KJV or NIV?

[eclipsenow]

Hi all,
the KJV may not be what it's cracked up to be, and inserts words that are not actually in the text!

Why do you use the NIV, rather than the KJV, for the Bible references in all of your commentaries? Isn't the NIV negligent in showing whom Jesus really was?

 

[pshun2404]

Now though no modern translation is totally reliable here are some of the problem factors with the NIV translation:

Genesis 2:7 says “"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."

While the NIV Translators (from now on the NTs) change the text to say

“but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for when you eat of it you shall surely die"

Again in Genesis 2 they are confused by the second set of animals created after Adam, and thus add the word “had” which is not in the text.

'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

In Genesis 15:2, they render Adoni YHVH, the covenant name of God, usually translated ‘Lord GOD’, as ‘Sovereign LORD’. Thus hinting at a meaning they more fully implant later (supporting the view of the National Evangelical Association when the President there was involved in an ongoing relationship with a homosexual boy) which agrees with and allows them to preach their view of what being Sovereign means (which it does not).

In many other places all throughout they switch “the Lord of hosts” to “the Lord Almighty” and though this IS another name or title for God its inference in the context carries a different meaning altogether.

In Psalm 23:6 they change “mercy “ to “love” giving the first time readers a whole different understanding compared to the Author’s intent (who is the Holy Spirit…may the lord forgive them)

Look at Isaiah 9:3 the Greek clearly says You have multiplied the nation and NOT increased the joy but the NTs deleted the word not so that it says “and increased their joy” The total opposite of the inspired word.

Jeremiah 7:22 says "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices,” as it was some 40 days later.

But the NTs being confused by what they erroneously saw as a contradiction with Exodus 18 and 20 again added to the word of God and say

“For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices."

Which now makes the story in context incorrect (as to the timeline), making the day He spoke to them the very same day that they left. Aburdity!

The Hebrew particle “na” which means an urgent entreaty or request is ignored sometimes softened to mean a casual request or in some cases like having Abram say to Sarai “Say you are my sister” or Moses tell God “show me your glory” they make these entreaties a hard command (which is simply not in the text). Or in Judges 19 when speaking to the sodomites at the door, instead of saying “No my brethren, I pray you, do not so wickedly” the NIV says “no my friends, don’t be so vile” see how it is softer in its rebuke?

They utterly delete the word “Behold” in many places (ex. Genesis 1:20 and 12:11 and more) thus “taking away”.

They totally omit John 5:4 (why, who says they may pick and choose what to “take away” when God says they may not do it?) as well as Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and others. They just cut them out as irrelevant or not meaningful but was that really the motive? Hmmm? As if this is not bad enough they have taken away over 6,000 words. In the Lord’s prayer in Luke 11 they totally remove “who is in heaven” “Your will be done, as in heaven so on earth” and “deliver us from evil”…WHAT? Can we really cut and paste as we see fit? In Matthew 27:35 they take away notice that this was a fulfillment of prophecy (a very important aspect of that verse totally gone)

“Christ” has been taken away from Romans 1:16; Acts 16:31, and more

Jesus name has been removed from Matthew 8:2; 2 Corinthians 5:18, and more, and even the word “Lord” in relation to Jesus has been removed in some places.

Why did they change 2 Samuel 21:19 to make it seem like another killed Goliath inviting accusation of contradiction where none exists in the LXX or the pre-JPS Masoretic (or the Peshitta, or the Byzantine Majority Text, or the Vulgate, or the Geneva Bible, or the KJV, and on and on)

They change “light bearer” (which is allegedly Satan) of Isaiah 14:12 into “morning star” (which is clearly Jesus in Revelations 22:16)…why? What are they trying to say? Are they meaning to make people misunderstand the text or leave open the possibility our Lord is Satan? Or are they saying Jesus rebelled against Gid and was cast out of heaven? See the confusion these NTs have caused…the undiscipled and unlearned pass right over these issues and make the connectiuons unconsciously believing what they are reading are God’s breathed words…

They seem to take these liberties, adding to the text in many places, what they think clarifies the text (making it to agree more with their preconceived conclusion) all the way up to and including 1 Peter 4:6 (where they make “the dead” those who are “now dead”.

