NIV Translation

danbarnaba said:

I was referring to the Aramaic Gospels that is called Peshitta. These are the original.

The Gospels were translated into Greek by the early disciples from the Aramaic.

Click to expand...

There is some evidence that Matthew may have been translated from Aramaic to Greek, however there is no supporting evidence that shows that Mark, Luke, and John were as well.

God gave the Bible by inspiration (God-breathed) so we have today the inspired Word of God because He preserved it. I'm not saying he inspired any English version, but I am saying we still have the inspired Word of God w/ us today because of the fact that God preserved His Word for us!

sracer said:

The problem with differing translations is not necessarily the words that are used, but that these wording differences are used by some to promote doctrine that isn't correct...

(NIV, 1 JOHN 5:7-8) "[7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

(KJV, 1 JOHN 5:7) " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Some Christian denominations do not believe in the Tri-unity of God...and they use the wording in the NIV translation to support that position.

THAT is where the danger lies. But for those mature Christians who have a solid understanding of Biblical doctrines, the particular translation used shouldn't make a difference.

Click to expand...

The reason is very simple for the NIV translation, vs 7 of 1 John 5 was a made to order Greek translation to get Erasmus to put it into his third edition of the printed Greek Text. Erasmus's first two editions did not have it, for the simple reason it did not exist in Greek until a monk named Froy translated it out of the Latin to the Greek. The origin of the verse was a scribal commentary in the margins and which eventually made it into the Old Latin text in the 5th ct.
Jeff the Finn

The original New Testament was written in Koine Greek. None of the original New Testament was written in Aramaic.The Peshitta Syriac was a translation from the Old Syriac text, after the Byzantine text of the Greek New Testament. The Old syriac was a translation from the original Greek NT text.
Peace,
Gary

IMO, one of the major problems with religious discussions is that people state things they believe.
How is this a problem?
That is not the problem. The problem is that these people do not back up their assertions with references.
Sure, the versions we have were translated from those versions, but how do 'you' know 'this' version was translated to 'that' version? Are you setting yourself up as the authority? Should we believe it because you say it?
Can you please site somewhat authoritative sources (web sites?) that will back up your statements with some degree of authority or authenticity?

I.B.

jeffthefinn said:

The reason those verses are not in the NIV or NASB or other new translations is that they are not in the Greek text. The question is who added them. Bruce Metzger's book The Text of the New Testament answers those questions and there is nothing diabolical about it at all.
Jeff the Finn

Click to expand...

I would agree completely and would take the word of Bruce Metzger over practically any other textual criticist out there. Dr. Metzger knows what he is talking about.

Philip said:

How can you be certain that these verses are "missing" from the NIV? Could not the opposite be the case, that they were improperly added to the KJV? This is not necessarily my position, but rather an important logical question that must be addressed.

Click to expand...

Usually these arguments come from the KJV Only camp because they think the KJV is the autographa when it is far from it. The so-called "missing verses" listed have no overall effect on the whole of scripture anyhow so the whole argument is really quite rediculous. God has indeed preserved His word and a reading of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and the NIV will all be beneficial.

I guess I'm one of those guys who believes the 1611AV is inspired down to the italicized words, punctuation marks and chapter headings - seen both sides, read most of the major stuff out there and I still believe the book I have in my hands is God's word without error.

The KJV translators would never have made such a claim. Does that include the alternate readings as well?
Jeff the Finn

"The KJV translators would never have made such a claim. Does that include the alternate readings as well?
Jeff the Finn"

You are probably right - they would not have made such a claim for they were probably more humble then me - Regarding the alternate readings I would say no. I'm saying the book I now have in my hands is inspired. Of course I dont believe the translators were inspired and of course they didn't think so either. But I believe that what God had them put down was inspired.

AVBunyan said:

Of course I dont believe the translators were inspired and of course they didn't think so either. But I believe that what God had them put down was inspired.

Click to expand...

This statement seems to contradict itself. The translators weren't inspired but God controlled what they wrote down?

Could you discribe what would have to happen for the translators to be inspired?

Philip - thanks for your keen observation:

" This statement seems to contradict itself. The translators weren't inspired but God controlled what they wrote down?
Could you discribe what would have to happen for the translators to be inspired?"

Phillip – your observation may have uncovered some flaws in my thinking and that is fine. I have to profess that saying the translators were not inspired may not have been a right statement. This comes from confusion over inspiration and the scriptures, I guess, and I admit that I may be part of it. I will tell you what I believe.

