Take the NIV Challenge

[Jephunneh]

In the celebrated NIV Study Bible, ( 1985, The Zondervan Corp.) in Matt. 5:22, we read Jesus saying: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

Going in the same bible to Mark 3:5, we find the Lord Jesus looking "around at them in anger..." Now this means that according to the NIV, Jesus just put himself in danger of judgment- He sinned!

The NIV's "twin sister" bible, the New American Standard ( 1977, The Lockman Foundation) says this in Matt. 5:22- "everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court." Similarly, in Mk.3:5, it states that He looked "around at them with anger."

Now, it must be admitted that both bibles place a marginal note which says (e.g., NIV) "some manuscripts brother without cause." This reading is what is found in the Authorized Version (King James Bible). The AV has Jesus teaching that it is sinful to be angry with your brother without a cause. Quite a BIG difference.

The footnote- which some might not bother to read casts doubt on the authenticity of the Words of God. Either the words "without cause" are there or they aren't. If they are, then the verse makes sense. If they aren't, then not only Jesus, but also God the Father sinned!

You will hear advocates of the NEW (Acts 17:21) bibles say, "No doctrines of any consequence are touched by these changes." But wouldn't you say that the sinless nature of Jesus is a pretty important doctrine?

 

[Hishandmaiden]

I cannot believe that you continue to argue against the NIV version, when it has helped many people in all over the world to know God. I cannot believe that you will support the KJV version ONLY, knowing that millions of people all over the world are poor in their English language, and NIV is definitely easier to understand than KJV.

Furthermore, KJV is written in the past, and thus, non English people will not be able to understand it. As such, NIV, even though it is not perfect is good enough for those that just cannot understand the KJV.

Remenber, in the days of Acts, there is an eunuch who has only a part of the bible, just the Isaiah part. And God can use that to save him.

God is the one who save, and will always be the one who saves, and it is up to God alone to determine what he uses to save.

No man can claim to be God, or claim to know everything possible about God. Claiming that the KJV version is the only version that is worthy to be read seems to me to be an over arrogant claim, failing to look at those Christians out there in the world with limited biblical knowledge.

It seems to me that you are no different from the Pharisees, that is, in your atempt to make yourself appear Holy, and appear to know all, you had neglected the concern of poor English speaking Christians all over the world. To them, NIV, or even NIRV is even easier to understand than KJV.
Not everyone can understand KJV. For those who can't, wouldn't it be better to read the NIV version?

God is the God of know all. Do he not know what we are all going through? Will he not see that NIV omit words, while KJV seems to add words?
But he still use the NIV to touch the lives of many non-Christians and convert them to become Christians.

Furthermore, aren't you like the Jews in the days of Acts that insist that the Pagan converts must be circumcised, and must not eat meats?
Aren't you focusing your attention on the wrong thing?
We are different, our convictions of things are different, but never forget, no matter what, we are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and as one body, we must stand together, as the same God that works in all of us.

My conclusion: KJV, NIV, both are translated versions, and as translated versions, they will of course contain certain differences, but as long as the doctrines of God are there, and as long as they don't distort the teachings of God in the way the Jehovah Witness, Mormons did, they are usable versions of God's words for the laymen.

Instead of fighting over what is the pure bible (which man can never know for certain), why not unite to win non believers over to Christ?

If you really want to be holy, and to do God's wills, I believe God will dearly want you to reach out to the lost souls out there in the world, who dosn't even know what is a bible, and who lives in complete darkness. Fighting over the bible versions will only result in fruitless quarrels among believers, but saving souls will glorify God, and will be much more rewarding than the petty quarrels fought among Christians.

I rather you debate with atheists over the existence of God than to waste your time debating over bible versions.

 

[Jephunneh]

Using the NIV is like fignting Satan with a banana instead of a SWORD.

I have just been showing the facts, it's up to you to choose what you will take as your final authority from God.

Think about it, where would and has Satan tried to discredit the Lord God?

.............................................................................
The NIV-
Colossians 1
14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

The KJV-
Colossians 1
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Jephunneh

Now, it must be admitted that both bibles place a marginal note which says (e.g., NIV) "some manuscripts brother without cause." This reading is what is found in the Authorized Version (King James Bible). The AV has Jesus teaching that it is sinful to be angry with your brother without a cause. Quite a BIG difference.

Well, it's up to us to work that out. Perhaps that verse was *added* by a later scribe or copier to eliminate the supposed contradiction. Is that the sort of Bible you want?

You say NIV "removed' the verse -- but the verse is found in later manuscripts but not earlier ones. How can that possibly be "removed"?

The footnote- which some might not bother to read casts doubt on the authenticity of the Words of God. Either the words "without cause" are there or they aren't. If they are, then the verse makes sense. If they aren't, then not only Jesus, but also God the Father sinned!

The KJV had marginal notes.

The KJV translators said that marginal notes were a good thing.

But I guess their scholarship is only infallible or important when it jibes with your own beliefs?

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

We are not commanded to read the "manuscripts" and couldn't if we had them.

I do not worship "scholarship", I worship the Lord Jesus Christ, my Saviour.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Jephunneh
We are not commanded to read the "manuscripts" and couldn't if we had them.

So we are not commanded to read the manuscripts, OK, I can buy that.

