The controversial new version of the NIV Bible.

[radhead]

That's fine. You can mention any translation in this thread.

 

[Sketcher]

We disagree in regards to where the bible came from. I mean the church had good reason to make a cannon that was accepted as the Bible, the book to base the faith on. Without that, you'd/we'd never have a Bible.

They canonized the books that they had been using since the first century that fit and that had apostolic authorship. That's how we got the Bible as we know it today.

I agree with you though about the money thing. That's why I'd love to see the church take back what was theirs to begin with, whether it be by a gift from God or something they started themselves. I mean I'm sympathetic to the people having the ability to translate the Bible but at the same time, this is an entirely different issue because it is such an ancient faith.

Without a central human authority for the universal church, I don't see this happening. If a denomination just puts one out, it won't be received very well outside that denomination.

 

[Im_A]

They canonized the books that they had been using since the first century that fit and that had apostolic authorship. That's how we got the Bible as we know it today.

I know that already.

Without a central human authority for the universal church, I don't see this happening. If a denomination just puts one out, it won't be received very well outside that denomination.

That's the problem in my opinion and I agree with you as well. The church today has quite a feat for people. Proving the faith to be real and proving why they have the best interpretation of the scriptures.

I mean for someone like me, a non-believer, the Bible versions that the church that when I go to has accepted to be used in liturgy and for studies, is EXTREMELY important. That version in essence becomes the vital tool to be understand the ancient faith. So there better be good reasons. If some church just tells me, "Its because they believe is acceptable" with no real good, convincing reason involving the translation history of the Bible etc. them explaining their reasons will eventually mean nothing to me.

 

[Tink]

Semiblind post.

I go with no.

 

[Stravinsk]

1st, this is not a theological argument, it's an argument from emotion. Biblical scholarship should be objective, not based on how we feel about it but on the truth.

2nd, Isaiah 14 isn't talking about Satan or Jesus, it's talking about the King of Babylon. Verse 12 is part of a taunt that the people would say about the fallen king of Babylon.

Tamara, anyone who reads this knows it's *immediate context is about the King of Babylon. Now the most curious question is this - did Babylon exist at the time of the writing of Revelation? Babylon has it's origins in Babel, a city built on *Pride which God condemned. It is a regular feature from near the very beginning of the bible all the way through to the End Times described in Revelation. The prose this is written in suggests the *spirit behind the King of Babylon.

How can he have "fallen from heaven"?
How exactly does he intend to "exalt his throne above the stars of God"?
How will he "ascend above the heights of the clouds" and "make himself like the Most High"?

If the judgement that happens in Isaiah 14:15+ ...refers only to the person of the King of Babylon at the time of writing, and is limited to that, then why is Babylon still being written about in Revelation? What happened?

The obvious conclusion is that "Babylon", spiritual Babylon, has not yet been destroyed. According to Revelation chapters 17 and 18, it will not be destroyed until the Second Comming of Jesus Christ.

3rd, in the original Hebrew, Isaiah 14:12 contains the word "heylel" which means "morning star".

לֵלי ה
Does *not* mean "morning star". Neither the Hebrew word for "star" nor "morning" is used nor even partly comprises the word translated "Lucifer" in the KJV. ​

4th, the word "lucifer" (which appears in the KJV but not the original Hebrew) also means "morning star". It is a word of Latin origin which once upon a time referred to the planet Venus (the morning star). In the Vulgate (the Latin Bible) the word "lucifer" replaced the word "heylel" because it was the Latin translation of that word (both referred to the morning star).

The Latin term "Lucifer" also does not mean "morning star". The literal translation is : "bringer(or bearer) of light" or "shining one".

Etymology:

Lux,Lucis: Light

Fero: Verb - "to bear" "to carry"

Thus: "Bearer of light" or "Shining one"

This not only fits with Satan being described as an "angel of light" in the NT, but also passages such as this:


Ezekiel 28:13-17 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

This passage is about the king of Tyrus (vrs 12). Shall we myopically confine it to this meaning? Is the King of Tyrus a cherub? Bright? Beautiful? Was the King of Tyrus in Eden at some point?

The fact that a star brings light or shines does not justify it's replacement in the text. The sun brings light and shines, and so does my flashlight - but neither are they suitable substitutions simply because they are specific nouns that have these properties.

By the way, the word translated "Brightness" in this passage (translated "splendor" in NIV) is also the exact same Hebrew word used here:

2 Samuel 22:13
2 Samuel 23:4
Psalm 18:13

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The argument that the NIV conflates Satan and Jesus by calling Satan the "morning star" is without merit. It is also very funny because it means people don't understand that when they call Satan by the name "Lucifer" they are (unknowingly) calling him the morning star. They ignorantly defeat their own argument.

It's completely with merit. And I don't think understanding or misunderstanding of such a passage is funny at all. In any case, I'm not laughing at *YOU*, Tamara.