Now in light of God’s command not to add to or take away from, they should have at least been faithful to the corrupted Westcott/Hort text they relied on and not corrupted it further.

Thirdly, their approach was the modern Dynamic Equivalent method which means that to them the alleged thoughts, phrases, or truths expressed in the writings are more important than the actual words, however what we always end up with in these translations is what the translators think were their thoughts, phrases, or truths. This method is notorious for unintentionally (and in the case of the NRSV intentionally) implanting the human factor into the text (sometimes choosing obscure never used meanings to most commonly rendered words). So what happens is the translators opinion of what the reader needs to see takes precedence over the actual words and phrases of the inspired text (making themselves lords of the text). One might as well read the NWT as they follow the same approach.

So my vote? No! They are not trustworthy translators…despite the problems with the KJV they were honest with the text...I threw my NIV in the trash!

 

[Unix]

I've had an 8 translation parallel New Testament since 2¼ years. It includes the 1973 NIV New Testament. This Fall, 2013, I bought a somewhat small 1984 NIV New Testament where every other page is blank for taking notes and there was no postage fee as I was careful not going over a limit where additional postage would have been added. I don't have any NIV Edition in any Bible Study software:

So my vote? No! They are not trustworthy translators…despite the problems with the KJV they were honest with the text...I threw my NIV in the trash!

I have few commentaries based on the NIV, I can think of one: New Testament Commentary by Hendriksen and Kistemaker (I have the most recent Edition published by Baker) - it's pre-2011-Edition, I have it only in a Bible Study software. I'm thinking of buying a new commentary set with only a few volumes published so far, based on the NIV11, in a Bible Study Software, but what I might do is to only try it out and return it for a refund:

So my vote? No! They are not trustworthy translators…despite the problems with the KJV they were honest with the text...I threw my NIV in the trash!

I was offered the NIV11 for free in a Bible Study software and didn't take it. I don't regret my decision. I won't upgrade the Bible Study software if they include the NIV11 in future base-packages.

 

[Willie T]

Personally, I also consult the GW Translation.

 

[eclipsenow]

I was just reading some of Carson's "Introduction to the bible" and he concludes that many verses in Acts were 'improved' by monks over in Europe, while the earlier manuscripts we found in Sinai after the KJV was written were not tampered with like this. No great doctrines seemed threatened by the tampering, and the KJV was a great bible for its time. The 'editing' seems to be the concern of Monks that we get the point of the original passage. But when the NIV and other modern translations go with the vast majority of bible scholars and reject the 'tampering' of the Western documents, the emotive KJV guys think it's heresy to touch their precious version and call the NIV inferior when it is actually using superior documents.

Then there's the question of whether or not they used the right *kind* of interpretative method, which I have not read enough about to comment on.
Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would the KJV only crowd prefer a bible with added bits, hmmmm?


Then there's this:

Here is New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace:
The Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...me-different-verses-than-modern-translations/

The Video on this link is amazing. The KJV was based on 6 manuscripts no earlier than the 12th century, but today we have 6000 manuscripts (a literal thousand times more manuscripts!) and many of them date back to the 2nd century. THOUSANDS of times more documents: eight centuries earlier, and not as 'doctored' as the later KJV manuscripts. Boy, I'm glad a friend shared that link with me on Facebook this morning.

 

[football5680]

I don't trust either but some KJV only people are pretty crazy and the way they try to justify their position is insane. I have no problem with people who prefer a certain translation over another but KJV only people act as if God was there translating the bible into English and he made it perfect. It is a 400 year old translation and we have discovered many more manuscripts since that time. Our knowledge on how to translate has also improved. The KJV is also written in Old English which we no longer speak in so it is difficult to simply pick up and read.

I don't trust the NIV either because the way that they translate certain verses shows that there is a clear Protestant bias. I feel the KJV is a little more honest in this regard.

