NIV...Do you think it contains error?

[SassySDA]

I have often queried this. I grew up with the King James bible, and I am very comfortable with it.

I love the way it is written, and adore reading aloud from it.

A few Sabbaths past, as I was having the children read the memory verse out loud in class, I asked one of the little girls to read it for me. I, of course, had my bible open to said scripture.

She began to read, and I began to search the page, because I thought I had opened it to the wrong book. But I had not. The verse in her NIV bible, was completely different than the KJ. COMPLETELY. I asked to see her bible, and compared both verses side by side. After a lengthy look, I could see a MINOR similarity in the verses.

No, I don't like that bible at all, and I'll just be up front about it. My question is...does it contain error, or is it simply because I am not used to it, and am not comfortable with it.

 

[StormyOne]

I have often queried this. I grew up with the King James bible, and I am very comfortable with it.

I love the way it is written, and adore reading aloud from it.

A few Sabbaths past, as I was having the children read the memory verse out loud in class, I asked one of the little girls to read it for me. I, of course, had my bible open to said scripture.

She began to read, and I began to search the page, because I thought I had opened it to the wrong book. But I had not. The verse in her NIV bible, was completely different than the KJ. COMPLETELY. I asked to see her bible, and compared both verses side by side. After a lengthy look, I could see a MINOR similarity in the verses.

No, I don't like that bible at all, and I'll just be up front about it. My question is...does it contain error, or is it simply because I am not used to it, and am not comfortable with it.

No more error than the KJV.... remember the KJV you are comfortable with is not the original one.... the original one you would have difficulty reading..... There are several translations that are better than the KJV but many christians (and adventists) are reluctant to use them....

 

[StormyOne]

Introduction: The Bible was not written in English -- not even "King James English"! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read is not the original text, but other people's translations of the Bible.

But why are there so many different English translations of the Bible? And why can't churches or scholars agree on just one translation?

• No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
• The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
• Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
• The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning.

http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Bible/English_Translations.htm

 

[StormyOne]

You can google the phrase KJV and get tons of info.... did you know that the original KJV included the apocrypha (you don't have it in your bible now, why not?)

Here is a sample of how it read:

For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

Interesting huh? There are quite a few facts about the KJV that are interesting... shall I post a few?

 

[StormyOne]

Gen 38:27-30: And it came to passe in the time of her trauaile, that beholde, twinnes were in her wombe. And it came to passe when she trauailed, that the one put out his hand, and the midwife tooke and bound vpon his hand a skarlet threed, saying, This came out first. And it came to passe as he drewe back his hand, that behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken foorth? this breach bee vpon thee: Therefore his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his brother that had the skarlet threed vpon his hand, and his name was called Zarah.


he original printing of the King James Version included the "Apocrypha", so named in the text. This section includes the "deuterocanonical books" accepted as canonical by Roman Catholicism, but no longer considered Scripture under the Thirty-Nine Articles, the doctrinal confession of the Church of England. This section also includes other non-canonical texts from the Vulgate's appendix. This includes the Prayer of Manasseh; the First Book of Esdras, accepted as canon by Eastern Orthodox Christianity but not by Roman Catholics or Protestants; and the apocalypticSecond Book of Esdras, accepted by no denomination as canon. These texts are printed separately, between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. The Septuagint's emendations to the Book of Esther and the Book of Daniel are included here, rather than added to the texts of those books. From approximately 1769, many editions have omitted this section, and the most common contemporary editions rarely include them.

The original printing also included a number of variant readings and alternative translations of some passages; most current printings omit these. (One American edition that does still print these notes is the Cornerstone UltraThin Reference Bible, published by Broadman and Holman.) The original printing also included some marginal references to indicate where one passage of Scripture quoted or directly related to another. Most current printings omit these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible#Style

 

[TrustAndObey]

Here's a good website about this topic: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/newage.html

I wouldn't dream of telling people which version they have to read, but isn't it nice to have the Dead Sea Scrolls now to compare to the KJV?

The KJV contains punctuation errors (as Adventists we definitely know about Luke 23:43, just as an example) which is next to impossible to avoid considering the original Hebrew and Greek didn't have punctuation at all, and appeared as a huge run-on sentence. The translators, unlike the prophets, were not inspired by God (in my humble opinion).

Really the only way to know you're reading verbatim is to get a copy of the original manuscripts and translate them yourself....but even then you're going to have problems if you are not educated in the three languages of the Bible because all of the concordances have their own view of what a word "means". You'd almost have to pick and choose (and trust me, people do) the meaning of each word. Sheol or gehenna...which instances does it mean "hell" and which cases does it mean "grave"?

Personally I like having a Bible that I can compare with my grandmother's very OLD Bible to see that I'm reading the exact same passages that my great-great-great-grandfather did.

