The controversial new version of the NIV Bible.

[radhead]

I once heard that the KJV had so many mistranslations and mistakes that it should be renamed the King James Bible of Errors.

 

[radhead]

The NKJV is probably one of the most accurate translations today.

 

[welshman]

Nothing surprises me now when it comes to Bible versions.
Personally, I only use the KJV. So does my church when it comes to people preaching. There are people in the church congregation that don't use the KJV however.

Personally, I wouldn't use another version after studying the issue. I don't go along the lines of some who say that if you use another version you're not saved and stuff like that. That's nonsense.

David Cloud is one of the best read people I know on the topic. We watched his DVD's as part of one of my modules. I don't agree on everything he preaches. I do think though, he hits the nail on the head with the new modern versions.

This is taken from his website discussing one of the reasons why people want to use the newer versions:

"The Hebrew and Greek languages of the Old and New Testament make a distinction between you plural and you singular. The English language also has this ability. THEE, THOU, and THINE are always singular. YOU, YE, and YOUR are always plural.

The distinction between the singular and plural in English began in the late 1200s and continued commonly until the 1500s. By the late 1500s and early 1600s centuries, the Elizabethan and early Jacobean era (so named for Queen Elizabeth I and King James I), the terms had become somewhat corrupted so that THEE and THOU were being used as terms both of familiarity or contempt and not merely as a singular form of the pronoun. Thus, when the translators incorporated THEE and THOU into the Bible, they were not following Shakespeare; they were following the Bible itself.

In modern English, of course, this distinction has been dropped entirely, and the pronoun YOU can mean either you plural or you singular. It is much less precise and accurate.

Oswald T. Allis observed: “It is often asserted or assumed that the usage of the AV represents the speech of 300 years ago, and that now, three centuries later, it should be changed to accord with contemporary usage. But this is not at all a correct statement of the problem. The important fact is this. THE USAGE OF THE AV IS NOT THE ORDINARY USAGE OF THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: IT IS THE BIBLICAL USAGE BASED ON THE STYLE OF THE HEBREW AND THE GREEK SCRIPTURES."

Below are some examples of the implications with using this language:


Matthew 26:64. “Jesus saith unto him, THOU hast said: nevertheless I say unto YOU, Hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The singular THOU refers to the high priest, but the plural YOU refers to all who will see Christ in the day of His glory (Rev. 1:7).

Luke 22:31-32. “The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat: but I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren.” Satan’s desire was directed to all the apostles (YOU), but the Lord prays for each individually and for Peter specifically (THEE, THY).

John 3:7. “Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again.” The message was spoken to an individual (THEE), Nicodemus, but the message encompassed all men (YE). The same thing occurs in verse 11, where we read, “I say unto THEE ... that YE receive not our witness.”

1 Corinthians 8:9-12. “Take heed lest ... this liberty of YOURS ... if any man see THEE which hast knowledge ... through THY knowledge ... But when YE sin.” The plural YOURS and YE refer to the church members in general, but the Holy Spirit personalizes the exhortation by changing to the singular THEE and THY.

2 Timothy 4:22. “The Lord Jesus Christ be with THY spirit. Grace be with YOU.” The singular THY refers to Timothy, to whom the epistle was written (2 Tim. 1:1), but the plural YOU refers to others who were also included in Paul’s final greetings, “Priscilla and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus” (2 Tim. 4:19).

Titus 3:15. “All that are with me salute THEE. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with YOU all.” Here, the singular THEE refers to Titus, but the plural YOU refers to the church in Crete (Tit. 1:5), and to all who loved Paul in the faith.

There are tons of good articles on the subject on his website. Like I said, I don't agree with all he teaches on every subject area; but I think his extensive research has provided a valuable resource.

