• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The New Versions

Status
Not open for further replies.

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
The New Versions of the Bible are based primarily upon two manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The notations in the NIV (NewInternationalVersion) usually refer to these two manuscripts as being correct or more authoritative.
These two documents were pivotal in the creation of the Revised Version of 1881. The Revised Version of 1881 is the mother of all new versions.
The Aleph and B manuscripts (Aleph/Sinaiticus and B/Vaticanus) are considered by many modern scholars to be older than the Textus Receptus. These two manuscripts delete many words, sentences, and even paragraphs from the New Testament. The assertion that these omissions are correct and that the Textus Receptus is wrong is flatly contradicted by the many quotations of the offending and removed portions of scripture in the Aleph & B. The letters of the early church fathers, sent one to another, show that they accepted those portions of scripture as Canon. (Take for example the last paragraph of Marks Gospel)
The Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14.
The Sinaiticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7. The Sinaiticus is a wreck. On it are the corrections of as many as ten ancient scholars. This probably explains why it was found in a trash can, in an abandoned room of the monastery at Mt Sinai.
The Two men who popularized the Aleph and B are Westcott and Hort. These two men had a dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881. These men were not Born-Again, Bible believing Christians;
Westcott believed in Mary worship but did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven. He was a communist by nature. Twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.
Hort believed in the Roman Catholic sacraments, while rejecting the infallibility of Scripture. He was very interested in the works of Charles Darwin, and rejected Biblical creation. He also believed that prayers for the dead in purgatory were efficacious. He rejected the doctrine of Hell.
Several scholars have collected the letters of these men, and they reveal that both Wescott & Hort became involved in the spiritualism of their day- that is they held seances to communicate with the dead.
A great man of the Bible in those days was Dean Burgon, who wrote extensively about the Revised Version, revealed to the readers of his day that the Revision Committee for the Revised Version had not released to the public the the texts of the Aleph & B manuscripts until a few days before the Revised Version came out. Dean Burgon wrote extensively on the topic of the Aleph & B manuscripts, and much of what he wrote is found in a book by Les Garrett, Which Bible Can We Trust?
The New International Version (NIV) , the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) stand in opposition to the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV) and the Amplified Bible. This is because of three (primarily two) documents that became popularized around the time of Darwin, in the mid to late 1800s.
Two texts, known as the Aleph (codex alexandria) and B (codex vaticanus),both show signs of the influence of gnostic heresies prevalent in the area of Alexandria, Egypt. It is thought that these two texts came from there.
One was found discarded in an ancient and unused room of a monastery.
Based upon the idea that these two texts were older than others,
the men who promoted them and their own careers began using
the penknife of Jehudi (Jer 36:23) to remove 64,098 words!
Many words have been changed, some catastrophically.
Isaiah 14:12
KJV
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
How tragic to call Lucifer the morning star,
because that is a title Jesus calls himself
Rev 22:16
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. (KJV)
This is just one of thousands of examples...
 

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
lets see...
i'm learning hebrew,
(though most of the issues are GREEK to me)
and i've read 500 pages by the infamous gail ripplinger
and i read her arch enemy james white
(who never addressed the issue of the
sinaticus and vaticanus
and used his book as a vehicle
to personally attack gail
i would agree that gail's retoric runs high
but attacking the messenger?)
then there is the great work of dean burgon
who was around when the RSV first came out
and in the next generation was philip mauro
and then there is the little book by my friend chick salliby
and most recently In The Beginning by Alister McGrath
it is a history of the geneva and kjv
what have you read?
was it a tv show by ankerberg or a paragraph by josh mcdowell?
dont get me wrong - i love those guys
but even john macarther is human
i make mistakes too
but you havn't convinced me on this one.
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
45
Southern California
✟34,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Don't assume that those who hold an opposing view are ignorant, tov, you will get burnt. The litteral meaning of Lucifer is morning star, or light bringer. This is specifically because he imitates an angel of God.
 
Upvote 0

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
I say this is not a KJV only issue
it is about getting informed on the
vaticanus & sinaticus
wescott & hort
Someone said, “It puzzles me that people would defend the KJV or the Textus Receptus when those were based on later manuscripts rather than earlier ones”

I reply; the gilgamesh epic is engraved on stone- it is ancient- it is perhaps 3-4000 years old- it is a babylonian flood story- similar to noah’s flood but pagan. Based on the older is better logic... we could through out Noah’s flood and replace it w/the gilgamesh epic... now what about the sinaticus and vaticanus? The sinaticus has so many write overs that it appears to be the work of a novice that begged to be allowed in the transcription room. Then his work had to be corrected and corrected again. What if you sinaticus removed a thousand words from the NT... word that early letters of the first 3 centuries, show were accepted canon? would you like this document to hold sway and authority over the vast majority of evidence? Its like the testimony of one drunk over ruling the testimony of a dozen sober witnesses- and which do we choose?
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
45
Southern California
✟34,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
First you bash the original translators for haveing un-orthodox beliefs, then you go and say that the flood story is based off a pagan myth? :(

My dear sir, be careful what you say when you are trying to make an arguement.