And let's face it, you could give everybody the exact same translation of the Bible and they still won't agree upon what it says and means! If the correct definition/meaning of each word was used every time, there will still be those that make huge assumptions or twist it to mean what they want it to mean. Now we have over 30 translations and it just adds to the confusion.

Regarding the NIV specifically....compare Hebrews 4 of the KJV and the NIV. It says two completely different things in those two versions. If you check the original manuscripts, you have a far better translation with the KJV.

In short, I think you have to study this one out and not just grab a copy of the Bible that "reads easier."

 

[Windmill]

Uhm, I dunno. I've been lead to believe, they're the same... but I suppose the dead sea scrolls would be the best translation, no? Too bad we don't have the wadlense bible.

 

[statrei]

The greater question is What do we define as error? This is a term that is thrown around with no consideration for what it means. There is not one book written by man that does not contain error; men are error prone. But do they all lead their readers down the wrong path? No. More importantly, we have received from God the gift of the scientific method that enables us to "test every spirit" to see how it fits in with reality. If we are willing to do just what the Bible recommends we can easily recognize when something in the Bible does not sit right, like when David says that the earth is fixed. That is error, no matter what version of the Bible you are using.

 

[statrei]

Regarding the NIV specifically....compare Hebrews 4 of the KJV and the NIV. It says two completely different things in those two versions. If you check the original manuscripts, you have a far better translation with the KJV.

I'm not certain what you mean by 'original manuscripts.' The manuscripts written by the original authos do not exist. The interesting truth is that if the God had wanted them to be preserved He would have. He did not though we can find thousands of other original manuscripts from the same era.

 

[SassySDA]

Here's a good website about this topic: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/newage.html

I wouldn't dream of telling people which version they have to read, but isn't it nice to have the Dead Sea Scrolls now to compare to the KJV?

The KJV contains punctuation errors (as Adventists we definitely know about Luke 23:43, just as an example) which is next to impossible to avoid considering the original Hebrew and Greek didn't have punctuation at all, and appeared as a huge run-on sentence. The translators, unlike the prophets, were not inspired by God (in my humble opinion).

Really the only way to know you're reading verbatim is to get a copy of the original manuscripts and translate them yourself....but even then you're going to have problems if you are not educated in the three languages of the Bible because all of the concordances have their own view of what a word "means". You'd almost have to pick and choose (and trust me, people do) the meaning of each word. Sheol or gehenna...which instances does it mean "hell" and which cases does it mean "grave"?

Personally I like having a Bible that I can compare with my grandmother's very OLD Bible to see that I'm reading the exact same passages that my great-great-great-grandfather did.

And let's face it, you could give everybody the exact same translation of the Bible and they still won't agree upon what it says and means! If the correct definition/meaning of each word was used every time, there will still be those that make huge assumptions or twist it to mean what they want it to mean. Now we have over 30 translations and it just adds to the confusion.

Regarding the NIV specifically....compare Hebrews 4 of the KJV and the NIV. It says two completely different things in those two versions. If you check the original manuscripts, you have a far better translation with the KJV.

In short, I think you have to study this one out and not just grab a copy of the Bible that "reads easier."

Nothing reads easier to me THAN the NIV. It's plain English, I just wondered why some scriptures don't have the same meaning, not just sound different.

I cringe, in my adult Sabbath School class when one of the others reads from the NIV. I don't say anything of course, that is their right...but it's almost an insult to my ears, lol. If I didn't have my bible open to the same chapter and verse, I would be totally lost.

Maybe I should pick up different versions and study them against the one I love, but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I'm still such an "infant" in God's word, and seeing as I don't have someone like PaleHorse to study with every evening (do you REALLY know how blessed you are??? ), I'm going to stick with what I know and what I am comfortable with for now.

I am old enough Stormy to remember previous versions of the bible I love today. The examples you gave are ones where they used "extra" e's, and also spelled words differently than we do today. It would make it difficult to read, but not necessarily incorrect.

Someone said, in a chatroom last evening, that we Seventh-day Adventists were being "taught" from the NIV, and this person didn't like that particular version of God's word anymore than I do. (Hey, at least I admit it). However, I had to correct his having said "All Seventh-day Adventists". Because I don't believe that is true. In my church, for example, many different bibles are represented. Even my 1st-4th graders have different ones from me and from each other. Maybe some churches choose to use one only, but he made a blanket statement I had to correct.

After the last incidence of the child reading from the NIV and it not matching up with the rest of us, I am now allowing the children to choose which bible we work from each week. That way we are at least on the same page. If the scripture (memory verse) they are reading is way off base, in my opinion, then we look at it compared with the others available in the class. I think it's an excellent way for them to learn. Because this way they aren't just repeating the verse...they are having to really THINK about it.

Thanks for everyone's input.

