Take the NIV Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
Always correct the Greek with an English KJV

Psa. 9:17--

"17. The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God." NIV

"17. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." KJV

So the wicked are sent back to the grave and all nations that forget God?
Do you think so?
The Jehovah's Witnesses do. Of course, they get their Bible from the same place all the new versions come from.


__________________
Job 26
2 How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength?
3 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?
4 To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee?
5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,339
431
20
CA
Visit site
✟28,828.00
Faith
Catholic
Today at 09:57 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #

Always correct the Greek with an English KJV

Psa. 9:17--

"17. The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God." NIV

"17. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." KJV

So the wicked are sent back to the grave and all nations that forget God?
Do you think so?
The Jehovah's Witnesses do. Of course, they get their Bible from the same place all the new versions come from.


__________________
Job 26
2 How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength?
3 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?
4 To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee?
5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.

The word translated as Hell in the KJV is Sheol, which refers to the grave.
 
Upvote 0

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
40
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The English corrects the Greek? LOL!

Soooo. . .I guess the KJV translators, according to this "logic," were more inspired than the Apostles themselves (who wrote the earliest Greek texts IIRC)

::LOL::
 
Upvote 0

The Thadman

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2002
1,783
59
✟2,318.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Today at 10:57 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #181

Always correct the Greek with an English KJV

Psa. 9:17--

"17. The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God." NIV

"17. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." KJV

So the wicked are sent back to the grave and all nations that forget God?
Do you think so?
The Jehovah's Witnesses do. Of course, they get their Bible from the same place all the new versions come from.


__________________
Job 26
2 How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength?
3 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?
4 To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee?
5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.

I have to agree with fragments.

I ALSO need to point out that you're telling me to use a translation to correct the actual text it was translated from.

How can a translation be more correct than the original?

Shlomo,
 
Upvote 0

SoccerAaron

Soccer Fairy
Feb 8, 2003
401
5
35
Ohio
✟8,076.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
7th September 2002 at 12:49 PM JagSayon said this in Post #1

Friends, until recently, I have been using the NIV version since I remember and I thought it was a good translation. But I have stumbled across a NIV challenge test to test the NIV against the KJV. And I made a startling discovery - the NIV has made ommisions to the Word of God. Take the test to find out. It would be better if you had a KJV to counter check. Here are sample questions:

<hr>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."

My NIV says, "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in heaven". But my KJV says, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

<hr>Another question taken from my source website: 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 _______:"

The NIV would say, "which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.". But my KJV says, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, what thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum (I am uncertain of this spelling), and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.".

<hr>Here is my source Click Here. A related site which says Why You Should Use the KJV - Click Here. Dear friends, are you using a 'watered down' version of the Bible? Because if every new translation omits a few words here and there, it wouldn't be long before the Bible is totally corrupted. Its part of Satan's ploy. Don't fall for it!

Jag


Why are you judging a translation by how it compares to another translation?:scratch:
You totally threw me. You compare to KJV to top it off. We judge a translation with the original texts.
 
Upvote 0

The Thadman

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2002
1,783
59
✟2,318.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Today at 08:32 AM Jephunneh said this in Post #187

"original texts" ? There is no such thing, and if you could get your hands on them SoccerAaron, you couldn't read them.


"How can a translation be more correct than the original?"
The answer in one word?
God.

You would need to prove that God inspired the translation you're bringing into question. The NIV makes no claims of inspiration, where the KJV's authors claimed that they were NOT inspired. :)

If I spoke in tongues infront of you in the Holy Spirit, would you believe it? Would you believe and think an interpretation of them to be inspired? If so, why? If not so, why?

If I prophesied for you through God's Grace, would you believe me? Would you heed my words? If so, why? If not so, why?

I can claim that my translation is inspired and Holy Spirit driven, but would you believe me? If so, why? If not so, why?

The fact of the matter is that there are many people who believed that they made inspired translations, like the Jehovah's Wittnesses and Joseph Smith (the leader of the Mormons), but they all had bias: Just like the KJV and NIV, they were the products of human hands.

May God bless you, and Jesus be LORD,
 
Upvote 0

SoccerAaron

Soccer Fairy
Feb 8, 2003
401
5
35
Ohio
✟8,076.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Yesterday at 01:32 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #187 "original texts" ? There is no such thing

So they made up the stuff in the KJV from nothing?

"How can a translation be more correct than the original?"
The answer in one word?
God.
You can't translate something without any mistakes.
 
Upvote 0

The Thadman

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2002
1,783
59
✟2,318.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here are some quotes from the authors of the KJV:

Yet before we end, we must answer a third criticism and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our translation so often. Truly they deal harshly and strangely with us. For to whom was it ever imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Augustine was not afraid to exhort Jerome to recant. The same Augustine was not ashamed to retract, we might say, revoke, many things that he had said or written, and even glories that he sees his errors. If we will be sons of the truth, we must consider what it says, and trample upon our own ideas, yes, and upon other men’s too, if either be in any way a hindrance to it. This is the cause.

They even believed that it doesn't matter what translation you used:

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, no, we affirm and declare openly, that the most faulty translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the Word of God, no, it is the Word of God. Just as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, even though it is not interpreted by every translator with the same dignity, nor perhaps so fitly for phrase, nor so exactly for sense, everywhere.

The section of the KJV that the translators labeled as "NO TRANSLATORS TRANSLATIONS PERFECT LIKE THE ORIGINALS" can be found at http://www.christianbeliefs.org/kjv/kjvtr/kjvtr-13.html .