 

[Stravinsk]

The KJV is not translated from the best manuscripts. The KJV isn't modern English. If you don't know the real arguments against the KJV (arguments based on textual criticism), then it is obvious you have not actually studied this issue.

The underlined is completely a matter of opinion.

The KJV is not without errors, but in my comparisons of the translation as a whole to Stephenus Textus Receptus (1550) it is far more accurate overall than the NIV.

Young's Literal Translation is even better.

 

[Berean1]

I think it's utterly stupid. I'm a woman, and I know that when the Bible says "sons of God", it's not insulting me because I'm female. And I don't need it to say "God created human beings" because God created MAN first, THEN woman. And I'm OKAY with that!

PC idiots.

A "son of God", is neither male, nor female.
Mark 12:23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
It doesn't say we will be angels...but that we will be like them.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 ¶Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (This is referring to the resurrected and glorified body of Christ, now.)
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Hope that clears up some frustration.

 

[Trashionista]

I don't see the point, personally. I'm not exactly offended. It isn't as shocking as I thought it would be until I actually read the article - I was expecting to hear we'd start to hear God referred to in the feminine pronoun, or something - but this just seems like a waste of time.

These people probably who are pushing for this gender neutrality don't strike me as the type who'd be offended by seeing "Man and ape have a common ancestor", so I don't see why "God created Man", is so offensive.

 

[Im_A]

I don't see the point, personally. I'm not exactly offended. It isn't as shocking as I thought it would be until I actually read the article - I was expecting to hear we'd start to hear God referred to in the feminine pronoun, or something - but this just seems like a waste of time.

These people probably who are pushing for this gender neutrality don't strike me as the type who'd be offended by seeing "Man and ape have a common ancestor", so I don't see why "God created Man", is so offensive.

Exactly. I mean the writers of the Bible didn't see the way we see things with gender nowadays in so many areas, so I'd rather hear what the prophets and apostles, or at least the closest that we can know, wrote instead of having yet another translation that seems nothing but hell-bent(that has nothing to do with going to hell btw) on semantics.

 

[welshman]

True enough Like I said, some people take the KJV only standpoint too far. Personally I don't use any other version and wouldn't recommend anyone else does either. However, it isn't a salvation issue or anything like that in my opinion. There are a couple of words that needed to be translated that the committee couldn't have possibly known about if you look into it (one of my deacons explained it to me once). I still believe it's the best translation though.

The manuscripts debate again is interesting. Just for the point of the post I'd say that just because "newer" manuscripts have been found doesn't automatically make them better. I think that there were at least 30,000 changes from the KJV to the NIV and other new versions (I think that was the figure off the top of my head).

There are a ton of changes and ommisions that I have serious problems with. If you go to avpublications.com you can download some good charts which compare these changes to see for yourself.

The NKJV for example:

NKJV omits the word “Lord” 66 times.
NKJV omits the word “God” 51 times.
NKJV omits the word “heaven” 50 times.
NKJV omits the word “repent” 44 times.
NKJV omits the word “blood” 23 times.
NKJV omits the word “hell” 22 times.​

NKJV omits the word “JEHOVAH” entirely.
Just crazy stuff like that.

Another good chart to compare newer versions and changes to doctrine, omissions etc etc is at http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/comparisons.htm


Most people don't know why the "thou this..." and "ye shalt..." are used in the Bible. I don't think that this is good enough of a reason to use something else though.

If you really trust the Bible enough to be God's Word; you are placing your eternal security on the line in believing in Christ and that He died for you like it says. That being the case, it just seems almost lazy to me that someone then; can't be bothered to look up what those unfamiliar "old fashioned" words mean once they look into it, or simply because "it's easier". Shouldn't we try and raise our understanding up to God's Word, not bring God's Word down to us? Just a thought. I'm not trying to be pretentious or anything as I'm hardly an "academic" myself.

Just my 2 pence and all that. I'm not knocking anyone who uses another Bible. You're no less of a Christian or anything stupid like that. I just think the KJV is more reliable.

This would be one of the better arguments in favor of the KJV that I've seen. Unfortunately, it misses the point.

While KJV English made a distinction between plural and singular "you" - very, very few people understand that distinction now. So the distinction is lost on the majority of readers anyway. Since we don't speak the same language today that was spoken back then, few readers understand its nuances. There is no point in retaining the archaic language if no one understands it anyway. It's sad that the English language has lost some of its precision and that the "common man" no longer speaks or understands ye olde English. But it is reality, nonetheless.

Plus, context supplies the missing information. One can tell from the surrounding context whether you is plural or singular.

There are plenty of examples of the modern translations doing a better job of translating a thought or a word than the KJV did. It is too often the case that KJV-only advocates only look at this from one direction: they fail to tally the times the KJV actually mistranslated.

As I said before, the purpose of translating the Bible is to make it available to the common man by putting it in the common language (vernacular). No translation is ever perfect. They each have their pluses and minuses. That is because it is not possible to translate from one language to another with 100% perfection. It is the nature of language.

