NIV vs. KJV

[greeker57married]

Since he is Orthodox Catholic he would more than likely follow the Byzantine text-type, so, if you have a copy of R-P Majority Text you may have it right, since the TR follows the Byz text-type he would like that more. The TR differs in about 2000 places from the MT as compared to the 6000 some differences from the Critical text to the MT. Plus they use the LXX as their old testament since it is shown it was quoted from in many of the Apostolic scriptures.

Chris

I think you are right and the Byzantine text is later. The Textus Receptus earliest manuscripts which are Byzantine are about 9th or 10th Century A.D. Some are as late as the 15th or 16th century. Clearly this has allowed for many glosses to be inserted by scribes which were not in the original text. But of course this is denied by KJV Only people. Theophorus is clearly in line with KJV Only thinking or leans that way. Which is okay, I just don't agree with that view.

God Bless
Greeker
















k

 

[Theophorus]

I am Southern Baptist so I am not sure of what you mean by orthodox texts. I have a good working knowledge of New Testament Greek and have also studied about the manuscripts. What kind of manuscripts are the orthodox text and what is their date? I think I have an idea.

God bless
Greeker

This is a very good question indeed. I have tried to glean the answer on many occasions. All I can tell you is that their text uses the long ending of Mark, that some of the "added" passages are quoted by patristic sources. It is the english version endorsed by the church. If you have an idea on the source let me know. The slavonic text differs a little bit from the official one in Constantinople. When I have asked about the source text, I often get a perplexed look, kind of like, well, the one that has always been used.

Since the bible is not the final authority, (Christ directly is) the text as it exists today, is closest to the RT. The Orthodox study bible uses the NKJV. Even among Orthodox, there is variances on texts and versions, though most seem to side with the RT.

 

[Theophorus]

Oh dear oh dear, this really is getting boring. Go back to the Greek texts and see which is closer to it. I can assure you before you start it will be the NIV, I have been through most if not all of the posted verses and found it to be the NIV that is closer to being accurate.
Why is this, the translators of the KJV ended up using the TR, itself a corrupt text and the vulgate. As a result the KJV ends up being a translation of a translation (at best).

Most of the people who put these lists together have absolutely no qualifications in biblical translation

The TR is not as corrupt as you imagine. The Old vulgate is also considered to be reliable, this predates Jerome. The KJV also used the LXX, and recent discoveries have vindicated their descisions. Psalm 22 comes to mind with the phrase" they pierced my hands and feet." This was not in the masoretic text, but was in a text found in the dead sea scrolls.

 

[Theophorus]

BTW, there are numerous controversies surrounding the masoretic text. I do not believe it was "finalized" until around the 10th century or so. I would suggest that people explore the psalms in particular and compare it with the LXX. It is a surprising study, if one is searching for Christ in the scriptures.

 

[greeker57married]

This is a very good question indeed. I have tried to glean the answer on many occasions. All I can tell you is that their text uses the long ending of Mark, that some of the "added" passages are quoted by patristic sources. It is the english version endorsed by the church. If you have an idea on the source let me know. The slavonic text differs a little bit from the official one in Constantinople. When I have asked about the source text, I often get a perplexed look, kind of like, well, the one that has always been used.

Since the bible is not the final authority, (Christ directly is) the text as it exists today, is closest to the RT. The Orthodox study bible uses the NKJV. Even among Orthodox, there is variances on texts and versions, though most seem to side with the RT.

Their text evidently must be the Textus Receptus, The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus and the majority text. Which is fine, but you have to understand That most of these manuscripts are of a later date, The papyri finds of Egypt and other text that where found in the 1800's which are older are important to get back to a more accurate meaning of the Greek text and what was actually said in the original writings. We have a better knowledge of the Greek verbs and tenses than the KJV translators had. They were far more versed in Latin.

God Bless
Greeker

 

[Theophorus]

Their text evidently must be the Textus Receptus, The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus and the majority text. Which is fine, but you have to understand That most of these manuscripts are of a later date, The papyri finds of Egypt and other text that where found in the 1800's which are older are important to get back to a more accurate meaning of the Greek text and what was actually said in the original writings. We have a better knowledge of the Greek verbs and tenses than the KJV translators had. They were far more versed in Latin.

