The NIV

Julie · Nov 21, 2002

There were multiple English Bibles being used by the people (Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale's, etc) and so they saw that more than one Bible version was harmful and divisive. After the AV was complete, it didnt take long for the others to die out until it was used by 99.9% of all English speaking Christians. Of course, in man's wisdom we have now had 100+ English "bibles" since 1881.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you..." 1Cor 1:10

Now how can we follow Paul's statement here when everyone has a different Bible?

 

KERN,

Does this mean that, because they did not claim God's hand in translating the Scripture that He could not be or was not in control of their commission? For the answer we must look to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice .

When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.

Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.

In spite of their (translators of the Authorized Version) outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would over joy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.)

Ioustinos · Nov 21, 2002

Originally posted by Julie

.

When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.

Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.

Julie,

You might want to read the passages you quoted again. John the Baptist was not Elijah, rather John the Baptist had the spirit of Elijah. There is a difference. Elijah was taken by a whirlwind into heaven, and if John the Baptist was Elijah then Elijah was born of a woman twice!!!!

kern · Nov 21, 2002

Originally posted by Julie
There were multiple English Bibles being used by the people (Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale's, etc) and so they saw that more than one Bible version was harmful and divisive. After the AV was complete, it didnt take long for the others to die out until it was used by 99.9% of all English speaking Christians.

It took over 40 years for the KJV to beat out the Geneva Bible. In addition, the Geneva Bible was the clear favorite -- at least 144 editions of it were published between 1560 and 1644. It was the Bible the Pilgrims brought to the New World.

Does this mean that, because they did not claim God's hand in translating the Scripture that He could not be or was not in control of
their commission?

Click to expand...

Just answer me this one question:

If the KJV translators did not know they had produced an infallible translation, then how did anyone find out that they had done so?
It's not just that they didn't mention they were inspired; their introduction contains statements that deny infallibility of their translation. If they were just being humble, they would not have said explicitly that multiple translations are a good thing, that footnotes are good, and that dynamic equivalence is sometimes necessary.

-Chris

Julie · Nov 22, 2002

How? From the Authoized Versions' own claim to Preservation.

kern · Nov 22, 2002

Originally posted by Julie
How? From the Authoized Versions' own claim to Preservation.

So you're saying that the KJV clearly says it's infallible, but the translators themselves were either (a) unable to see that or (b) lied in their introduction to the reader?

Please clarify the "authorized versions' own claim to preservation".

-Chris

Susan · Nov 22, 2002

Originally posted by Jesaiah
Julie,

You might want to read the passages you quoted again. John the Baptist was not Elijah, rather John the Baptist had the spirit of Elijah. There is a difference. Elijah was taken by a whirlwind into heaven, and if John the Baptist was Elijah then Elijah was born of a woman twice!!!!

Poor Elizabeth. . .

Susan · Nov 22, 2002

BTW, "The Nutty Idiot's Version?" Sounds like something from Peter Ruckman's site. . .and I would hesitate to call the Word of God, in any form, by such a slanderous name.

Julie · Nov 22, 2002

What is Peter Ruckmans site?

Susan · Nov 22, 2002

I cannot post it here. It violates rules 1 and 4.

I will not PM it to you either because I do not make a habit of sending people to read lies.

Julie · Nov 22, 2002

Oh, thats right, you're a Jack Chick fan also aren't you?

kern · Nov 22, 2002

Originally posted by Julie
What is Peter Ruckmans site?

Ruckman is one of the main KJV-onlyists today (Jack Chick being another). A lot of what gets copied and pasted around various sites about KJV-onlyism originates with Ruckman.

-Chris

Susan · Nov 22, 2002

Jack Chick, Peter Ruckman, and others like them give the Gospel.

Problem is, they give a large load of misinformation/disinformation with it.

Julie · Nov 22, 2002

So what does that have to do with the NIV?

Susan · Nov 22, 2002

It has to do with the KJV Only viewpoint.

Julie · Nov 23, 2002

Originally posted by AgnusDei
The NIV has had some verses taken out of it that are originally in the KJV! 1 John 5:7 is only one of them, my dad says. Compare for yourselves.