 

[statrei]

Nothing reads easier to me THAN the NIV. It's plain English, I just wondered why some scriptures don't have the same meaning, not just sound different.

I cringe, in my adult Sabbath School class when one of the others reads from the NIV. I don't say anything of course, that is their right...but it's almost an insult to my ears, lol. If I didn't have my bible open to the same chapter and verse, I would be totally lost.

Maybe I should pick up different versions and study them against the one I love, but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I'm still such an "infant" in God's word, and seeing as I don't have someone like PaleHorse to study with every evening (do you REALLY know how blessed you are??? ), I'm going to stick with what I know and what I am comfortable with for now.

I think you meant "THAN the KJV" in that first sentence, but this simple mistake demostrates a wonderful point. I knew you did not mean what you wrote because of the context of the rest of your post. It would be dishonest of me to insist that you meant what you wrote when it is clear that this single fragment disagrees with the rest of your post. This is what happens when individuals attempt to build a doctrine on a single text even when that text goes contrary to what the rest of the book teaches.

The KJV is easier to memorize and after almost 50 years I recall most of the Bible in KJV English and can only use the search function on a KJV Bible. But there are clear mistranslations in the KJV and I know that because I studied Koine Greek.

 

[SassySDA]

"think you meant "THAN the KJV" in that first sentence"

No, I meant what I said. "Reads" means simply, well, READS. Most people have difficulty reading, let alone comprehending the King's English. When I said, "reads easier", I meant as in "read aloud or quietly to oneself" easier.

I can read the NIV (especially aloud) as easy as the next person, but I still don't care for that version. I have come across too many differences with it, ones I am not certain of, as to why they are SO different from the KJV.

 

[statrei]

"think you meant "THAN the KJV" in that first sentence"

No, I meant what I said. "Reads" means simply, well, READS. Most people have difficulty reading, let alone comprehending the King's English. When I said, "reads easier", I meant as in "read aloud or quietly to oneself" easier.

I can read the NIV (especially aloud) as easy as the next person, but I still don't care for that version. I have come across too many differences with it, ones I am not certain of, as to why they are SO different from the KJV.

OK. It is the very next sentence that sent me after that rabbit. After all, reads does mean READS, though not everyone READS the same way.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Sassy, I agree that the NIV does read easier than the KJV...but so does the NKJV. What's important is which one is more accurate.

Stick with what you like and don't let anyone tell you that you need to "modernize" or change to a Bible version you don't like! In Yahoo chat I had people tell me all the time to "SPEAK ENGLISH" because I quoted from the KJV. lol

 

[SassySDA]

Sassy, I agree that the NIV does read easier than the KJV...but so does the NKJV. What's important is which one is more accurate.

Stick with what you like and don't let anyone tell you that you need to "modernize" or change to a Bible version you don't like! In Yahoo chat I had people tell me all the time to "SPEAK ENGLISH" because I quoted from the KJV.
lol

My whole point was that just because something is easier to read, doesn't make it accurate.

My concern is with "accuracy", at least as close to accurate as I can get.

I remember the first time I read NKJ for you over the internet, and you were the one who said that you "loved to hear me read from it", and would love to have me read it onto a cassette tape. I think the reason you love to hear me read it is that my love for that bible and our Lord shine through voice.

You couldn't pry my KJV out of my hands, just as I am sure many others wouldn't part with their NIV's.

 

[statrei]

My whole point was that just because something is easier to read, doesn't make it accurate.

My concern is with "accuracy", at least as close to accurate as I can get.

What kind of accuracy are you talking about? Most people don't reallize that the quarrel is about Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, all of which are copies of copies of the originals.

 

[HoneyDew]

What kind of accuracy are you talking about? Most people don't reallize that the quarrel is about Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, all of which are copies of copies of the originals.

I use the NKJV myself. Incidentally, the Bible was used in the It Is Written Seminar, with all the bells and whistles. I like it.
I have heard that the KJV was free of error. Is this the truth, or is it not?

 

[statrei]

I use the NKJV myself. Incidentally, the Bible was used in the It Is Written Seminar, with all the bells and whistles. I like it.
I have heard that the KJV was free of error. Is this the truth, or is it not?

Well, the KJV that was published in 1611 contained the Apocrypha. It was the Puritans in America who complained that those books were not divinely inspired leading to them being excluded from all Protestant Bibles today. I wonder if those who are so committed to the KJV really are as committed as they claim to be? Ignorance is such a wonderful thing.

 

[NeverADullMoment]

Enlighten us Statrei, what Bible do you read for study?

Ignorance is such a wonderful thing.

I guess only the ignorant can make that claim, eh? Those that aren't ignorant wouldn't know.

 

[statrei]

I guess only the ignorant can make that claim, eh? Those that aren't ignorant wouldn't know.

Everybody is ignorant of something. It is an artifact of humanity. Don't get too sensitive.