspect you meant something other than "autographs", since no one has access to them to check which manuscript is closer (let alone identical).

Haruo

 

God bless you too, Alex. For what it's worth, my opinion is that there will not be an NIV-only movement of any size until enough time has passed that the language in which the NIV is written has become as archaic as the KJV's language had become by the beginning of the 20th century. (And frankly, I don't think the NIV will retain enough currency long enough for this ever to happen. You don't see a Geneva Bible Only movement for pretty much this same reason, though theologically it would make better sense, though still not good sense.)

Haruo

 

1 Timothy 1:15 NJB
...Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I myself am the greatest of them;

1 Timothy 1:15 RSV
...Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners;

 

English is funny that way. Or perhaps it is just my way of looking at things that is funny, but anyway...

(1 Timothy 1:15 NIV) Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

Could we say "sinners--of whom I am the worst" is a double negative?


Now I have that off my chest, while there may be pockets of popularity for other translations here and there, I don't think I have ever seen Onlyism in anything except KJV. Although 'pastor' at one 'church' I attended for a while did have a thing for the NCV...It felt like he was selling Amway and wanted to go diamond direct on one product...

Pete

 

The autographs? You mean where Paul personally signed the copy King James worked from?

Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean here. The only difference between the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort here is that the former has "Χριστου" (of Christ) as its last word, the latter having "Θεου" (of God). Unless you deny the divinity of Christ, there is no negation (nor contradiction) here, unless you have some private theory about what the "autographs" said. I suspect you meant something other than "autographs", since no one has access to them to check which manuscript is closer (let alone identical).

Haruo </font>[/QUOTE]Polycarp(69-155 A.D.), the "Apostolic father," witnessed the autographs and quoted Romans 14:10 from it because he was with the Apostle John including other disciples of Jesus Christ plus Paul. Romans 14:10 that Polycarp quoted from the autographs identified with the KJV. Modern versions negated Polycarp's evidence from the autographs. Polycarp wrote about the those who "pervert the sayings of the Lord....let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning."

 

I usually get 'inspirations' early in the morning, and this is no-exception. You're gonna love this one, believe me!

The Bible, all of us agree, is the Sacred Word of God. It is the most precious Book in the world. Therefore, it deserves respect . Therefore, I am starting the " LEATHER-BIBLE ONLY movement. Mere hardcover Bibles are a sacrilege! And paperback? We simply can't have the Word of God in PAPERBACK! (It has been rumored that Hardback and Paperback editions of the Bible are actually printed in Alexandria!) So friends, join me in the LEATHER-BIBLE ONLY movement! Stop the devil before it's too late!

 

And , there are 'compromisers' out there, who will tell you that 'bonded leather' is all right. But of course, THOSE are printed in Alexandria too...by Catholic nuns!

Topics to follow: Is it sacrilege to 'mark' in your leather Bible? And what about 'engraving' ??? Is this "adding to the Word of God?" Is this violating the Commandment, "thou shalt not have any (en)graven image"??? And what about the COLOR of your leather Bible? Is anything but black acceptable? Stay tuned!

 

Jude,

I'm with you in the Leather-Bible Only
Movement. I'm sure the folks at Cambridge
and Oxford will love this!

Clay
Leather Bible Only
Word Merchant

 

YES! YES! YES! No pigskin! And NO black or white leather either! Only RED CALF LEATHER FOR OUR BIBLES! The RED CALF LEATHER BIBLE ONLY MOVEMENT

(Num 19:2 NIV) "This is a requirement of the law that the LORD has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke.

RCLB-ONLY!!!!!

[ April 13, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Jude ]

 

I am KJB only, ands that's not idolatry or a cult.

In my experience, whenever another version is either read or I am reading it, it seems unfamiliar and even foreign to me. Even when I hear preaching, without much quotation, it seems more just a commenting on the scripture, but when that Word is read aloud, or when I read it, I have a witness within my spirit with that Spirit.

Other versions I look at as nothing more than good commentaries. Sorry if that offends, but you might want to check up on your level of pride before being too offended.

My experience is that when I've told others my stand on the KJB, I'm either appreciated or attacked, liked or disliked, loved or hated.

But to see those who mock and ridicule, and make light of another's stand, I just wonder, so don't take it too easy or hard, just learn not to be offensive, or the offended.

In Christ,

Brother Ricky