NIV problem, part II

We are as close to an agreement as possible without a complete agreement.

I will cede that the findings of longer/easier readings in P66 (in agreement with the TR) do not disprove the W&H theory but are an evidence (in the midst of the contrary) against it.

Personally, I am waiting for more evidence to be discovered to see just how far and to what extent (if any) that the Byzantine scribalists "adjusted" the text.

Until then I will take a faith position similar to Burgon's that this theory is unproven and against the spirit of the history of the Transmission of The Word of God.

That is not to say that my view reflects a superior position of spirituality (and not just because that one day I might have to "eat crow").

As always bro Archangel, thank you for a stimulating and knowlegeable exchange.

HankD

 

I'm not sure that I understand your question. But
here is an example of a verse that is in Aleph and B but is left out of modern Greek texts and thus out of the NIV.

In Matthew 27:49 Aleph and B along with some other manuscripts have a harmonization to John 19:34. It is an obvious scribal harmonization that modern greek scholars note and treat accordingly (ie. dump it).

There are other examples of modern greek texts not following Aleph and B's combined testimony.
Romans 5:1 (let us have peace with God vs. we have peace with God) is one.

-kman

 

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Apples and oranges. Are you saying that today's translators can read and write Greek better than the KJV translators did?

 

Thanks, kman.

I had seen this on an AV website and just wanted an "expert's" opinion. The contention was that NIV translators said they considered many mss in their translation work but actually placed Aleph and B above all others.
#1 If it was in Aleph and/or B, then it's in the NIV
#2 If it was not in Aleph or B, then it's not in the NIV.

I believe your Matthew 27:49 refutes #1. Is there an example that refutes #2?

 

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]So would you suggest that the things GA Riplinger learned to write her book fall in this category?? Would you then admit that this new "doctrine" of KJVOnlyism is not true since it is the product of recent "learning"? If you are consistent, you will have to.

If you are biblical, you will admit that you ripped this verse out of context and that is has nothing do with the increase of knowledge about language, arts, and science indiscrimately, but rather about the fact that people who use these things as their hope never come to know Christ and the truth.

Of course, trying to get a KJVO to use Scripture properly is a lost cause.

Apples and oranges. Are you saying that today's translators can read and write Greek better than the KJV translators did? </font>[/QUOTE]If you read what I wrote above, you will see what I was saying. 400 years of study has increased our knowledge and therefore our accuracy. We have also found many manuscripts that God has preserved. We believe that we should use what God has given us, not just throw it out because we don't like it.

 

NASA scientists in 1969 were able to get man to the moon. NASA scientists today can barely get man to the upper atmosphere. Increase in knowledge is not the key to the debate.

As far as accuracy, the fact that there is the NIV(1973), NIV(1978) and NIV(1984) refutes that comment.

Is that not what the MV'ers are doing with the KJV?

 

Now, NASA has sent probes to the outer reaches of our solar system. They send people to the upper atmosphere on a regular basis. They have reusable space shuttles. So my point stands. Increase in knowledge has brought much to this world.

Having said that, we are not debating increase in knowledge. My point is that we know more about ancient languages today. Archeological discoveries and devoted study have shown us much more. The increase in knowledge in not debatable. The point is that you abused Scripture by using to mean something it never meant.

No it doesn't. There have been far more revisions of the KJV than there have been of the NIV. You conveniently forgot to mention that.

Is that not what the MV'ers are doing with the KJV? </font>[/QUOTE]No that is not what we are doing. Your confusion apparently stems from being uninformed as to what the issues are. We are not throwing out the KJV in the least, much less because we don't like it. We trust and believe what God said. That is why we are not KJVO. God is not and it made it clear in his word by his constant use or and approval of things other than the KJV. Since God is not KJVO, then we should not be either. It is up to you to align your theology with God. You cannot expect God or anyone else to line their theology up with yours.

 

The KJV translators themselves endorsed the proliferation of translations in the Prologue to the KJV saying they collectively gave "the sense" of the Scriptures, AOBTW they were quoting Saint Augustine at the time.

Also (and this is a big also) the advent of the microprocessor has made the ease of the study of the Scriptures unparalleled in history.

What took months and years take but a second or two on a microprocessor. For instance if one wanted to look for the word "Trinity" in the writings of the early fathers, one would have to manually read/scour every page (over 20,000) of their writings (this could take a lifetine). I can do it in a few seconds (assuming I had an Early Fathers Data Base (of which several exist)).

I can align hundreds of bibles including the original language texts, have several lexicons, grammars and commentries a click away while studying any passage in the Scripture. I can put my cursor over any word in the Scripture and depending on my data base libraries bring a myriad of data into the text editors, etc...

Of course all the tools in the world don't gaurantee spiritual understanding. And I would admit that perhaps these tools may even be a hindrance to understanding for some.

Yes, what ever happen to the "good old days"?

But in answer to the inquiry concerning the last 400 years we have some very powerful tools.

HankD

 

What about the longer ending of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20?) It's not in Aleph or B, but it *is* in the NIV (albeit with a note about its absence in ancient MSS and witnesses).