You may already know or have heard the below but I am thinking “out loud” so as to try to put down in a logical order what I believe. If you help me to refine this thinking then I am fine with that. I trust you will bear with me.

When I look at II Tim. 3:16 I see all scripture is given by inspiration. So if something is to be called scripture by the scriptures then it must be given by inspiration. When I look at vs. 15 I see Timothy had the scriptures so what he had must have been given by inspiration also. As we know Timothy did not have the originals but what he had was scripture and was given by inspiration according to vs. 16.

What I hold in my hand in the King James Bible I believe to be scripture. According to vs. 16 it must have been given by inspiration if it is scripture. I believe the 1611AV was given by inspiration. I am assuming this happened when the translators sat down in 1611 and put wrote down what they believed to be what God would have them to write down.

Now according to a Webster 1828 dictionary the definition of inspiration is as follows:

2. The act of breathing into any thing.

3. The infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence;



So, I guess then the Holy Spirit conveyed into the minds of men the words that God would have them put down and what they put down became scripture. I believed this happen when the original writers wrote (Moses, James, Paul, etc.) and again when the 1611 translators worked on the 1611 translation.

Now does this make the translators inspired or did God just breath life into what they wrote down and they became scripture?

Never said I was real smart – I just believe what I have presently in my hands are the scriptures and therefore given by inspiration. How it got here with all the changes and “refining” – not too sure about that but I have them now.

Im open to improvement on my thinking

In the Bible "people" are never refered to as being inspired, it is always words that are inspired.
jeffery

Jeffery said:

"In the Bible "people" are never refered to as being inspired, it is always words that are inspired."

Yes, that would be my thinking - that is why I believe the KJV I have in my hand is inspired for it was not dependent upon the translators but the God behind the translators.

If that's the case, then why the apparent mistranslations?

Exhibit A: Rev 1:6 and 5:10 "kings and priests" instead of "a kingdom of priests". The Greek word translated "kings" in the KJV is basileian - a form of the word basilea, meaning "kingdom". If the original intent was really "kings and priests", then the Greek word that would have better served is basileis, the plural of basileus.


Exhibit B: Rom 4:25 " who was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification" instead of considering that the Greek dia followed by the accusative would better be rendered "because" rather than "for". Furthermore, "because" would harmonize with Romans 5:9.


If the KJV is right, would that mean it is more inspired than the original texts? No Greek texts that I am aware of support the KJV renderings.

jwsiii said:

I've heard that there are some problems with the NIV translation. I've heard it called the Nearly Inspired Version. The NIV version is the one I like to memorize from when I memorize. Does anyone know of some problems in the translation that I should look out for?

Click to expand...

The NIV is a solid translation. It is always a good idea to study and dig as deeply as possible into the orginal languages if possible. But as far as english translations go, the NIV is one of the best.
Many of the critics of the NIV are "king James only" so they would not be satisfied with any other translation other than the King James. There are some changes from the King James to the NIV and since the King james was an earlier translation this is troubling to some. Some of the changes were results of new discoveries of older and reliable manuscripts since the King James was written.
The bottomline is the NIV is a solid and reliable translation.

BJH said:

"If the KJV is right, would that mean it is more inspired than the original texts?"

I believe that if someone were to give me the "original manuscripts" (the real thing!!!) then I would put them in a safe, lock it, and read my 1611AV for I believe the 1611AV is superior even to the "original Greek and Hebrew".

PreacherFergy said:

danbarnaba said:

I was referring to the Aramaic Gospels that is called Peshitta. These are the original.
The Gospels were translated into Greek by the early disciples from the Aramaic

Click to expand...

There is some evidence that Matthew may have been translated from Aramaic to Greek, however there is no supporting evidence that shows that Mark, Luke, and John were as well

Click to expand...

danbarnaba, I would be intrested in any proof that the Gospel of John was originally written in Aramaic! You can send me a Private Message. This thread is for discussing the NIV

AVBunyan said:

BJH said:

"If the KJV is right, would that mean it is more inspired than the original texts?"

I believe that if someone were to give me the "original manuscripts" (the real thing!!!) then I would put them in a safe, lock it, and read my 1611AV for I believe the 1611AV is superior even to the "original Greek and Hebrew".

Click to expand...

All right, I admit it. I've been had. AV Bunyan, you've had your fun. Congratulations. The joke's on me.

BJH said:

"All right, I admit it. I've been had. AV Bunyan, you've had your fun. Congratulations. The joke's on me."

Please explain - I trust you don't think I was tyring to be cute or trick you. I was really trying to be serious.