 

[radhead]

If you really trust the Bible enough to be God's Word; you are placing your eternal security on the line in believing in Christ and that He died for you like it says. That being the case, it just seems almost lazy to me that someone then; can't be bothered to look up what those unfamiliar "old fashioned" words mean once they look into it, or simply because "it's easier". Shouldn't we try and raise our understanding up to God's Word, not bring God's Word down to us? Just a thought. I'm not trying to be pretentious or anything as I'm hardly an "academic" myself.

You seem to be saying that the language used in King James is more holy or something. If anything, it's lost it's accuracy due to changes in the English language over time.

You might as well say that everyone should learn the original Hebrew and Greek and that no English translations should be used at all. That would be the best way to truly raise our understanding, wouldn't it?

By creating newer, more accurate translations, I think we are really raising God's Word above the KJV.

 

[Stravinsk]

You seem to be saying that the language used in King James is more holy or something. If anything, it's lost it's accuracy due to changes in the English language over time.

You might as well say that everyone should learn the original Hebrew and Greek and that no English translations should be used at all. That would be the best way to truly raise our understanding, wouldn't it?

By creating newer, more accurate translations, I think we are really raising God's Word above the KJV.

If only this were true, and no other motivations crept in...

Yes, it would

I am of the view that every single translation we have contains mistakes, or willful, man-made changes. Even the KJV. It just happens that the KJV has a few less of them, and doesn't change or omit verses as much. That is why I prefer to use it. If there is a passage in question, I will consult the Greek/Hebrew and do a word study/analysis. This has resulted in a great deal of edification especially when I do so prayerfully.

KJV Ezekiel 43:10 ¶ Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.​

 

[Apollo Celestio]

True enough Like I said, some people take the KJV only standpoint too far. Personally I don't use any other version and wouldn't recommend anyone else does either. However, it isn't a salvation issue or anything like that in my opinion. There are a couple of words that needed to be translated that the committee couldn't have possibly known about if you look into it (one of my deacons explained it to me once). I still believe it's the best translation though.

The manuscripts debate again is interesting. Just for the point of the post I'd say that just because "newer" manuscripts have been found doesn't automatically make them better. I think that there were at least 30,000 changes from the KJV to the NIV and other new versions (I think that was the figure off the top of my head).

There are a ton of changes and ommisions that I have serious problems with. If you go to avpublications.com you can download some good charts which compare these changes to see for yourself.

The NKJV for example:

NKJV omits the word “Lord” 66 times.
NKJV omits the word “God” 51 times.
NKJV omits the word “heaven” 50 times.
NKJV omits the word “repent” 44 times.
NKJV omits the word “blood” 23 times.
NKJV omits the word “hell” 22 times.​

NKJV omits the word “JEHOVAH” entirely.
Just crazy stuff like that.

Another good chart to compare newer versions and changes to doctrine, omissions etc etc is at TABLES OF COMPARISON OF SELECTED SCRIPTURES AFFECTING FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH!


Most people don't know why the "thou this..." and "ye shalt..." are used in the Bible. I don't think that this is good enough of a reason to use something else though.

If you really trust the Bible enough to be God's Word; you are placing your eternal security on the line in believing in Christ and that He died for you like it says. That being the case, it just seems almost lazy to me that someone then; can't be bothered to look up what those unfamiliar "old fashioned" words mean once they look into it, or simply because "it's easier". Shouldn't we try and raise our understanding up to God's Word, not bring God's Word down to us? Just a thought. I'm not trying to be pretentious or anything as I'm hardly an "academic" myself.

Just my 2 pence and all that. I'm not knocking anyone who uses another Bible. You're no less of a Christian or anything stupid like that. I just think the KJV is more reliable.

Bringing God's word down to us is exactly what God did and that is what missionaries do. The gospel is preached, and we have no reason to hold it above anyone's head.

On the matter as a whole: It does not interest me. NIV is the pew bible at my church, and I have been informed that it is actually owned by non Christians.

 

[Luther073082]

You seem to be saying that the language used in King James is more holy or something. If anything, it's lost it's accuracy due to changes in the English language over time.

You might as well say that everyone should learn the original Hebrew and Greek and that no English translations should be used at all. That would be the best way to truly raise our understanding, wouldn't it?

By creating newer, more accurate translations, I think we are really raising God's Word above the KJV.

If only we had the time and resources in most churchs. . .

Religious Jews learn to read hebrew.

 

[crishmael]

You seem to be saying that the language used in King James is more holy or something. If anything, it's lost it's accuracy due to changes in the English language over time.

You might as well say that everyone should learn the original Hebrew and Greek and that no English translations should be used at all. That would be the best way to truly raise our understanding, wouldn't it?

By creating newer, more accurate translations, I think we are really raising God's Word above the KJV.

Perhaps we should. It's a shame that so many people have access to the Bible in their godless and unexalted tongues. Perhaps God would be more willing to work in their churches if they would just stop offending his ears with their error-ridden doggerel.

*so no one freaks, this is a joke*