God Bless
Greeker

Older does not mean it is more trustworthy. If that is the sole criteria, then everyone should be using the LXX instead of the masorectic text. The Orthodox text does vary very slightly from the TR, but is so close that those differences are negligible. Other jurisdictions have their own also. Probably one of the most authentic texts or translations is the old vulgate. The KJV translators had this as well as others besides the TR.
We also have the quotes of the early fathers and the post nicene fathers. Their quotes (When translated, are very close to the KJV) Many of these translations of their work into english are recent. To say that the KJV translators were incompetent, or the TR is invalid because of its age is speculative at best.

I am not a textual critic but I can compare various translation within our liturgical context, and the quotes of our major theologians. The TR works well for me, and the KJV is a fine translation of it.

 

[BigNorsk]

Joykins,
many people have the idea that the KJV is Just another version but in fact,it is the FIRST version and the history of its making is by thorough translation from originalwords not men's interpretation as we are seeing now.Too many Christians are being blindly lead, I'm afraid,by modern "feel-good" versions

Perhaps it would be helpful to read the rules the translators were given by the King for the translation.

The Rules to be observed in the Translation of the Bible.

1. THE ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The Names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations; that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Divisions of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the Explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be express’d in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter, or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this manner they shall send it to the rest, to be consider’d of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the General Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed, by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the Tongues; and having taken Pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge or Oxford.

13. The directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.


14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible {Tindoll's. Matthews. Coverdale's. Whitchurch's. Geneva.


15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divenes, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better Observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

So the translators did have original languages to follow but they didn't have a lot of manuscripts as is often claimed. They also used the Latin and I believe Martin Luther's German bible.


The rules were basically to follow other translations already made. Though it started pretty closely to the Bishop's (King James mostly wanted to get rid of the footnotes of the Bishop's Bible such as the ones that said if you had to choose between following the King or God, follow God. If you notice rule #6 he didn't want footnotes that explained the text.) eventually the KJV really became mostly a revised version of Tyndale's.


Marv

 

[greeker57married]

Older does not mean it is more trustworthy. If that is the sole criteria, then everyone should be using the LXX instead of the masorectic text. The Orthodox text does vary very slightly from the TR, but is so close that those differences are negligible. Other jurisdictions have their own also. Probably one of the most authentic texts or translations is the old vulgate. The KJV translators had this as well as others besides the TR.
We also have the quotes of the early fathers and the post nicene fathers. Their quotes (When translated, are very close to the KJV) Many of these translations of their work into english are recent. To say that the KJV translators were incompetent, or the TR is invalid because of its age is speculative at best.

I am not a textual critic but I can compare various translation within our liturgical context, and the quotes of our major theologians. The TR works well for me, and the KJV is a fine translation of it.

I did not say that the earlier text is more trustworthy, but by comparing manuscripts that are earlier with the majority text we can better get to the original wording of Scripture. I did not mean to say that the KJV translators were incompetent. But if you know the history of the Greek New Testament you know that Latin had been in vogue for many decades. The Latin Vulgate is not as accurate as the Greek Text. The Original manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek. The KJV translators knew the Latin better, because Greek had not been in vogue for very long and they were limited with what Greek New Testament manuscripts they had. Still with all due respect the KJV is a very strict and trustworthy translation. The variations are minute. God has preserved His Word. I respect your view point. Even though I do not completely agree with it.

God Bless
Greeker

 

[Yusuf Evans]

My only beef with the KJV is the Old English language. I thought I got enough of that in school with all of Shakespeare's writings.

 

[Nazaroo]

A complete online copy of the Original

"Translators to the Reader" of the King James version of 1611

can be found here:

Trinitarian Bible Society

 

[BigNorsk]

For those who are interested in reading why decisions resulting in the differences were made, you can see most if not all of these textual objection in the footnotes of the NET Bible. Available freely online here.

I will give a couple of example for people who don't want to take the time.

