What Do You Think?

Neal. Never did I state that anyone is lost (unconverted) "because of" using NIV. The lostness or unconvertedness of a person, whether male or female, Jew or Greek, is due to (because of) God Almighty not having converted him/her. I was not talking about users of the NIV. You came up with conjecture. I was talking about the Bible perverting translators of the NIV. But since you bring it up I might say some things. Myself has a very hard time figuring out why persons who profess to know God and His truth would be content with using a Dynamic Equivalent version such as the NIV. If a professed believer uses NIV as his main or only version I would be very alarmed as to his state and standing before God. Especially if this goes on for a longer space of time. I know even genuine believers can be misinformed/erring, e.g. on the Bible version issues. But once informed as to the NIV a true believer will repudiate it and take a sound version for main version or only version. This is my firm conviction. Kind of like if God converts an Anglican. After he has been converted he separates from the Anglican church. Examples of this would be J C Philpot and William Tiptaft, who seceded from the Anglican Church and joined themselves to the Gadsbyite Strict and Particular Baptists.
As I see it using the NIV as main or only version for a considerable period of time or permanently indicates that the user of it does not care much for the very inspired words of God. The NIV is not concerned with the very inspired words of God, and their exact and faithful rendering into English. It is a DE version, and DE is a corrupt method or policy when it comes to Bible translating. The NIV could better be called a commentary, but not a Bible. If the NIV translators had cared for God's words they had not gone DE. The NIV evidently adds to, detracts from, and alters God's words. Do you deny this? Doing so without repenting is very alarming. It speaks of men with seared consciences having been let loose on God's words. The NIV contains God's words here and there, where and when it correctly renders the Greek, but I would not call it God's word in its entirety.

As a separatist I would maintain Biblical separation from persons who go on endorsing and/or promoting DE versions like the NIV, especially after they have been informed. As basis for this would be e.g. Romans 16:17-18. I am dogmatic herein and compromise glorifies God in no way.

Did Timothy have the very original Hebrew manuscripts in his possession? If not how could Paul refer to the Bible he had as "God-breathed", all of it? The NIV translators my in word profess to adhere to verbal and plenary inspiration, but in practice they deny it by resorting to DE.

QUOTE:
"Also, going from the Biblical evidence, the writers of the Bible did not seem to be concerned with exact word for word translation. Examples are many of the quotes from the OT in the NT and Mark 5:41, for starters. And one more thing, you can have an extremely literal translation and it still not be accurate today and convey the proper message to today's audience. Like it or not, many today do not understand Hebrew and Greek euphemisms."

You're not the first one to argument this way. The Bible authors were not in the bussiness of translating the Bible. They were all under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, even Christ when He spoke and quoted the OT. Peter did not say that holy men of God were translating, but that led by the Spirit they spoke. As I see it it is wrong to say translators today need not strive for literalness because the Biblical authors did not quote word for word. The Holy Spirit who was the author of the OT Scripture is God, and as God He had all authority and right to lead the canonical authors/speakers to quote a bit differently from how it read in the Hebrew OT. Just like the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath and had right and authority to suspend laws pertaining to it.
Message is conveyed by words, plural. Change the words and their grammatical forms, and the syntax of sentences and clauses, and meaning/message must needs be changed, sometimes very little, sometimes more. A God called translator's main concern is not the "today's audience", but first and foremost God and His glory. He translates as unto God, not as unto men, that is secondary. Modern versions and DE versions especially have today's audience as their main concern. That is a wrong approach, and rejectable. The God called translators have had God in mind primarily, secondarily God's true people, not an "audience". Such are not out to please men, but God. The word of God and all it entails is not to be lowered to the level of modern man, but modern man is to be subject to God's word, and elevated to the level of God's inspired word. You could perhaps profit from reading Ryken's new book on Bible translating. He has much good points in it. Needless to say I do not endorse his being somewhat too tolerant of Alexandrian text based versions, nor his ESV advertising mannerism, in the making of which he had some part. If people today do not understand Hebrew and Greek euphemisms that is their shame. Are today's people more stupid than the people of bygone centuries?

I do not think I am too harsh in my dealings with some modern versions. It may on the contrary be I have been too soft hitherto. Every version of course should be dealt with individually when one would form a definite opinion of it. This in my view especially applies to FE versions. Yet, DE versions I cannot but blanket condemn as corrupt, because of their corrupt translation method and policy.
OK, I have stated some of my views and convictions, with all due respect disagreeing.

Harald

 

MV-neverist. Would you perchance know where I could get my hands on Erasmus's Latin NT? I have Beza's, and it's quite accurate and faithful to the TR.

Harald

 

Locating Erasmus' "Old Latin" New Testament is an difficult task;I have yet to obtain one(but I will). I heard tell that the American Bible Society used to carry Erasmus'Latin Text;but I have not checked into it yet.I have just purchased Beza's Old Latin New Testament however.Good luck!

 

I am KJVO in the sense that it is the only translation I endorse. I use it exclusively for public and private worship.

I am not KJVO in the sense that I believe the KJV alone is the Word of God. I can and do endorse any faithful translation of the traditional Received Text.

BTW, why did you put pastor in ""? Do you doubt that I am a Pastor? I confess that I'm not a good Pastor, but I am indeed a Pastor.