 

Sure, if you can show me an example of where the KJV translators added non-italicized words to a verse. Wait a sec, is that fair? The big difference is that the KJV translators where honest in their translation and let you, the reader, know when words were supplied in order to make more clear the implicit sense of the Greek. All translations employ this practice but unlike the KJV they do not use italics to inform you of where words have been supplied by the translators. This, in my opinion, is a very deceptive practice on their part. Were these translators to put their added words in italics some of the more dynamic equivalent translations would consist of mostly italicized words. This is one of the reasons they don’t indicate to you when they have added words not in the Greek to the text.

</font>[/QUOTE]The phrase "God forbid" is used 8 or 9 times by the KJV in Romans and once in Galatians. There may be other uses but these are the ones I can think of now. They are not italicized. The phrase is used to translate a phrase that means something akin to "may it never be(come)". The Greek words for "God" and "forbid" are not present.

BTW, my NKJV and NASB both have italicized words to identify words added for clarity. Perhaps it has to do with the publisher if some copies of these versions do not. I agree with you. Italicizing the added words is a very honest approach.

This comes from the Lockman Foundation. They not only italicize the words but also give a marginal note when a formally equivalent translation would not be understandable and attempt to help readers understand Greek verb usage that has no English equivalent.

Note the last phrase of the second paragraph:

 

How did he make it clear? What verse says anything like what you are talking about?

And I guess God told you this in a vision/dream huh?

 

How did he make it clear? What verse says anything like what you are talking about?</font>[/QUOTE]Did you read what you quoted??? I directly answered your question when I said "constant use of and approval of things other than the KJV." I don't know how much clearer it can be.

And I guess God told you this in a vision/dream huh? </font>[/QUOTE]No, He showed us in his word by his teaching and his example. Why is that not good enough for you?

 

Perhaps you could show this deliberate changing. If you can, you will be the first and there have been many who have tried it before you. Every single charge has come up empty.

I think we all agree with that, including the translators of the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, the KJV, and the ESV. This is not under dispute.

Just glancing through your comments, most of them are misplaced. We could go through every version and find things that could be better translated. Most of the versions you cite are not mainstream translations anyway. But these charges are comical in a few instances.

This charge has been made but has not been substantiated. Furthermore, who cares ... we are talking about the translation. What may or may not be on the cover is not of much consequence.

I think we all agree. This was never at issue. The MVs do not tamper with God's word. That is a false charge.

No they wouldn't. They would infer that man's knowledge has greatly increased throughout human history. Humanity is the highest life form, being the only life form in the image of God and so I guess that makes them "vastly superior" to anything else, apart from God.

Not in a league with that at all. Nobody has said that technology and man was perfect. But when you consider deaths per mileage traveled, space travel is still the safest by far. But all of that is off topic.

My point was that man has a far greater knowledge today about almost everything that man did 400 years ago. That alone shows that man's knowledge of ancient languages is greater and that increase in knowledge should be used to accurately communicate God's word. That should not be a hard concept to understand.

 

NIV:Revelation 4:2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone [!!??] sitting on it.

With that in mind:


Revelation 4:2(AV)And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Also:


NIV 1st Timothy 3:16.Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:He appeared in a body,[he who??]was vindicated by the Spirit,was seen by angels,was preached among the nations,was believed on in the world,was taken up in glory.

Alot of men from Nazareth "apeared in a body."


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh , justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Now with what the NIV said in 1st Tim 3:16,I'm reminded of a verse:


1 John 4:3(AV)
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

You are not using the Authorised Version: you have the 1769 Revision.
Knowest thou not what Version of God's Holy Word thou hast before thee?

 

If the subject is "changes" then it is by necessity "about what's Greek or not Greek." The KJV was NOT the original Bible. God inspired writers in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Therefore, the KJV is not the standard by which all versions are to be judged, the evidence for the originals is.

Then please don't. God didn't say the only the KJV was approved by Him in English... you and other KJVO's did. Your word is not binding, God's is.

Once again, the KJV is not the standard by which these other translations are to be judged. They are to be judged according to their faithfulness to the God inspired originals.

It is a symbol for the Trinity.

In the 1600's, thousands left in wooden sailing ships to never be seen again. Bad omens and superstition were rampant in an English society still very much influenced by the dark ages (RCC dominion et al.) and Britain's pagan past. They attached leaches to sick people for virtually any illness. Eccentric old ladies were condemned as witches on the testimony of wicked children. Baptists were persecuted and even killed by the Church of England and its prelate, the English monarch.

Comparatively, I like today's common sense just fine.

 

That symbol IS NOT a "Satanic/occultic/pagan symbol."

 

In reference to the symbol on the cover of the NKJV, it is satanic and occult. How do I know this? I use to practice ceremonial magick and perform kabbalist rituals years ago and it is a common symbol signifying the goddess trinity. It is also used by Luciferians as it is a stylized 666. This is similar to the way groups of three witches or three ceremonial magicians stand to summon power.

 

The text dose not say "who" was sitting on the throne. Therefore it was "someone" and the following verses describe that someone. So you are incorrect yet again.

But none of those men were the God of the church, as the context indicates Paul was talking about. You fall once again into the habit of ripping Scripture out of context. If you read the context there is no question who it is talking about. There is only one person from Nazereth who meets that description.

Additionally, the question to be asked is not "What do I wish it said?" The question is, "What did Paul write?" To the latter question, he most likely wrote "hos" -- meaning "who."

The translators of the NIV have fully affirmed that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. For you to imply that they haven't shows that you are dishonest. You know good and well that the NIV testifies to the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ.

So once again, you fail at your objective of attackign the word of God.