KJVO, NIV vs KJV vs WHATEVER...

seebs · #11 13th January 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Jephunneh
Hosea 13:9--

"9. I will destroy you, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper." NIV

"9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help." KJV
They are totally different. Which makes more sense and tie in Chapter 14:1

Who cares? Which one did Hosea *actually say*?

Hosea 14:1

"1. Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God. Your sins have been your downfall!" NIV

"1. O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." KJV

I think the NIV is probably clearer here - but who cares?

You keep talking about "clarity".

Clarity in a false statement is useless.

Jephunneh · #12 13th January 2003, 12:42 PM

Zech. 13:6,7--
"6.If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body? he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'"NIV

"6. And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."KJV

seebs · #13 13th January 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Jephunneh
Zech. 13:6,7--
"6.If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body? he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'"NIV

"6. And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."KJV

Yes, we know, the KJV translators invented new text from whole cloth and added it. Or wasn't that your point? It's the point you're making.

Jephunneh · #14 13th January 2003, 12:53 PM

Where the Greek reads one way and the KJV reads the other, rest assured that God will judge you at the Judgment on what you know.

Since you don't know the Greek (and those who know it, alter it to suit themselves), you had better go by the KJV text.

1. The Greek texts are NOT the originals.

2. YOU are not a Greek, and if you were, you couldn't find "the originals."

3. God showed Larkin, Scofield, and Bullinger more from an English text
than he did W & H, A.T. Robertson, and nestle from a Greek text.

4. If you HAD "an accurate translation" of the Greek,
it wouldn't make any kind of reading in English,
due to differences in idiom, sentence construction, and grammar.

5. The "modern" versions, in the "common language,"
are NOT from the originals, or even from the God honored Greek text.

6. If anyone led you to believe any differently,
HE IS AFTER YOUR POCKETBOOK OR YOUR BILL-FOLD.

seebs · #15 13th January 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Jephunneh
[b]Where the Greek reads one way and the KJV reads the other, rest assured that God will judge you at the Judgment on what you know.

Since you don't know the Greek (and those who know it, alter it to suit themselves), you had better go by the KJV text.

Ooh, *threats*. That'll help.

Well, if God will judge me on what I know, not necessarily on everything someone else knew, than it hardly matters which Bible I have - I can study any of them, and be judged based on what I knew, not on any specific version. Indeed, if I have never seen a Bible, God will judge me based on what I know.

1. The Greek texts are NOT the originals.

Okay, fine, Aramaic.

2. YOU are not a Greek, and if you were, you couldn't find "the originals."

So? That's why God gives us Bible scholars.

3. God showed Larkin, Scofield, and Bullinger more from an English text
than he did W & H, A.T. Robertson, and nestle from a Greek text.

This strikes me as unsupportable.

4. If you HAD "an accurate translation" of the Greek,
it wouldn't make any kind of reading in English,
due to differences in idiom, sentence construction, and grammar.

In other words, the KJV is *not* a perfect translation. Okay.

5. The "modern" versions, in the "common language,"
are NOT from the originals, or even from the God honored Greek text.

They are from all of the KJV sources, plus additional sources that give better insight into what the text said *before* people started altering it.

6. If anyone led you to believe any differently,
HE IS AFTER YOUR POCKETBOOK OR YOUR BILL-FOLD.

Or after giving me the most information he can about what God said.

The Thadman · #16 13th January 2003, 03:18 PM

Jephunneh: Your posts concerning verse omissions are OFF topic.

The thing I'd like to hear from you is why does the KJV put God's words to Moses in the wrong tense?

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Jephunneh · #17 14th January 2003, 09:02 AM

List the chapters and verses and so I can see it, thanks.

The Thadman · #18 14th January 2003, 10:49 AM

Look at the FIRST post of this thread.

I'm referring to Exodus. Let me reiterate:

Exodus 3:14: Why do the KJV and NIV mistranslate YHWH's words to Moses?

While I'm at it, let me also cite a couple favorite mistranslations of mine (that most bibles commit):

Genesis 2:21: Why do the KJV and NIV mistranslate 'tsela as "rib"?

[b]Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34:[b] Why do the KJV and NIV mistranslated the Aramaic verb "shveq"?

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Jephunneh · #19 14th January 2003, 06:47 PM

Exodus 3
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Genesis 2
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

I think that if our God is big enough to speak things into exsistance, He can make sure His word is kept the way He wants it. Would you agree?

The Thadman · #20 14th January 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Jephunneh
Exodus 3
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Genesis 2
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

I think that if our God is big enough to speak things into exsistance, He can make sure His word is kept the way He wants it. Would you agree?

Yep. But these verses prove that the KJV and NIV aren't what he kept perfectly intact. the major messages are intact in both, but pitting one against the other is futile. They're still both translations, and are both imperfect to such a degree that choosing one over the other is a matter of personal preference.:-)

For passages like the ones I cited, they're out there in the original languages, but the path to them is narrow :-)

Like "Eel! Eel! la-mo shveqthanee?"

Acts 2:31
Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

How could he have been forsaken if he wasn't abandoned to the grave?

All Greek MSS mistranslate the Aramaic verb "shveq" as "to forsake" when it means "to allow," "to permit," or "to forgive."

The word is used twice in the Lord's Prayer:

"Shveq our sins as we shveq those who sin against us."

As well as numerous places throughout the Aramaic of the NT to mean "allow" or "let."

(Just a few examples from Mark
•"...but he did not let the evil spirits say anything,..." - Mark 1:34
•"And he would not let him,..." - Mark 5:19
•"And you no longer let him..." - Mark 7:12
•"And he allowed no one..." - Mark 11:16

Shlomo! (Peace!)