The Kjv is better, as are the Nkjv/Nasb, due to mainly their formal translation theory!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The NIV 2011 edition
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
Well, if you ask me, John 1:18 is much more easily understood in the 84 NIV than the KJV, as are numerous other verses as well. But, we all know a translation is going to "tell on" the translator's Theology, and it is just my opinion that the Translators of the KJV were some pretty sound fellows.
As a matter of fact, if you have not read it, I highly recommend the Original Preface of the KJV.
Some great preaching in there.
God bless.
You won't embarrass me. It's all there is the public domain anyway. But you might like to consider what the Bible has to say about motes and beams.
You are studiously avoiding interacting with my point. Whether or not Carson is right in what he says, one of the great principles of the Baptists is the right of private interpretation. When a translation alters the inspired word by changing singulars into plurals, a lot of the time it doesn't matter all that much except that it shouldn't happen. But sometimes it takes away the liberty of the reader to find Christ in a given passage. I cited Hebrews 2:5-9 and Psalm 24. Whether Carson or anyone else thinks Christ is not to be found there is beside the point. By changing the Holy Spirit's words from singular to plural the translators are taking away the readers' liberty to find Christ there. Oops! There's another nasty thing I've said about the NIV translators. Make sure you put it in your list.
Carson says that 75% of the commentators do not believe that 'son of man' in Hebrews 2:6 has any reference to the Lord Jesus. I wonder how he researched that figure, but let it pass. I will observe that the Puritans John Owen and Thomas Goodwin appear to find Him there. 'Competent theologians' indeed! You mentioned Spurgeon's well-known comment about finding Christ where He is not legitimately to be found. Well, in The Treasury of David, when commenting on Psalm 8, he gives an extended quote by Goodwin on the connection between the Psalm and Heb. 2, which finds Christ in both.
Just as a thought inspired by Goodwin:
Psalm 8:6. 'You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.'
Ephesians 1:22. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church.'
So when the NIV 2011 translates in Hebrews 2:8, 'You have put all things under their feet,' how can it be denied that it is obscuring a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ?
'And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself' (Luke 24:27). That must have been some Bible study! Wouldn't you love to have been there?
I bet He mentioned Psalm 8.
Regardless if Dr Carson or other learned men see Jesus in those passages, since jesus DID see Himself in those OT passages as being THE Son of man! Think that His understanding on this trumps theirsYou won't embarrass me. It's all there is the public domain anyway. But you might like to consider what the Bible has to say about motes and beams.
You are studiously avoiding interacting with my point. Whether or not Carson is right in what he says, one of the great principles of the Baptists is the right of private interpretation. When a translation alters the inspired word by changing singulars into plurals, a lot of the time it doesn't matter all that much except that it shouldn't happen. But sometimes it takes away the liberty of the reader to find Christ in a given passage. I cited Hebrews 2:5-9 and Psalm 24. Whether Carson or anyone else thinks Christ is not to be found there is beside the point. By changing the Holy Spirit's words from singular to plural the translators are taking away the readers' liberty to find Christ there. Oops! There's another nasty thing I've said about the NIV translators. Make sure you put it in your list.
Carson says that 75% of the commentators do not believe that 'son of man' in Hebrews 2:6 has any reference to the Lord Jesus. I wonder how he researched that figure, but let it pass. I will observe that the Puritans John Owen and Thomas Goodwin appear to find Him there. 'Competent theologians' indeed! You mentioned Spurgeon's well-known comment about finding Christ where He is not legitimately to be found. Well, in The Treasury of David, when commenting on Psalm 8, he gives an extended quote by Goodwin on the connection between the Psalm and Heb. 2, which finds Christ in both.
Just as a thought inspired by Goodwin:
Psalm 8:6. 'You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.'
Ephesians 1:22. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church.'
So when the NIV 2011 translates in Hebrews 2:8, 'You have put all things under their feet,' how can it be denied that it is obscuring a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ?
'And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself' (Luke 24:27). That must have been some Bible study! Wouldn't you love to have been there?
I bet He mentioned Psalm 8.
The translato
rs on the Nasb/Nkjv also were very sound in their theology!
it's great to see the CSB passing the Hebrews 2:8 testYou won't embarrass me. It's all there is the public domain anyway. But you might like to consider what the Bible has to say about motes and beams.
You are studiously avoiding interacting with my point. Whether or not Carson is right in what he says, one of the great principles of the Baptists is the right of private interpretation. When a translation alters the inspired word by changing singulars into plurals, a lot of the time it doesn't matter all that much except that it shouldn't happen. But sometimes it takes away the liberty of the reader to find Christ in a given passage. I cited Hebrews 2:5-9 and Psalm 24. Whether Carson or anyone else thinks Christ is not to be found there is beside the point. By changing the Holy Spirit's words from singular to plural the translators are taking away the readers' liberty to find Christ there. Oops! There's another nasty thing I've said about the NIV translators. Make sure you put it in your list.
Carson says that 75% of the commentators do not believe that 'son of man' in Hebrews 2:6 has any reference to the Lord Jesus. I wonder how he researched that figure, but let it pass. I will observe that the Puritans John Owen and Thomas Goodwin appear to find Him there. 'Competent theologians' indeed! You mentioned Spurgeon's well-known comment about finding Christ where He is not legitimately to be found. Well, in The Treasury of David, when commenting on Psalm 8, he gives an extended quote by Goodwin on the connection between the Psalm and Heb. 2, which finds Christ in both.
