Take the NIV Challenge

[kern]

Is every word of God important, to God, to YOU?

It certainly is! That's why I'm glad that the modern translations have restored closer translations of God's word rather than obscuring it behind made-up terms like "sodomite".

-Chris

 

[Jesusong]

Jep,

I believe that in your zeal to defend the modern versions, you are not interested in the facts of the matter, at least not at this point. Perhaps one day a brother or sister will show you something that will blow your mind like how the NIV calls Satan Jesus in Isaiah or how Mark 1:2-3 in the NIV is wrong or how the NIV strips away some of the most important verses concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ . But then again, that would require that you listen.

Every once in a while, I find a need to repost my testimony from being a NIV user to KJV only advocate & back to NIV.

 

When I first accepted Christ as my Lord & Saviour in 1979, I bought an NIV Bible. A couple of years later after reading material from Jack Chick I went to the KJV. For 17 years I was a KJV only advocate. During that time I read books from David Otis Fuller, Peter Ruckman (even then I had a hard time w/ some of his conclusions) etc. To me it was an open & shut case. It was KJV all the way. Around 1998 I started reading books from the other side of the fence (modern versions advocates), to see if what I was reading in my pro KJV books was accurate, cause I would always read the rebuttals of these "anti KJV" books that come out, but I've never read any of the "anti KJV" books. I wasn't totally convinced of their (the pro modern versions advocates) arguments, but some of their points I could understand. I also noticed that they were not the Bible denying heretical apostates, worshipping at the feet of Wescott & Hort that some were declaring them to be. During this time I finally came across a downloadable version of "The King James Version Defended" by Edward F. Hills. I have wanted to get this book for quite a long time but was just not able to find it. When I got to the chapters dealing with manuscript evidence and the TR, he was stating things that was opposite of what I had been lead to believe, and confirming what I was reading in the books written by the modern versions advocates. By this time I was totally questioning the KJV only position. A Christian brother at work gave me a copy of Gail Riplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions" to read (This book I remember seeing in the local Christian bookstore, but never bothered to get, because at that time I had so many pro-KJV books that I felt that I didn't need another one). I read it, & couldn't believe the conclusions she was comming to. When I would read her quotes from other sources, I realized that I had some of the books she was quoting from, and when I checked them out, I found that she mis-quoted, or completely taken out of context, or even made up statements to prove her position. Even some of her Bible verse comparisons were wrong. At that moment I realized how flawed the KJV only position really was. I went out to Borders bookstore and bought an NIV Bible. I remember when I gave the Gail Riplinger book back to my friend at work and he asked me what I thought of it (he was & still is KJV only), I told him that I thought that it was the worst book I have ever seen to come out promoting the KJV only position, and because of it I went out and bought an NIV. He looked at me dumb founded , and couldn't believe that I could come to such a conclusion. So now I endorse the NIV, NASB, & KJV, etc. because they all are the Word of God. I especially endorse the NIV because it captures the spirit of what the KJV translators set out to do when they published their Bible version.

And through this God speaks to me with such freshness and clarity that every time I open the pages of this God ordained sacred book, my spirit is renewed by the awesome presense of the Lord. Praise the Name of Jesus.

 

[Jephunneh]

KJV Matt. 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost

NIVMatt. 18:11
Nothing...it's all missing...gone

KJVCol 2:18
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his flesly mind.

NIVCol 2:18
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he hath seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jephunneh
Why is it that the word "sodomite" is not in the NIV?

Because it's not in God's word. The original text says nothing about Sodom in any place where the KJV uses Sodomite. As Isaiah and Ezekiel clearly state, Sodom's sin was inhospitality. At a later time, when gang-raping strangers to show dominance was a forgotten relic of the Bronze Age, people came up with a new explanation of the Sodom story, and went around mistranslating other things as "sodomite".

If you learn a little Hebrew, you'll probably find that it's most often a translation of "qadesh", which is translated in some translations as "the unclean", and refers to temple prostitutes that cults in the area had, and which were (justifiably, I think) viewed by the Hebrews as anathema.