 

[SilentShadow100]

I trust the KJV a lot more than most translations, but I think for the New Testament, Young's Literal Translation is the most accurate. For the Old Testament, I prefer to use a Septuagint, but for a Masoretic text, the KJV is one of the best.

 

[eclipsenow]

I trust the KJV a lot more than most translations, but I think for the New Testament, Young's Literal Translation is the most accurate. For the Old Testament, I prefer to use a Septuagint, but for a Masoretic text, the KJV is one of the best.

You have not told us why.

I repeat: The KJV was based on 6 manuscripts no earlier than the 12th century.

Modern translations are based on 6000 manuscripts, many of which date back to the 2nd century!

The source documents modern translations are based on are more accurate, more plentiful, and less doctored by the medieval monks. It must be a matter of translation philosophy that has you preferring the thousand-fold inferior documents of the KJV (both 1000 times less document, and a thousand years removed from the vastly superior finds we have now).

 

[raschau]

Modern translations are based on 6000 manuscripts, many of which date back to the 2nd century!

There are no fundamental differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian text families. The deity of Christ is present in both, as is the Atonement, as is the Resurrection. The vast majority of differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are grammatical. Heck, Martin Luther questioned the very Canon of Scripture. Nestle-Aland questions maybe 15 verses.

The reality is that Textual Criticism is an academic discipline, not a theological one.

By your logic, we should be using the Septuagint since it is based on manuscripts dated no later than circa 3rd century BC, while the Masoretic Text dates only as far as the 10th century AD.

 

[eclipsenow]

There are no fundamental differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian text families. The deity of Christ is present in both, as is the Atonement, as is the Resurrection. The vast majority of differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are grammatical. Heck, Martin Luther questioned the very Canon of Scripture. Nestle-Aland questions maybe 15 verses.

I thank God for the KJV being published with the resources they had back then, I really do. But now that we have the much earlier and more accurate Alexandrian texts the modern translators can do a better job than the humanist Erasmus in his rushed out Greek NT!

The reality is that Textual Criticism is an academic discipline, not a theological one.

Agreed: but the KJV only crowd try to make it theological and have an almost cult-like reverence for the archaic KJV based on a much poorer grade of text.

By your logic, we should be using the Septuagint since it is based on manuscripts dated no later than circa 3rd century BC, while the Masoretic Text dates only as far as the 10th century AD.

? Sorry, you'll have to unpack my 'logic' for me a bit because I'm not quite following your argument here.

 

[Unix]

So do I:

You have not told us why:

For the Old Testament, I prefer to use a Septuagint,

Well, Jesus, the Apostles, the other NT authors, the "Gnostic" Christian authors all mainly quoted and/or mainly alluded to the Septuagint. The Septuagint variants show the excitement of the 2nd Temple period. And no need to learn another language (Hebrew).

 

[hedrick]

So do I:
Well, Jesus, the Apostles, the other NT authors, the "Gnostic" Christian authors all mainly quoted and/or mainly alluded to the Septuagint. The Septuagint variants show the excitement of the 2nd Temple period. And no need to learn another language (Hebrew).

Maybe. We know Jesus entirely through the Greek NT. The Apostles mostly as well. We normally assume that Jesus and the earliest Apostles spoke primarily Aramaic, though I assume they used Hebrew in worship. Presumably Jesus and the Apostles actually quoted some Hebrew or Aramaic form of the OT.

 

[SilentShadow100]

You have not told us why.

I repeat: The KJV was based on 6 manuscripts no earlier than the 12th century.

Modern translations are based on 6000 manuscripts, many of which date back to the 2nd century!

The source documents modern translations are based on are more accurate, more plentiful, and less doctored by the medieval monks. It must be a matter of translation philosophy that has you preferring the thousand-fold inferior documents of the KJV (both 1000 times less document, and a thousand years removed from the vastly superior finds we have now).