Now please present to me the errancy in the NIV, that leads you to believe it should not be used. I have already corrected your erronious information about Lucifer, so now present something other than the sins of the authors. If we were to judge what to use based off of the lives of the authors, we'd have to through out Proverbs, The Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes. You also know that King James was most likely gay, right?
 
Upvote 0

Foundthelight

St. Peter's R.C. Church, Delhi, NY
Site Supporter
Mar 5, 2003
2,693
266
70
Central New York
Visit site
✟49,228.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I only have a problem with new versions which try to be gender neutral and which water down the real danger of judgment. Todays NIV anyone?.


I also have a problem with ordained ministers of the word who refer to the "Creation Myth"
 
Upvote 0

Fiskare

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2003
1,004
39
Visit site
✟1,369.00
Faith
Christian
a) Riplinger deserves all the flak she gets- she ripped off people I know and knowingly lied in her most popular book.

b) Textual issues will always plague us, but as long as we don't buy the Jack Chick thinking that certain texts are "Satanic" and the like we will do better than the sensationalists.

c) In seminary, at least where I attended, we consulted all the available texts, and did the best with what was available. I personally preferred the Textus Receptus, but also knew that a well-rounded and complete basis of study requires the consultation of other texts as well.

d) Modern Bible translationas are not really about making a more clear Word for available for everyone- they're a business and some of the junk that is getting published as "scripture" these days should be shunned by the Christian community to let them know that we don't need any more ludicrous versions of the Bible or study Bibles for our pets etc.
 
Upvote 0

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
I said, “Based on the older is better logic... we could through out Noah’s flood and replace it w/the gilgamesh epic...”

then Lotar said, “you go and say that the flood story is based off a pagan myth?”

Mr Lotar, i think you dont get my retoric.
I believe the textus receptus 100%
The Geneva was a good textus receptus version
So is the KJV. The NIV leans towards the minority manuscripts
“Based on the older is better logic”
so i said,“Based on the older is better logic... we could through out Noah’s flood and replace it w/the gilgamesh epic...”

Mr Fiskare said, “I personally preferred the Textus Receptus “
He also said, “Modern Bible translationas are not really about making a more clear Word for available for everyone- they're a business “

Thankyou Mr. Fiskare.

Indeed big profits in the NIV
I understand Zondervan has been bought out by a secular publisher. Is that true?
 
Upvote 0

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
In almost all of the new versions some verses are entirely or partially left out. Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are examples. Whole passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are omitted or brought into serious doubt in foot-notes(more on this).
Holy is omitted in Matthew 25:31; 2 Peter 1:21; Revelation 22:6.
Clear evidence that the Lord Jesus received worship is eliminated in Matthew 18:26, 20:20. In Acts 17:29, Godhead may be changed to Divine Nature.. Words such as hell, repent and damnation are replaced with weaker, less definitive words.

Entire Verses Frequently Omitted from Modern Bible Versions
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14;
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28;
Luke 17: 36, 23:17;
John 5:4;
Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29;
Romans 16:24;

Partial Verses Frequently Omitted from Modern Bible Versions
Matthew 6:13
Mark 6:11, 10:21
Luke 1:28, 4:4, 4:8
John 1:27, 3:13, 3:15
Acts 10:6, 15:18, 20:24
1 Corinthians 6:20, 11:24
Revelation 1:11, 5:14, 14:5

Some of the new versions remove 64,000 words from the Bible.
This is like ripping out a third of your NT.
Many people like the elimination if words such as hath.
Have you ever considered that the langauge of the KJV
has a plural and singular word for you (thou & thee)
while the modrn versions only have “you”?

Charles H. Spurgeon wrote this;
“For our own part, we are always grateful for good marginal readings; but we are less and less disposed to countenance any tampering with the text. The older we grow the more conservative we become. We have had ten thousand messages from God to our soul in the very words of our English (King James Version) Bible; and we have prayed over and preached about the precepts and promises it enshrines, till we feel a vested interest in the volume as it is.”
—The Sword and the Trowel, 1884
Charles H. Spurgeon wrote this;
Our Authorized Version, which will never be bettered, as I judge, till Christ shall come.
—C.H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, 1900

Now let’s consider those questionable verses at the end of the Gospel according to Mark;
The first thing to note is that during the first three centuries in the letters of the church fathers to one another we can find them quoting from each of the disparaged verses. Furthermore an amazing heptadic structure.
 
Upvote 0

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
The First 8 Verses contain; Words 126 (7 x 18),
those words which begin with a vowel; 42 (7 x 6),
those worde which begin with consonant 84 (7 x 12).