There are other reasons why I do not use the newer versions. Look at who is on the committees that produce them. Some of the newer versions have Catholics, those that deny the trinity, the resurrection of Christ, the deity of Christ, the whole inspiration of scripture...etc etc I wouldn't buy a book written by a Catholic. So I won't buy any of these newer versions that were edited by such either. Just kinda makes sense to me anyways. That's just my opinion. You only have to go into what verses have been changed and omitted to see that certain doctrinal beliefs such as the ones I have mentioned have been changed because the people editing these versions change them to suit their own standpoint.

I guess everyone is entitled to use the version they want and that's cool with me. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on it by any matter. That's just my take on it anyway.







"First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter.
Second off, God starts it all off and WHAP! Stuff everywhere!"
Genesis 1:1 The Street Bible

 

[WileyCoyote]

"Before all y'all suckas got here and before everything else, my main man God hooked this universe up proper. Since He made it, He owns it. You BETTA RECOGNIZE!!!!!!!!" (Genesis 1:1 The Hood Bible)

 

[ljn05]

^Is there a such thing at the Hood Bible? If so, that's very distasteful, IMO.

I don't use the NIV, I prefer the New Living Translation personally.

I don't agree with some of the gender changes in the TNIV. Like, 'God created man' being changed to 'God created human beings' is an unneccessary and inaccurate change.

 

[Super Kal]

i don't use the NIV... i stick with the KJV and the ESV

 

[Sketcher]

"We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand"

This makes sense after 450 years. It doesn't make sense after 25. The English language has not changed that much.

"Whatever its strengths, the TNIV has become an emblem of division in the evangelical Christian world," Girkins said . . . "We fell short of the trust that has been placed in us," said Danby, of Biblica. "We failed to make a clear case for the revisions."

This really sounds to me like an attempt to repackage what they were trying to do with the TNIV. I guess they're admitting it was a flop, but they want to push these changes anyway. They did not apologize for the changes which made it a flop.

I suppose when my current Bibles wear out, I'll be shopping for a different translation.

 

[Tamara224]

Nothing surprises me now when it comes to Bible versions.
Personally, I only use the KJV. So does my church when it comes to people preaching. There are people in the church congregation that don't use the KJV however.

Personally, I wouldn't use another version after studying the issue. I don't go along the lines of some who say that if you use another version you're not saved and stuff like that. That's nonsense.

David Cloud is one of the best read people I know on the topic. We watched his DVD's as part of one of my modules. I don't agree on everything he preaches. I do think though, he hits the nail on the head with the new modern versions.

This is taken from his website discussing one of the reasons why people want to use the newer versions:

"The Hebrew and Greek languages of the Old and New Testament make a distinction between you plural and you singular. The English language also has this ability. THEE, THOU, and THINE are always singular. YOU, YE, and YOUR are always plural.

The distinction between the singular and plural in English began in the late 1200s and continued commonly until the 1500s. By the late 1500s and early 1600s centuries, the Elizabethan and early Jacobean era (so named for Queen Elizabeth I and King James I), the terms had become somewhat corrupted so that THEE and THOU were being used as terms both of familiarity or contempt and not merely as a singular form of the pronoun. Thus, when the translators incorporated THEE and THOU into the Bible, they were not following Shakespeare; they were following the Bible itself.

In modern English, of course, this distinction has been dropped entirely, and the pronoun YOU can mean either you plural or you singular. It is much less precise and accurate.

Oswald T. Allis observed: “It is often asserted or assumed that the usage of the AV represents the speech of 300 years ago, and that now, three centuries later, it should be changed to accord with contemporary usage. But this is not at all a correct statement of the problem. The important fact is this. THE USAGE OF THE AV IS NOT THE ORDINARY USAGE OF THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: IT IS THE BIBLICAL USAGE BASED ON THE STYLE OF THE HEBREW AND THE GREEK SCRIPTURES."

This would be one of the better arguments in favor of the KJV that I've seen. Unfortunately, it misses the point.