(KJV) an angel (NIV) an eagle (Rev 8:13)

Revelation 8:13 NET+
(13) Then32 I looked, and I heard an33 eagle34 flying directly overhead,35 proclaiming with a loud voice, "Woe! Woe! Woe to those who live on the earth because of the remaining sounds of the trumpets of the three angels who are about to blow them!"36

Footnote 34 reads.
34tc ÏA reads “angel” (ἀγγÎ*λου, angelou) instead of “eagle” (ἀετοῦ, aetou), a reading strongly supported by {א A 046 ÏK and several versions}. On external grounds, ἀετοῦ is clearly the superior reading. ἀγγÎ*λου could have arisen inadvertently due to similarities in spelling or sound between ἀετοῦ and ἀγγÎ*λου. It may also have been intentional in order to bring this statement in line with 14:6 where an angel is mentioned as the one flying in midair. This seems a more likely reason, strengthened by the facts that the book only mentions eagles two other times (4:7; 12:14). Further, the immediate as well as broad context is replete with references to angels.

Did Lucifer fall from heaven, or did Jesus fall from heaven?
Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,...(KJV)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star,...(NIV)

Jesus is the morning star. "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto
you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David,
and the bright and morning star." Rev 22:16

Isaiah 14:12 NET+
(12) Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn!23 You've been cut down to the ground, O conqueror24 of the nations!25


23 tn The Hebrew text has בן־שׁחר הילל ("Helel son of Shachar"), which is probably a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon. See HALOT 245.


So note that the Hebrew text doesn't say "Lucifer" nor does it say "morning star" it literally says, "Helel son of Shachar" it probably is a reference to the morning star, but it isn't absolutely certain. In this case, the NIV is a more literal translation than the KJV's "Lucifer" which is what the translators thought was the thought in the Hebrew text.


One last one because it is a bit of a special case.

Now, everyone knows John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...(KJV)
Lets see what the NIV did to confuse the Word of God:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son... (NIV)

For this I don't reference the NET footnotes. The best explanation I have seen is in Wayne Gruden's "Systematic Theology" Appendix 6 entitled "The Monogenes Conroversy: "Only" or "Only Begotten"?


If you are like me, I was always a bit confused by Jesus being begotten of the Father and we see those lists like in Matthew 1 where the next generation was "begat" by the preceeding. Yet we know Jesus is eternal and not created. (Some get so confused they think Jesus was created) Well, the problem was that monogenes was thought to be "mono" (only) and the meaning for "genes" was thought to be begat or bear and closely related to the verb gennao. Linguistic study has found it to be more closely related to genos (class or kind). So monogenes is really not "only begotten" but rather "one of a kind" or "unique".


You see this in other translations as well, such as here.
John 3:16 ISV
(16) "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.


The ISV translators have receive a lot of pressure to change this even though it is much more correct than the KJV. Why? Because we all memorized it as "only begotten" so that must be correct. But it's not and it's provable from scripture.


Hebrews 11:17 kjv
(17) By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,


The problem of course is that Isaac is not Abraham's only begotten son, remember Ishmael? The ISV stays consistent and renders the verse this way.
Hebrews 11:17 ISV
(17) By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered Isaac. The man who had received the promises was about to offer his unique son,


Now we understand! Isaac was the unique son whom God had promised Abraham. He wasn't Abraham's only son, but he was the only promised son, he was unique, one of a kind.


So there's a few of the objections of the King James Only people against the NIV and really against most other modern translations. I believe their arguements are invalid and pretty much amount to "just because." Agree or not, I would encourage you to look at the textual decisions which the NET translators share with us. All translators make such decisions but they don't usually document them for us. For a bit of KJV trivia, the KJV actually follows the Latin text over the Greek in about a hundred places, much of that traces back to the very few Greek manuscripts that Erasmus based his text on, and that the KJV translators didn't use manuscripts they used a Greek text. Erasmus' manuscripts were not complete and in one case, 1 John 5:7-8, a Greek manuscript was actually produced to get Erasmus to insert the formula for the trinity that was in many of the Latin texts of the time, but not in any of the Greek.



All that said, most of the approximately 5000 differences between the text behind the KJV and the modern translations don't even translate differently. Most of the remaining differences are something like "Jesus Christ the Lord" where the original was probably "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". And most of the remaining after that are where some scribe tried to harmonize different places in the Bible.