Just as a thought inspired by Goodwin:
Psalm 8:6. 'You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.'
Ephesians 1:22. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church.'
So when the NIV 2011 translates in Hebrews 2:8, 'You have put all things under their feet,' how can it be denied that it is obscuring a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ?
'And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself' (Luke 24:27). That must have been some Bible study! Wouldn't you love to have been there?
I bet He mentioned Psalm 8.
You are quite heavy-handed with your terminology --“alter the inspired Word” is a case in point.
Then you admitted that "a lot of the time it doesn't matter that much." So what's the point you are trying to make anyway?
Of his 40 commentaries on the book of Hebrews he looked up the passage and noted that more than 30 of them had no reference to Jesus. What's so hard to figure out?
It's not a good policy when translating to put possibilities in the text.
Our preacher last night had prepared Psalm 1 from the old NIV, & found the church was using the new NIV - shown on the overhead as well as pew Bibles.
He rejected the new & preached from the old.
By making the language inclusive, the Messianic thrust of the Psalm is lost.
Psalm 1 -
NKJV
1 Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
1984 NIV
1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers,
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
2011 NIV
1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
I've just checked Psalm 15 & find "the man" becomes "the one" & in the last verse, "he" becomes "whoever."
And in v. 4b, the new has
"who keeps an oath even when it hurts,
and does not change their mind;"
which is wrong grammar - "who" is singular, & "their" is plural. Incorrect English to make it politically correct.
He rejected the new & preached from the old.
By making the language inclusive, the Messianic thrust of the Psalm is lost.
Psalm 1 -
NKJV
1 Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
1984 NIV
1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers,
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
2011 NIV
1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
I've just checked Psalm 15 & find "the man" becomes "the one" & in the last verse, "he" becomes "whoever."
And in v. 4b, the new has
"who keeps an oath even when it hurts,
and does not change their mind;"
which is wrong grammar - "who" is singular, & "their" is plural. Incorrect English to make it politically correct.
The NIV 2011 edition
New International Version - Pro’s and Con’s
Probably the greatest strength of the New International Version is its readability. The NIV is rendered in smoothly flowing and easy-to-read English. One weakness of the NIV is that it occasionally delves into interpretation rather than strict translation, which is the very problem that has brought us the 2011 NIV. In the NIV, some passages are translated with more of a “this is what the translator thinks the text means” instead of “this is what the text says.” In many instances, the NIV likely has a correct “interpretation” but that misses the point. A Bible translation should take what the Bible says in the original languages and say the same thing in the new language, leaving the interpretation to the reader with the aid of the Holy Spirit. The greatest ‘con’ of the 2011 NIV, of course, is the inclusion of gender-neutral language and the necessity of interpreting rather than translating in order to present a more culturally sensitive or politically correct version.
You need to clarify things. Were you and the preacher visiting another church?
I am sure, if that was the case, your preacher must have known ahead of time that that congregation was using the 2011 NIV.
Your preacher went about things the wrong way. One doesn't guest preach at a given church and reprove them for using a particular version.
Think about it. If someone prefers the 2011 NIV and the pew Bibles are NKJV --would it be proper for the preacher to spend valuable preaching time to note what he thinks are weaknesses in the NKJV?
A choice quote:
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
Translation: They affirm and avow that even the crudest translation of the Bible in English set forth by competent translators IS the word of God.
I thought that I did, was What is the New International Version (NIV)?
At the Gotquestions web site!
Last edited:
Why do you consider the first Psalm Messianic?
And why, pray tell, does using inclusive language lose any meaning?
Why don't you read Psalm 1 in its entirety. Verses one through three in the NIV are dealing with the singular.
Verse 4-6 are inclusive in any version, including your favorite.
You are not making any sense. Who wrote what you quoted? You need to identify the author, it's the decent thing to do.
So? What is the big deal? If you think "the man" means a certain male you have some problems.
It refers to believers. Believers male and female.
You have't been paying attention. I have corrected MM's mistaken belive regaring the use of the singular they, them and their. Those words have a fine pedigree in the English language. It is incorrect for you to say the usage is incorrect.
The usage of such has nothing to do with political correctness -- it's just common sense. Those words have been used in the same form and fashion for a long, long time till the present day. You can't fight it unless you want to tilt at windmills.
No author cited = no authority.
Do you really not understand???? It is not a question of putting possibilities into the text, but taking them out.
I am not insisting that everyone has to agree that Psalm 23 and Hebrews 2:5-9 refer to Christ; I am saying that the new NIV precludes anyone from finding Him there. Can you not understand that? What is so difficult about it?
Don't you understand? If the translators, based on their deliberate study of the context, do not believe there is a reference to Christ --why put in the text? Since 75% of conservative Old Testament scholars believe there is nothing Messianic there --then it should not be placed there.
You are confused. We never dealt with Ps. 23. And as for Heb. 2 -- verse 9 in the NIV is as clear as the NKJV :
" But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angelsfor a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
- Status