The YLT translates word to literally represent their original meaning and even grammatical structure. It is based on both the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text, and it tells you when a verse is not included in early manuscripts. Most modern translations are halfway between literal translations and paraphrases, meaning they do a lot of interpreting which is not present in Greek, some of which are pagan in origin. Both the KJV and YLT do a good job at avoiding this. Modern translations are produced by heretical protestants or nominal Christians who do not actually trust the Bible. New Bibles also try to change the Bible to better fit modern secular philosophies which contradict Biblical teachings. Some modern translations add word into the text, such as the word "small" when the Bible says "If you have faith like a mustard seed." In fact, 1 Corinthians 13:2 says "If I have all the faith, like that which can move mountains,..." We assume that Jesus was talking about the small size of a mustard seed because we thinking that even a little faith can move mountains, but 1 Cor 13 implies a certain type of faith is needed, a valuable type of faith, implying a different comparison Jesus was making.

The New Testament quotes the Septuagint word for word. Those quotes do not match up with the Masoretic text. The Masoretic texts have been proven to have been modified by Jews, and even Jews admit that, such as in "Genesis Rabbah 49:7." The Septuagint was produced by Jewish scholars who greatly revered the scriptures. The Masoretic texts were produced by Jews who cared more about abolishing Christianity at any cost than properly reading the Bible.

 

[Unix]

I think James wrote Jas, Jude wrote Jude and Peter wrote 1 Pt and that they all knew Gk well. Likewise the genuine Pauline Epistles except Ro 16 which was not in the original.
There are also a lot of quotes from or allusions to the Deuterocanonicals, which all or most circulated in Gk at the time:

The Apostles mostly as well.

 

[eclipsenow]

Modern translations are produced by heretical protestants or nominal Christians who do not actually trust the Bible. New Bibles also try to change the Bible to better fit modern secular philosophies which contradict Biblical teachings.

I'm not interested in paranoid conspiracy theories and groundless character attacks, thanks, but scholarship of the highest standard. I happen to have met some of the people involved in the ongoing work of translating the Greek manuscripts into English, and think this kind of paranoid post is out there with 'the moon landing was faked' crowd. Shame!

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[Unix]

Those that hold to this, should note that if so, - the following two points would become contradictory, or rather You could say that men weren't the ones who preserved the text?:

• The NU text relies heavily on the dating of the media upon which the text was written, but those texts that are used more and trusted more would both be copied more often and worn out from use sooner.
• The Holy Spirit takes an active interest in preserving what He has inspired."

With additional scholarship, some things are altered, sometimes even strengthening doctrine, such as that Mt 11:27 should be omitted - it was a verse that was added by the post-Easter Church, according to Ulrich Luz in the Hermeneia -series Mt 8-20, page 164.
Arians used and the United Church of God use Mt 11:27 specifically, in refuting Trinity:

"Please note that although there are many differences between the various manuscripts and critical compilations of manuscripts, none of them impact the essential Good News of Jesus Christ or any sound doctrine."

 

[eclipsenow]

The Holy Spirit takes an active interest in preserving what He has inspired."

He sure does, which is why we now have thousands of times more documents than the KJV people had, and a thousand years earlier!

 

[FreedByte]

Those that hold to this, should note that if so, - the following two points would become contradictory, or rather You could say that men weren't the ones who preserved the text?:

I don't think he meant physical preservation of the original manuscripts, but preservation of the words.

With additional scholarship, some things are altered, sometimes even strengthening doctrine, such as that Mt 11:27 should be omitted - it was a verse that was added by the post-Easter Church, according to Ulrich Luz in the Hermeneia -series Mt 8-20, page 164.
Arians used and the United Church of God use Mt 11:27 specifically, in refuting Trinity:

Matthew 11:27 is found in pretty much all translations regardless of textual basis.

 

[FreedByte]

He sure does, which is why we now have thousands of times more documents than the KJV people had, and a thousand years earlier!

Having more documents isn't the issue; I'm not arguing in favor of the Textus Receptus and the text underlying the World English Bible is quite different from the Textus Receptus.

Also, being old doesn't mean being better, which is the argument the WEB FAQ tries to make.