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark contains 175 words (7 x 25)
And uses a Vocabularyof 98 words (7 x14)
There are 553 Letters (7 x 79)
There are Vowels; 294 (7 x 42)
There are Consonants; 259 (7 x 37)
Words used Only here 14 (7 x 2)
The first word has a numeric value of 98 (7 x 14)
The Middle word has a numeric value of 4,529 (7 x 647)
The Last word 791 (7x 113)

Parts of Speech:
Non-nouns 77 (7 x 11)
Nouns 21 (7 x 3)
Begin with a vowel, 7 (7 x 1)
Begin with a consonant, 14 (7 x 2)

Chuck Missler has this to say about the heptadic attributes;
“Do you think that a clever scribe could have composed these on his own?
The passage in question has over 34 heptadic features,2 which would
seem to make their inclusion by human manual methods seem a bit
difficult: Only one number in seven is a multiple of seven; the chance for any
number being a multiple of seven is only one in seven. The chance that
any two numbers both are a multiple of seven is only one in 7 x 7, or 49;
increasing sevenfold for every additional number.
734 = 54,116,956,037,952,111,668,959,660,849.
One million supercomputers, composing 400 million drafts per second,
would require over 4 million years to complete that number!
The fingerprint of the Designer? A trademark of the artisan? This
heptadic attribute seems to operate as an automatic security monitor—
...As one who is familiar with the style of an artist, composer, sculptor, etc.,
and readily recognizes a work he has not seen before, the imprint is
unmistakable.” -Chuck Missler
 
Upvote 0

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
Entire Verses Omitted from NIV

Matt 17:21
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
---well wouldn’t the devil love to stiffle the POWER ---
---that accompanies prayer and fasting?---

Matt 18:11 (One of my favorite verses!!!)
“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”

Matt 23:14
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” ---How interesting this deletion is... since Jesus pronounces woe to the SCRIBES!!!---

Mark 7:16,
“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear” ---another one of my favorite verses!!!

Mark 9:44,
“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” ---none of this kinda preach’n in my church on no sireee-

Mark 11:26,
“But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”--- drop this verse and keep greasy grace?


Mark 15:28;
“And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”--- omit this verse and say goodbye to those pesky prophecy buffs.

Luke 17: 36
“Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
drop this verse and say goodbye to all those
pesky fans of the LEFT BEHIND BOOKS
 
Upvote 0

tov

Active Member
Sep 16, 2003
134
5
Cape Cod
Visit site
✟304.00
Faith
Christian
More NIV Omitions
Entire Verses Frequently Omitted from NIV

John 5:4
“For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool,
and troubled the water: whosoever then first after
the troubling of the water stepped in was made
whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
---dump this and you don’t have to worry about those
---unexplainable miracles in your secessionist church
---and those angels are just fairy tales---right?
---your loss---

Acts 8:37
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
---If thou believest with all thine heart---
-----------------------wow--------------------------
Romans 16:24
“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”
--- How tragic to remove this awesome benediction.---

Charles H. Spurgeon wrote this;
Our Authorized Version, which will never be bettered, as I judge, till Christ shall come.
—C.H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, 1900
 
Upvote 0

ZiSunka

It means 'yellow dog'
Jan 16, 2002
17,006
284
✟46,267.00
Faith
Christian
Lotar said:
Just another translation. Morning star, light bringer, light bearer, are all viable translations
No, it literally and properly means "light bearer." Luc- is from lux, which means "light" and -ifer means "bearer," like a conifer is a cone-bearing plant.

It doesn't mean morning star as much as it means light-bearer and whoever told you it does, doesn't know what they are talking about.
 
Upvote 0

Fiskare

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2003
1,004
39
Visit site
✟1,369.00
Faith
Christian
lambslove said:
No, it literally and properly means "light bearer." Luc- is from lux, which means "light" and -ifer means "bearer," like a conifer is a cone-bearing plant.

It doesn't mean morning star as much as it means light-bearer and whoever told you it does, doesn't know what they are talking about.
Pity the Hebrew word "heylel" means something more akin to "morning star", and not much like "light bearer" eh?

The idea of having a Bible translation is that you get should use the most accurate words suitable for the meaning of the original language. In this case, it is not "Lucifer", so what the word "lucifer" means is a moot point- we should look to what the word "heylel" means, simply because that's the word in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
45
Southern California
✟34,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Texts Consulted:

Masoretic Text, The Dead Sea Scrolls, th Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Targums, the Juxta Hebraica.


Some verses and parts of verses are ommitted in many early texts. So you don't think I'm using a bias source I'll quote an example from the footnotes of a KJV.
John 5:4 The statement in the latter half of v3 along with v4 are not original to the gospel. The earliest and best Greek manuscipts, as well as early versions, exclude the reading. The presence of words or expressions unfamiliar to John's writings also militate against its inclusion.

Now, in any version of the NIV will ommitt verses or parts of verses like this, but contain a footnote giving the alternate translation.


Now, as to the language of the KJV being more accuratly translated is debatable. But it is beside the point. The purpose of a translation is to make it so we can read it. Most people have trouble reading and understanding Shakespearean English.

Personally I prefer the NKJV, but I have a copy of the NIV as well.


As for attacks on the origonal translators, the NIV has been re-translated in 1967 by many scolars from these denominations:
Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Weslyan, and other churches.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.