So, it has nothing at all to do with Sodom, and God's inspired word never said it did.

But hey, if you want to take a 12th-century urban legend as an improvement on God's inspired word, you go right ahead.

 

[Jephunneh]

King James BIBLE
If it ain’t broke...don’t fix it..
.
Repentance (Matthew 9:13)
KJV-... for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.

NIV-... for I have not come to call
the righteous, but sinners.

NASV-... For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

 

[kern]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

So why, then, does the KJV rely on manuscripts which have added to God's word in cases like this? Can't God speak for himself?

-Chris

 

[The Thadman]

Jeph, please stop posting your verse comparisons that seem to harp on pseudo-biblical material and focus on what people ask of you. They're purely irrelevant because they are not proving your point, and frankly, they're making you look bad in terms of you knowledge of textual criticism (which is something that I think isn't fair).

We're here to learn, not bash eachother over the head, and if you can take the time to actually consider other people's points and reply to them with Christian scholarship, my respect for you will soar (and I'm not kidding).

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[Jephunneh]

Here is one reason why the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible is superior
to any Greek text, or any Greek manuscripts:

And that is because it is in the universal language of the end time.
Greek, as a language, is deader than last year's bird nest.
It constitutes less than one percent of the world's spoken languages, and there is no demand for it anywhere on earth, except in Greece, and in the back rooms of dead, orthodox, conservative, Bible critics.

 

[kern]

But the "Authorized Version" is based on the Greek manuscripts! When the "Authorized Version" and the NIV (or whatever version) disagree, we must return to the Greek sources to see what the correct translation is.

Because that's what the KJV is -- a *translation*.

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17




God has used the KJV because it is His Word, which He has

providentially watched over. Even though the KJV only goes back to 1611,

nevertheless it is based upon the text and versions which preceded it.

These texts and manuscripts are the ones that Bible believers have used

down through the ages. It is a known fact that 85% to 95% of all ancient

manuscripts are in basic agreement with the KJV, but not with the modern

versions.

 

[kern]

Didn't we already go over this? The majority of manuscripts doesn't matter if they don't agree with the *oldest* manuscripts.

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.

 

[kern]

Acceptance by Bible-believing Christians doesn't matter if those Christians don't have any manuscript criticism training or experience.

But I *have* said this before -- since the majority of those manuscripts are based on a single corrupt manuscript, we must go to the older manuscripts which are the minority of the texts.

-Chris

 

[Jephunneh]

But the new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text. How can you claim that these manuscripts are better than those used by the translators of the Authorized Version?

The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted. While the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.

Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.

The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the quality of the materials used on them. They have good bindings and fine animal skin pages. Their physical appearance, contrary to their worthless texts, are really rather attractive. But then we have all heard the saying, "You can't tell a book by it's cover". The covers are beautiful but their texts are reprehensible.

And yet in spite of these well known corruptions, they are the basis for many new versions such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version rendering these versions critically flawed and unreliable.

The manuscripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of the highest quality. So we see that the best manuscripts are those used by the King James translators.

 

[filosofer]

But the new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text.

You haven't done much textual work then.

The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted. While the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.

Perhaps a little more knowledge about manuscripts and what takes place would help you not be so hasty in your evaluation.

Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.

So since the 1611 KJV had those same books, is this a criteria/basis for throwing out the KJV? Not quite

The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the quality of the materials used on them. They have good bindings and fine animal skin pages. Their physical appearance, contrary to their worthless texts

So the 98% agreement with all other manuscripts that you claim is absolutely the perfect Word of God, now you are calling that 98% "worthless"?

Note: "unreliable" is defined by you as "different than the TR" - of course - everything will be called "unreliable" if you start with that presupposition.

The manuscripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of the highest quality. So we see that the best manuscripts are those used by the King James translators.

Circular reasoning: "The most reliable manuscripts are those used by the KJV translators. All other manuscripts are different than those manuscripts. Therefore the best manuscripts are those used in translating the KJV."

