OntheDL said:
That's classic NIV. Also try comparing Rev 1:11 KJV vs NIV. Those are just two of hundreds of places where Jesus is degraded by text of NIV.
The Reformation translated the Bible and gave ordinary people the opportunity to read it in their own languages. The Roman Catholic Church acted to countered the Reformation by seeking to destroy the Word of God.
There are two families of Greek texts.
One is the Textus Receptus: Greek majority text. The KJV, Tyndale... are based on the Received Text.
The other family is the less than 1% Greek minority text. These manuscripts are found only in less than 1% of all existing Greek text: Alexandrian Text, Vaticanus Text, Sinaiticus Text. All modern translations are based these text: NIV, RSV, NKJV, ASB, CEB...
First of all, it is a legitimate debate as to which text type is closer to the original. And certainly there is something to be said for the text that was the dominant one for centuries.
Having said that, a few notes on the above:
a. The textus receptus and majority text are not actually the same. The TR was made up of a sampling of manuscripts at the time. The majority text actually differs from it in a number of places. Some of the manuscripts were of course from the majority text.
b. The reason that a minority of texts determine the manuscripts used by these newer versions is the criteria chosen to determine legitimacy, etc. Wa&H did have a lot to do with that. If you are going to address their arguments you have to look at their presuppositions. Generally they would be summarized as:
i. The older the text, the better. The texts are older, therefore more reliable. They reason that the older it is, the closer to the original, without a lot of changes. The Textus Receptus folks believe the opposite. Since it was later the church must have settled the issue. The Textus Receptus was the one that gained approval.
ii. More is not necessarily better. Just because the Textus Receptus has more copies does not make it better. They were just mass producing less reliable documents. A single older copy would still be more reliable as it represents an older time before the document was handled by many copyists, and altered. The Textus Receptus folks would disagree saying that the number of copies at this time indicates that it was the more favored reading.
iii. Is there an evident chain of reasoning? The newer versions claim that the earlier manuscripts are also more reliable because you can see a tree of changes. In other words, you can see how various factions might change a reading to suit their view. You can trace these progressive changes over time. Often times this was for theological reasons.
iv. The more difficult the reading, the more likely to be true. This one is related to c. This rule is based on the tendency among translators to make things read smoother, eliminate difficulties, fix "mistakes", gloss over problems, etc. So when you encounter something that seems to be controversial, problematic, or just plain wrong, it is hard to justify someone changing it to that, instead of someone smoothing out the later one. The Textus Receptus people would claim sometimes difficult is just difficult, and wrong is just wrong.
Now there is some logic to the W&H approach. There is also some question if this common sense method based on copyists of another time, and presuppositions is true.
For an interesting web book that challenges the conclusios of W&H, check here:
http://www.nttext.com/download.html
In the final analysis I would say the new versions are not evil because they use a different underlying manuscript. They put the other stuff in a foot note usually anyway. And they have raised awareness of the variety of texts and textual variants.
The downside is that we don't have a unified text to memorize, read from, etc.
KJV is not perfect. But it's the best of all translations. There are some controversies because of translation problem. But none is of any consequence. It's static equivalent, meaning there is no manipulation.
Here is where we get into opinions.
a. literal, word-for-word translation does not remove manipulation. You still have to choose which word from the various possibilities is indicated. There are so many decisions when translating Greek that it is amazing how similar most versions are. But more importantly, there are some words that don’t translate well into one equivalent. So making it a hard and fast rule can hurt the sense of the end product. Now in general I think that a literal word for word translation is often best. But a conservative dynamic equivalent ,that puts most in word for word, but adds two or even three words when necessary can be even more accurate.Here is an example:
Romans 3:25
NIV: "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood."
KJV: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood."