While KJV English made a distinction between plural and singular "you" - very, very few people understand that distinction now. So the distinction is lost on the majority of readers anyway. Since we don't speak the same language today that was spoken back then, few readers understand its nuances. There is no point in retaining the archaic language if no one understands it anyway. It's sad that the English language has lost some of its precision and that the "common man" no longer speaks or understands ye olde English. But it is reality, nonetheless.

Plus, context supplies the missing information. One can tell from the surrounding context whether you is plural or singular.

There are plenty of examples of the modern translations doing a better job of translating a thought or a word than the KJV did. It is too often the case that KJV-only advocates only look at this from one direction: they fail to tally the times the KJV actually mistranslated.

As I said before, the purpose of translating the Bible is to make it available to the common man by putting it in the common language (vernacular). No translation is ever perfect. They each have their pluses and minuses. That is because it is not possible to translate from one language to another with 100% perfection. It is the nature of language.

 

[eyzonthepriz]

In an article in today's Pittsburgh Tribune Review (9/2/2009) entitled "NIV STRIVES FOR GOSPEL TRUTH" Douglas Moo, chairman of the committee on bible translation said that "In the 1984 niv when Paul says(in 2 Corinthians 11:25") "I was stoned," we changed it to "pelted with stones" TO AVOID THE LAUGHTER IN THE JUNIOR HIGH ROW OF THE CHURCH." (emphasis mine)
PATHETIC! This reminds me of 2 timothy chapter 3 where pauls say that a time would come when people would not endure sound doctrine, but would instead search out people that would tickle their ears with what they wanted to hear!!!
Moo also said that "Although the committee always has called on scholars from numerous faiths and disciplines, they now also are calling for imput from the general public at a special, new website- NIVBible2011.com." Heres your chance to have your ears tickled, go ahead full throttle...

AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE WE WILL USE THE KING JAMES VERSION!!!

Please read 2 timothy 3 with understanding; He's not refering to the worldly, they have always exhibited these traits. He's talking about "Christians." We are in the perilous times of the last days!!!

 

[Thomas1984]

I must admit, I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to the argument between different versions of the Bible, but I honestly feel it's far more important to remember the message of God's word, rather than argue about which version is better.

 

[Im_A]

World's Most Popular Bible to Be Revised

Best-selling Bible may get gender update - Faith- msnbc.com

What do you think of the changes?
(See story link.)

Is anyone really shocked it made it to msnbc? [snicker]

All I can do is shake my head. How many more times are we going to have another English translation of the Bible?

 

[radhead]

The only problem with the King James is that, since it was written, we have access to older manuscripts that they didn't have at the time. So, some of the King James is a retranslation of a translation.

So, some of the newer Bibles are, in essence, even older than the King James.

 

[Im_A]

The only problem with the King James is that, since it was written, we have access to older manuscripts that they didn't have at the time. So, some of the King James is a retranslation of a translation.

So, some of the newer Bibles are, in essence, even older than the King James.

I can understand that with finding manuscripts thus maybe some things get tweaked. Yet don't you get the same message from the KJV with other versions? Shouldn't researching the history of the faith be an addition to the Christian life, meaning one's pursuit, not constantly changing an already set and defined(meaning how the NIV didn't change for 25 years) and then with the addition of other English translations etc.

What has really changed in each version? Have you seen any real substantial change between all the English translations? Has anything changed that shook the foundation of Christianity to such a degree that it was all based on discovery of some ancient manuscript or some papyrus leaf?

I can't help but think, this is the problem when translating the Bible left the church and went to the common folk or now, rich Bible translating companies. I mean it was the church who created the Bible to begin with.

 

[Im_A]

I must admit, I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to the argument between different versions of the Bible, but I honestly feel it's far more important to remember the message of God's word, rather than argue about which version is better.

I'm not intending to argue about versions and which one is better etc.

My problem is, the more the Bible gets translated, the more it makes the Bible look like a joke. Like something that cannot possibly be integrated into 21 century society that Christians think that the only way to reach people is by going down a road of semantics which inevitably may lead someone to a skewed view of what the ancient faith really is.