I suspect that you wouldn't know a high quality manuscript if you encountered one.

 

[Jephunneh]

And the purpose of your post filosofer was to teach us what?

------------------------------------------------------
The Septuagint-

The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.


But the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.

Let's stick to our preserved Bible, the King James Bible in English, and leave the Alexandrian perversions alone.

-----------------------------------------------------------




The bottom line is this: YOU need to study the historical evidence, decide which text is exactly God's Word, and stick with it.



And it would certainly help to have the right one - the Received Text.

 

[filosofer]

Reading/pasting a quick clip doesn't indicate any kind of study.

Originally posted by Jephunneh
The Septuagint-

The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

The reason for the link to the Septuagint is that many passages in the NT (including the TR >> KJV) demonstrate that the Greek follows the Septuagint readings, not the Hebrew. That is "fact," not conjecture or prejudice.

But the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.

Too bad you fell off the historical evidence trail here. While the account of the writing of the LXX has been challenged (rightly), you then make an inferential leap about the use of the LXX. You can't dismiss the evidence that the NT follows the LXX in many palces rather than the Hebrew.

Let's stick to our preserved Bible, the King James Bible in English, and leave the Alexandrian perversions alone.

Yeah, let's forget all historical evidence, make a claim, and then repeat it often enough that people either tire of it, or think it must be true because it is repeated so often. "Let's not allow facts/evidence to get in the way of our theory."

The bottom line is this: YOU need to study the historical evidence, decide which text is exactly God's Word, and stick with it.

Well, having studied this for 20+ I can confidently stand before God knowing where the evidence leads, but not where filtered evidence is used to support a predetermined cause as in the case of the KJVO crowd.

And it would certainly help to have the right one - the Received Text.

And with that there seems to be no need for further discussion. But then, this has not been much of a dicsussion.

 

[The Thadman]

Jeph,

Your textual criticism is really lacking. Want to talk?

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[Julie]

"How do we have to have the preserved word of God TODAY if we are to believe in Biblical preservation, but you do not demand that the people in 325, 870, or 1009 have to have had it in order to believe in the same. Was not it preserved for them? And if so, in what version??"

 

 

It was preserved for them in the Old Latin (a tradition existing outside the later Vulgate line) which was translated around 150 AD from the Greek (possibly from second-generation mss). From the Old Latin came a whole host of versions which were used throughout the Middle Ages up until the time of the Reformation (Latin mss "m" and "w", Waldensian Bibles, the Tepl Codex , etc.) The Geneva Bible was a translation from the French Olivetan, which was based off this same text line. The Italian Diodati version was also based from the Waldensian Bibles, themselves based off the Old Latin of ~150 AD. These Bibles, as well as Beza's Greek, were relied upon by the KJV translators. Hence, they were using both the line originating from the Old Latin of a very early date, as well as the Textus Receptus of Beza, which were very similar to each other. This text set finds the support of roughly 90-93% of all extant Greek mss. Further, several of the early papyri demonstrate closer affinity with the Textus Receptus/Byzantine set (also basically represented in the Old Latin version and its successors, remember) than they do with the Alexandrian texts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, etc) which are supposedly the "oldest-and-best" Greek manuscripts which we have. This "oldest-and best" argument, incidentally, which Pickering puts to bed in his book, "The Identity of the New Testament Texts". There's little reason to say that there wasn't available a perfectly fine non-Vulgate textual set all throughout the Middle Ages up until the Reformation.

 

[Bsign24]

The fact of the matter is. It doesn't matter that a few lines of the original tranlation were omitted. That's going to happen when you try to translate from one language to another. The Greek language, is very complicated and it's verbage have multiple meanings and tenses to it. What the translators did was simply translted it to it's best ability so it wouldn't be too confusing to a non scholar. Remember, during Christendom the Bible was written and spoken in Latin, and it was called forbidden to translate it in the vernacular, thanks be to God to those who risk their lives to do so. Remember, the Bible(no matter what's translation it is) it's purpose was to reveal God to us and to show that Jesus Christ was his Son and the only path to salvation.