But where are we commanded to read the King James Version (and none else)?

I thought we were commanded to read the Bible. The "perfect Bible" would be one which contained all of the words exactly as the original authors wrote them down. Of course, we cannot read Greek or Hebrew, so we need an English translation. But no translation is perfect -- as the KJV TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES SAID. Having a number of translations is good -- AS THE KJV TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES SAID.

You claim to know more about translation, manuscripts, and inspiration than the translators of the KJV. Isn't this a bit presumptuous?

I do not worship "scholarship", I worship the Lord Jesus Christ, my Saviour.

OK, thanks for the information.

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

The New International Version is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.

Suffice it to say, "You can't get good fruit from a bad tree." (Matthew 7:17, 18)

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Jephunneh
The New International Version is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.

Those are strong words -- unfortunately you don't have any proof to back it up.

You make a number of claims here which you don't bother to back up (and please don't just copy and paste webpages. If you are going to use a webpage as support just provide the link; I can go to it myself).

How are Origen's manuscripts "tainted"? What is an "Egyptian Bible" and what is about it that makes it so bad? Why are older manuscripts bad?

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

I thought you were the "Bible Scholar?"

 

[kern]

No, I never said I was a Bible scholar. That is why I rely on people who *are* Bible scholars to analyze the manuscripts and give me the most accurate translation of the oldest and best manuscripts.

God never said to use only the KJV, either in the Bible or outside of it.

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

And I "RELY" on my Bible for what it is, the living words of a living God.

 

[kern]

I am a Christian, thank you.

I also rely on my Bible for the Word of God, but I don't believe that God used only the KJV to transmit that word.

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

Mark 5:6--

"6. When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him." NIV

"6. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him," KJV

The guy fell?! To fall on your knees isn't worship .

 

[kern]

What is your point with all of this? You completely ignore everything I write and just accuse me of not being a Christian, of trusting man instead of God, etc.

As for that Mark verse, what does the Greek say? Merely showing the differences between the NIV and KJV does not show that one is better than the other.

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

Matt. 9:18--
"18.While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, 'My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.'" NIV
"18.While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live." KJV

The KJV lets us know that the ruler worshipped Jesus yet the NIV shows us the ruler knelt. People have knelt before people but it isn't worship.



Matt. 16:18--
"18. 'And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades will not overcome it.'" NIV
"18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." KJV

In the footnote of my NIV, it says, 'Peter means rock'. What they want is you to associate the rock that Jesus is building His Church on with Peter. Jesus wasn't saying that. He uses a different Greek word for Peter (Petros) and the rock on which he is going to build His Church is (Petra) and Jesus is called the Petra in the Bible in I Cor. 10:4 to name one.

 

[seebs]

The difference you cite is *introduced* in Greek; in Aramaic, it's the same word, and trying to deny that Peter was the subject of the sentence requires a willful disregard for the plain meaning of the text.

I mean, I was raised Lutheran, on stories of evil popes and indulgences, and we never had the chutzpah to deny the plain sense of Christ's statement.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by Jephunneh

The KJV lets us know that the ruler worshipped Jesus yet the NIV shows us the ruler knelt. People have knelt before people but it isn't worship.

OK...which one is correct? You've showed that they are different. Maybe the NIV is correct and the KJV is wrong!

In the footnote of my NIV, it says, 'Peter means rock'. What they want is you to associate the rock that Jesus is building His Church on with Peter. Jesus wasn't saying that. He uses a different Greek word for Peter (Petros) and the rock on which he is going to build His Church is (Petra) and Jesus is called the Petra in the Bible in I Cor. 10:4 to name one.

This has been debated on the forum many times, I'm not going to get into that again here. seebs response about Aramaic is absolutely correct.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

It always seems weird to me when people gleefully point out all the differences between the KJV and translations that were based on a much, much, larger set of source documents and access to better information about the source languages.

I mean, if I'm shown two things, one done by a bunch of medieval researchers with limited access to source documents available in one country, and one done by a group of modern researchers with much greater access to source documents from around the world, and they're different, I'm not gonna believe the *old* one is right.

 

[Jephunneh]

Matt. 6:33--
"33.But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." NIV
"33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." KJV

Who's kingdom? his, who else's. Isn't 'kingdom of God' clearer as the KJV puts it?

Matt. 9:13--
"13.... I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."NIV
"13.... I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." KJV

Why is "to repentance' left out? It is probably not important, he just came to call sinners to supper or something. Luke 13:3.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jephunneh
Matt. 6:33--
"33.But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." NIV
"33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." KJV

Who's kingdom? his, who else's. Isn't 'kingdom of God' clearer as the KJV puts it?

It may be *clearer* - but it may not be what the original text says!

I don't think we should second-guess God by replacing pronouns with what *we* think they referred to.

Matt. 9:13--
"13.... I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."NIV
"13.... I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." KJV

Why is "to repentance' left out? It is probably not important, he just came to call sinners to supper or something. Luke 13:3.

Well, of course, whenever what Jesus said was ambiguous, we should alter our records so as to make it clear that He said exactly what we think He meant, rather than leaving the ambiguity. To do otherwise would be to imply that Christ's words were correct as He spoke them, and down that path, you find yourself trusting God, not a book, and where are you then?