That was not the intent of this thread at all. I thought it was clear that this applied to any translator all the way up to and including modern textual critics like Bruce Metzger. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't want to offend you, but I only call my pastor, "Pastor". If you don't mind I will addresss you as Brother Bob? I don't have any doubt your being a pastor, I am one myself. I pastor a small group of people known to me as my family. There are 7 of us,my wife , 4 children and myself. Oh, I suppose you want to know Who the 7th is? Well it's Him! It's Jesus, He's the main member here, and we are members of Him!

I appreciate what you said above about the "faithful translations" coming from the TR, that is where I stand as well.

As far as Metzger goes, I've heard his name, but don't know much about him.

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

We're off topic. 12 hour notice is in place. Wrap it up.

 

MV-neverist. I did some search yesterday evening, and found a source from where I might be able to purchase Erasmus' Latin New Testament, w. Greek NT (TR) parallelling it. It is on CD-Rom, though, in Adobe Acrobat format. The price $9.99, which is not much. With shipping to my country added I guess it would come close to $20. The publisher is Sola Scriptura Publishing. I think I shall buy it, unless I find a hardcopy version at a good price, but I think that will be difficult. Beza's Latin NT I have found to be quite literal, following the wording of the TR quite closely. While I have not studied Latin I am able somewhat to assess the quality by using Whitaker's WORDS program, which I have downloaded to my PC.

Harald

 

I apologize to you, Harald.

With all due respect, you seem to support what I conjectured. I use the NIV still. I grew up on it. I have studied the Bible Version issue quite a bit. I am a seminary student. Are you willing to question whether I am a true believer because I use the NIV? Also, talking with my pastor the other day, he said that if he was to go to another church he would probably switch over and start using the NIV at the beginning of his ministry there. While I respect your opinion, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Didn't J.I. Packer and C.S. Lewis remain Anglican? Sorry, off the subject.

I can personally testify this is not the case. In my case, it may even be the opposite of what you see it as. I want people to understand God's Word. The way I see it, if God preserved the originals word-for-word in every existing manuscript, I would be more inclined to agree with you. Do you think that God did not care much for the words He inspired because He allowed copy errors and variations to occur?

But please realize, this is your opinion. I think when done right it can be a very valuable tool. Besides, you couldn't use any translation because all of them incorporate it to some extent. Even Mark did in Mark 5:41. And what of the numerous OT quotes in the NT? Many of them are not exact.

Again, this is your opinion. Do you know all of the NIV translators personally? How do you know they do not care for God's Word? Because that is not how you would do it? Is that a valid way to determine someone's feelings and thoughts, but saying what you would do? And yes, I deny your statement. That statement could be applied to any translation if you want to get technical. Detract is subjective. You don't like it, but does it necessarily detract from God's Word?

Well, I don't repent one bit for using the NIV. I thank God for it and how He has used it.

I am sorry to hear this, Harald. I normally greatly enjoy your input. Although I must ask, who is causing divisions?

What of the quotes in the NT from the OT that do not match up? Did God make a mistake? Or all of the different manuscripts that we have now? Did God not care? Or is there something more to God-breathed? (Please note, that is the term used in the NIV, but not in the KJV, NKJV, and NASB, all 'literal' translations. )

Again, this is your opinion. You are saying what you would do.

Or are they really honoring God's Word by allowing people to understand it? And please note, DE translations vary much. In my opinion, the NIV is no where near close to the NLT. I would not personally recommend the NLT. But I see a difference.

Already have it and have skimmed through it.

No, it is called having different cultures.

As well I.

The Lord Bless You and Keep You,
Neal

[ June 19, 2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

I really hope this wasn't a serious statement.

It was exploring the nitty gritty details of manuscript issues and the KJV-only debate that *solidified* my confidence in the NIV.

As for "converting" Anglicans, it is to laugh - are you saying that if an Anglican remains a Anglican throughout his life, and even does stuff like, say, persecuting Baptists, he is not saved? What if a group of such Anglicans got together and did something like, say, translate a Bible?

 

Exactly, BrianT!

Now why didn't I think of that!?!

God Bless,
Neal

 

Thanks for the info Harald!!! I too would rather have an "hard copy" instead. It will come in handy..

 

Simple,you would get the most hated,despised,most imitated,negative(Heb 4:12),Book that this earth has ever seen.Man has tried to get rid of it for a long time now;they have failed! It is here to stay,get used to it!!

 

I believe that book is the NIV!

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Simple,you would get the most hated,despised,most imitated,negative(Heb 4:12),Book that this earth has ever seen.Man has tried to get rid of it for a long time now;they have failed! It is here to stay,get used to it!! </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, so Bibles translated by Baptist-persecuting non-Christian Anglicans are *good*, while Bibles translated by Baptist Christians are *bad*. Who here, besides you and certain others of similar views, have expressed hatred towards any particular translation of the Bible, or wants to get rid of it?

MV-neverist, perhaps you missed the point of my comments. Harald was making comments about the salvation of Anglicans. I was just pointing out that if he is correct, unsaved men translated the KJV. But perhaps my point was too subtle for you. Perhaps it still is.

 

MV-Neverist, before I close this thread, you should go back and look at the thread where NNE on this board despises, attacks or otherwise viciously maligns the KJV. Drop the canard, okay?

Now...reprise the theme song and roll the credits.