First of all, the NIV translates the Greek word hilesterion as three words– sacrifice of atonement. The KJV translates the same into one word–propitiation. Why? Because the KJV is a literal version and strives to use the one-word-for-one-word principle. In this case, though, we see a slight limitation of that method. The Greek word is a complex one, and one word doesn't necessarily get the idea across. In fact, I think you would have a hard time finding many people who even know what the English word propitiation means! However, the term sacrifice of atonement, while still a little hard to understand, at least breaks the thought down into words we might be familiar with. Notice, also, that the King James Version puts the words to be in italics. That is because they did not appear in the original. They were supplied by the translator so that the verse made sense in English. Since the KJV is a word-for-word translation, it makes sure you know there was no word there.
In this verse, I give a slight edge to the NIV for making the concept plain and being easier to read.
Now for an example the other way:
1 Peter 1:13
NIV: "Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed."
KJV: "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Here we see quite a difference. The KJV simply translates word for word, gird up the loins of your mind, letting the reader figure it out. The NIV puts it in terms we can understand, without knowing the culture of Bible times, by saying, Prepare your minds for action. While it is nice to put things in modern language, we clearly lose a word picture here. In Bible times when you wanted to run or get ready for battle, you had to tuck the bottom part of your robe into the rope that tied your robe together. Otherwise you would trip while running. So Peter says, "Get ready for your minds to run!" While the NIV still gets the idea right, serious students will prefer the KJV literal reading, which gives us an interesting glimpse into Bible times.
Now the NIV is middle of the road or so when it comes to literal rendering. NASB is actually closer to the original word order than the KJV. The ESV, RSV etc. tend to be pretty literal too.
b. The point is all translations do have their strengths and weaknesses. To say one is the best translation is not always true. Especially when people have trouble with the archaic language. (Now it should be noted that not all modern translations have easy reading levels either. In fact a couple of the well known paraphrases have a HIGHER reading level than the KJV.)
The other pitfall of some modern versions is gender-inclusive language. To me that is completely worthless.
But you don’t have to choose just one translation. You can look at all of them. Or better yet you can learn enough to read a textual apparatus and can compare for yourself. Each variant has its own list of extant witnesses, and the case for some is much stronger than the case for others.
In Vaticanus text, thousands of verses are missing. In fact, books and chapters are omitted (Revelation, and chapters of Genesis, Psalms, Mathew, Hebrews...).
Sinaiticus text was found "miraclously" in the 1800s in the Catholic church at Mount Sinai. It was 'found' in a trash can.
In both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, the last 14 verse of book of Mark are missing where they recount the resurrection of Jesus.
More over, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree even between themselves over 3000 times just in the gospel books alone.
All true. However, it is also true that if these are legitimate historical documents you can’t just dismiss them. Just as the Gnostic gospels are not something we relish, but still record historical perspectives. You may decide you don’t agree with these texts, but you can’t merely wish them away.
Moreover, it is not just these two texts. There value is partly that they are the largest representatives of the text type. The older papyri agree with them at times. And these are just scraps in most cases. Most NT witnesses are far from whole testaments. For that matter the canon was not completely settled until a later time! So to expect all of the books would be futile. These scraps are very important though because they often represent very early time periods, and provide evidence of the historic faith.
Do not be foolish! All modern translations are the work of the Jesuits. Look up Wescott and Hort. In the 1800s, these two Jesuits got together to change the Bible. By degrading Jesus Christ, omitting critical doctrines, introducing discrepencies...the integrity of the Bible is damaged. That's why many, even ministers don't believe in the Bible.
Your conclusions do not follow what you presented. These texts existed before W&H. It was their system that made them viewed in the way they are, but they would doubtless have had an impact regardless because of their age and peculiarity.
Moreover, I don’t see a lot of Jesuits lining up to use the NIV. In Catholic circles they tend to prefer the New Jerusalem Version, or the NRSV etc. or the Latin derived DR (which is fairly close to the KJV in a lot of places, and quite literal).
For that matter, if you want a very literal version for study an interlinear is great. It gives far more information on word order, literal meanings, etc. Though of course it is not at all suitable for public reading. You can get them in the TR or NA/UBS versions I am sure.
Here is a great free interlinear based on the modern manuscripts. If I recall it even lets you pick your text type
www.scripture4all.org
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