 

[radhead]

I can understand that with finding manuscripts thus maybe some things get tweaked. Yet don't you get the same message from the KJV with other versions? Shouldn't researching the history of the faith be an addition to the Christian life, meaning one's pursuit, not constantly changing an already set and defined(meaning how the NIV didn't change for 25 years) and then with the addition of other English translations etc.

What has really changed in each version? Have you seen any real substantial change between all the English translations? Has anything changed that shook the foundation of Christianity to such a degree that it was all based on discovery of some ancient manuscript or some papyrus leaf?

I can't help but think, this is the problem when translating the Bible left the church and went to the common folk or now, rich Bible translating companies. I mean it was the church who created the Bible to begin with.

I agree. The problem is, most "KJV only" people don't have a clue about these things. Some of them don't even understand why they prefer the KJV over other versions. It's as if their reasons for choosing it don't even exist in reality. (This, obviously doesn't apply to every Christian who prefers the KJV, just a certain crowd.)

 

[Im_A]

I agree. The problem is, most "KJV only" people don't have a clue about these things. Some of them don't even understand why they prefer the KJV over other versions. It's as if their reasons for choosing it don't even exist in reality. (This, obviously doesn't apply to every Christian who prefers the KJV, just a certain crowd.)

I wouldn't call myself a KJV only person. Personally, I prefer my NRSV bible, but the church I go to when I go to and the only church I'm only interested in didn't approve it for liturgy or bible studies in 1990. I'll keep it and use it privately but I haven't gotten ahold of the priest about this issue to get a fuller grasp why the church accepts several english translation and why they accept them and such.

I hope you weren't offended when I was going on my little rant. Its just one of those things that makes me always shake my head when I hear about another translation coming out or even another translation of the same translation.

 

[Sketcher]

I can understand that with finding manuscripts thus maybe some things get tweaked. Yet don't you get the same message from the KJV with other versions? Shouldn't researching the history of the faith be an addition to the Christian life, meaning one's pursuit, not constantly changing an already set and defined(meaning how the NIV didn't change for 25 years) and then with the addition of other English translations etc.

What has really changed in each version? Have you seen any real substantial change between all the English translations? Has anything changed that shook the foundation of Christianity to such a degree that it was all based on discovery of some ancient manuscript or some papyrus leaf?

You do get the same overall message. However, the 1611 English does throw some people. Furthermore, I think that using the older manuscripts shows responsibility and transparency. To me, it confirms that the faith has not in fact changed.

I can't help but think, this is the problem when translating the Bible left the church and went to the common folk or now, rich Bible translating companies. I mean it was the church who created the Bible to begin with.

The church did not create it, the church received it. But yeah, when you have companies trying to make money off Bibles, you'll get more translations that you don't need. In this case though, I'm glad I can take my business elsewhere.

 

[Im_A]

You do get the same overall message. However, the 1611 English does throw some people. Furthermore, I think that using the older manuscripts shows responsibility and transparency. To me, it confirms that the faith has not in fact changed.


The church did not create it, the church received it. But yeah, when you have companies trying to make money off Bibles, you'll get more translations that you don't need. In this case though, I'm glad I can take my business elsewhere.

We disagree in regards to where the bible came from. I mean the church had good reason to make a cannon that was accepted as the Bible, the book to base the faith on. Without that, you'd/we'd never have a Bible.

I agree with you though about the money thing. That's why I'd love to see the church take back what was theirs to begin with, whether it be by a gift from God or something they started themselves. I mean I'm sympathetic to the people having the ability to translate the Bible but at the same time, this is an entirely different issue because it is such an ancient faith.

 

[radhead]

No offense taken. I like the KJV. But I also think it's important to research and understand these things.

 

[Im_A]

No offense taken. I like the KJV. But I also think it's important to research and understand these things.

I agree with you. BTW-the study Bible I have is the NRSV