The KJV has also gone through many revisions:

First, there were printer errors.

[ol]
[li]There was the Wicked Bible which omitted "not" from 7 of the 10 Commandments.
[li]The Vinegar Bible with its parable of the vinegar
[li]The Unrighteous Bible where the unrighteous inherit the kingdom
[li]The Ears to Ear Bible and an assortment of others
[/ol]

Intentional Changes:

[ol]
[li]1612
[li]Early editions used either "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15
[li]1613
[li]1616
[li]In fact, between 1611 and 1644 there were 182 editions
[li]1629 edition omitted the Apocrypha
[li]1638 edition by Goad, Ward, Boyse and Mead
[li]1659 William Kilburne found 20,000 errors in 6 different editions made in the 1650's
[li]1660 marginal references introduced
[li]1683 Dr.Anthony Scargood added 7,250 references
[li]1727 thousands of errors were amended by the King's Printer
[li]1762 italics extended by Therold and Paris and modernized the language
[li]1769 extensive revision by B.Blayney
[li]The 1795 edition(Murderers Bible) rendered Mark 7:27 as "Let the chidren first be killed" (instead of filled).
[li]Blayney's edition became standard until....
[li]1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by Scrivener
[/ol]

Just some cool fact.

Shlomo,
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Thadman

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2002
1,783
59
✟2,318.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Better hilights of the Translator notes, my comments in double parentheses "(( ))":

The following points were made in the preface of the 1611 King James Version titled The Translators To The Reader. (The archaic spelling has been changed to be more in conformity to the present-day King James Version that is so widely used):

1. Understandable translations are needed.

"Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue [language of the common people], the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with...."

2. The Septuagint prepared the way for Jesus, even though it was not perfect. ((Jesus did not use the Septuagint, but they thought he did. :) ))

"When the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world...it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of...Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek....This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching...."

"It is certain that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostle-like men? Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient), rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church...."

3. No condemnation of other translations.

"...We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that prevailed before us [previous translators of previous versions] in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of ever-renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

4. Even ignoble translations are the Word of God.

"...We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most common, lowest quality] translation of the Bible in English...containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God."

5. An imperfect translation is the Word.

"No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

6. The faulty Septuagint was used by the apostles. ((The Septuagint was NOT used by the Apostles, but they THOUGHT it was. :) ))

"The translation of the Seventy [Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gratuity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God."

7. A defense of many changes and corrections in the making of the 1611 KJV

"...We must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs [the KJV's translators' contemporary critics] against us, for altering and amending our translations so oft....For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

8. The purpose of the King James Version was to make one good out of many good ones.

"Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one...."

9. A defense of adding marginal notes. [The 1611 original had numerous marginal notes that offer different possible translations of words or phrases.]

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, less the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point....It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence....Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

10. Not in bondage to words.

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way....For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?....We have...avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation instead of church...."

Shlomo,
 
Upvote 0

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
Which Bible verses did the NIV delete? (the Jehovah's Witness "Bible" deletes the EXACT same ones! ALL of 'em!)

I just opened the JW "Bible", the New World Translation (1961 ed.), and looked up all the verses that the NIV completely deletes. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE DELETES THE EXACT SAME ONES!!!! I mean ALL of 'em!

Here's another one:

I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
In the NIV it says,

"For there are three that testify:"

Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--

"For there are three witness bearers,"

What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible.
Don't you believe in the triunity of God?
If so, then this deletion should offend you.
People are playing around with the Bible and it ain't funny.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusong

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,593
99
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟2,328.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
1 John 5:7
Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible.

What manuscript evidence????????????????????????????????

1 John 5:7 has been absent from every Greek manuscript prior to the 16th century.&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
Js, Why not start a thread on 1 John 5:7, this one is about the NIV.




The evidence for the early existence of 1 John 5:7(the Johannine Comma) is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)

7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)

B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)

C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)

8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)

9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse

10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse

11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse

12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse

13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin

14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse

15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse

16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.
 
Upvote 0

Ioustinos

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,719
175
✟56,948.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Today at 12:59 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #194

Js, Why not start a thread on 1 John 5:7, this one is about the NIV.




The evidence for the early existence of 1 John 5:7(the Johannine Comma) is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)

7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)

B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)

C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)

8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)

9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse

10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse

11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse

12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse

13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin

14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse

15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse

16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.


What are the dates of these citations? Were they before or after the 13th to 16th century?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jephunneh

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2002
703
0
✟947.00
Today at 05:59 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #194

Js, Why not start a thread on 1 John 5:7, this one is about the NIV.




The evidence for the early existence of 1 John 5:7(the Johannine Comma) is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)

7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)

B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)

C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)

8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)

9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse

10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse

11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse

12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse

13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin

14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse

15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse

16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.

200 to 1500 AD
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jeffer

Active Member
Feb 10, 2003
40
0
✟152.00
Yesterday at 01:30 PM Jephunneh said this in Post #192

Which Bible verses did the NIV delete? (the Jehovah's Witness "Bible" deletes the EXACT same ones! ALL of 'em!)

I just opened the JW "Bible", the New World Translation (1961 ed.), and looked up all the verses that the NIV completely deletes. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE DELETES THE EXACT SAME ONES!!!! I mean ALL of 'em!

Here's another one:

I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
In the NIV it says,

"For there are three that testify:"

Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--

"For there are three witness bearers,"

What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible.
Don't you believe in the triunity of God?
If so, then this deletion should offend you.
People are playing around with the Bible and it ain't funny.

WO! The NIV the same as the JW Bible! Thanks Jephunneh for the Info.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.