So there are some examples against the arguements of the KJO position. This post is already too long, but I thought it was important to get beyond the "this one is wrong because that one is right" and look a little deeper. I hope at least some find it helpful.


Marv

 

[drummer4Him]

Here are 16 New Testament verses that were taken out of the NIV:
Matt 23:14
Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

The average reader would never know it happened!

 

[JimfromOhio]

Here are 16 New Testament verses that were taken out of the NIV:
Matt 23:14
Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

The average reader would never know it happened!

I bet you didn't noticed WHY they took them out? I know why...

 

[drummer4Him]

I read online that a Bible scholar(Dr.Don Wilkins), who was asked to defend the New Age Bible versions on the John Ankerberg TV show against King James Version advocate (Dr.Joseph Chambers),lost his voice during the debate against the King James Bible.
If this is true,could it be an example of Luke 1:20,"And behold,thou shalt be dumb,and not able to speak,until the day these things shall be performed,because thou believest not my words,which shall be fulfilled in their season."
There is also news about other "scholars" who also helped in the making of modernized versions that mysteriously lost their voices.Read more about it on www.av1611.org/voice 1 .html

 

[WAB]

Directed at a member type post, but I hope justifiable: Cut Garleigh a little slack, Jeb. Her profile indicates she's a 13-year-old girl. That doesn't excuse her dumping on others' opinions, but it does call for teaching and guiding, rather than argumentation. IMO at least. Challenge her statements, demand she argue on an even level with others if she wants to "get in the fun" in GT. But don't presuppose her as being prejudiced and self-centered. Let's see what she has to say in defense of her assertions. (As a matter of fact, that might be a fun New Years Resolution for all of us towards all of us. )

Greetings, in the Name that is above every other name. I have read your posts carefully, mainly because many folks from the Episcopal church (at least here in Hawaii) are not born-anew. But your profile states that you are, and what I have read of your posts so far would certainly support that. In addition, it is likely that your use of the word "liberal" is from a historical perspective, and not modern.

Having said that, your advice above is right on, and it leads to my stating that all Christians should be Scripturally literate enough to meet challenges, and when proven wrong, repent and admit our error. That is how trust is won.

As stated elsewhere today, I just realized that the smiley on my profile suggests that I am female. Not so. The "W" in WAB stands for William, and I have been married to my wonderful wife Betty for just short of 50 years. The reason for putting that info. out here is that I have stated such in "bugs" and another spot asking that whoever put the smiley in my profile change it or remove it with no result.

Aloha from the Big Island....

 

[drummer4Him]

Nothing and absolutely nothing justifies the subtraction of any verse in the Bible.

Luke 8:11-12 "Now the parable is this:The seed is the word of God.
Those by the way side are they that hear;then cometh the devil,and taketh away the word out of their hearts,lest they should believe and be saved."

 

[drummer4Him]

I bet you didn't noticed WHY they took them out? I know why...

I'm sorry Jim,but no matter how you look at it no one can take away any verse from the Bible no matter what supposed "reason" they think they have.

 

[higgs2]

So is it okay to *add* anything to the bible? (This is a trick question )

 

[JimfromOhio]

I'm sorry Jim,but no matter how you look at it no one can take away any verse from the Bible no matter what supposed "reason" they think they have.

You must understand that NIV was not translated word for word as KJV or other translations. The translators were focusing on "thought for thought" of the context.

They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words. NIV Information

If you prefer an english translations that is only by "Word for Word", by all means, stick with KJV.

 

[higgs2]

I read online that a Bible scholar(Dr.Don Wilkins), who was asked to defend the New Age Bible versions on the John Ankerberg TV show against King James Version advocate (Dr.Joseph Chambers),lost his voice during the debate against the King James Bible.
If this is true,could it be an example of Luke 1:20,"And behold,thou shalt be dumb,and not able to speak,until the day these things shall be performed,because thou believest not my words,which shall be fulfilled in their season."
There is also news about other "scholars" who also helped in the making of modernized versions that mysteriously lost their voices.Read more about it on www.av1611.org/voice 1 .html

I think you should read this: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC1101W4.htm It is from the John Anderberg tv show, and refutes your version of this rumor. Once you have read this, you should stop spreading this rumor as you will know that it is innaccurate and untrue.