The NIV sometimes replaces "God" and says "teacher" instead. And besides that, it takes away "Lord" in some places, too! If a song says "you" in its lyrics and means "Jesus" instead, then the author should replace the "you" and write "Jesus." Why? Because, "you" could mean anybody, even Satan, if if it's not directed to him! If the song says "Jesus," then it's not directed to anyone else, even if the writer doesn't mean Jesus. The NIV does this also in some places, making it a contradiction, which is not healthy for the Spirit. It's a watered down version of the truth. Do you see what I mean? Every detail counts.

I will consult my Baptist Pastor for further information...

 

Good points AgnusDei!

Julie

kern · Nov 23, 2002

I see there will be no answer to my question. If God intended for the KJV to be an inspired, infallible translation, he sure fooled the translators themselves.

-Chris

Julie · Nov 23, 2002

Instructions: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

 

 

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, _____ them that curse you, _____ to them that hate you, and pray for them that _____ and persecute you."
According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to _____.
According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
According to Luke 7:28, what was John (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc)? What is his title or last name?
In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A_____ and O_____, the _____ and the _____:"
BONUS: According to Second Samuel 21:19, who did Elhanan kill?

Conclusion: Although little space is provided for your answers, it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you failed the test.

So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible?"

If you would like a perfect score, take this test using the Authorized King James Bible.
<P class="comment right">By Rex L. Cobb
The Battle Cry, January/February, 1999

cleon · Nov 23, 2002

The NIV is translated from Westcott and Horts corrupted Greek Manuscript. The KJV is translated from the Textus Recepticus or Recieved Text (NT) and the Masoretic (Hebrew) in the OT.

kern · Nov 23, 2002

Originally posted by Julie
Instructions: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

Yes, I'm aware of this "test". However, all this shows is that there are some verses in the KJV which are not in newer versions (they're in the footnotes of most modern versions).

However, this does nothing to show whether the verses should be there or not. Just because they mention Jesus does not mean that the verses automatically belong in the Bible. If I create a new translation and add a bunch of verses about Jesus and salvation, that doesn't make my version better than the KJV because it contains more references to Jesus.

There are probably reasons why the verses were added to later manuscripts. Just to take one example:
"According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?" Matthew 17:21 is a copy of Mark 9:29 which is not found in very early manuscripts of Matthew. Probably a scribe later added the verse either by accident (thinking of the Mark section while he wrote this), or purposely to make the Gospels line up more closely.

Once again: Showing that some verses in the KJV are not in newer versions is not the same thing as showing that the KJV is correct.

And I see that rather than addressing my questions so far you're just copying and pasting the usual Jack Chick stuff.

-Chris

kern · Nov 23, 2002

Originally posted by cleon
The NIV is translated from Westcott and Horts corrupted Greek Manuscript.

Westcott and Hort are not the only people who have ever worked on newer Greek texts. The only reason KJV-onlyists mention them is because it's easier to direct ad hominem attacks towards them than it is to the United Bible Socities.

The NAB, for instance, uses the Nestle-Aland "Novum Testamentum Graece" and "The Greek New Testament" by Aland, Black, Metzger, and Wikgren. They surely built off the work that Westcott and Hort did, but if W&H had "corrupted" the text, the later scholars would have noticed.

The KJV is translated from the Textus Recepticus or Recieved Text (NT) and the Masoretic (Hebrew) in the OT.

You should read about the compiling of the Textus Receptus some time. If anything deserves to be called "corrupted", TR does. Erasmus based the TR on only six manuscripts, the *newest* of which was from the 10th century.

Modern translations, on the other hand, use texts which date back to the 2nd or 3rd century. Which one is more likely to be closest to what the writers actually wrote?

Besides that, Erasmus was pressured to include verses which he felt were later additions (like 1 John 5:7-8).

-Chris

The NIV

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

Veteran

Miserere Nobis

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

Miserere Nobis

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

Miserere Nobis

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

Miserere Nobis

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

Active Member

Miserere Nobis

Miserere Nobis

Similar threads