brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
248,786
114,476
✟1,339,865.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

frienden thalord

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2017
1,958
1,731
52
texas
✟59,367.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, people hate the truth.
IT took me a second glance but amen. THAT SORRY wicked interfaith coexist all roads lead religion
will lead the world to the dark king soon.
HAPPY to see you KNOW ONLY GOD , ONLY CHRIST saves. I noticed your emblem.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LadyCrosstalk
Upvote 0

LadyCrosstalk

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2006
465
258
✟30,242.00
Faith
Christian
My NRSV has all those verses that the KJV added to the original manuscripts in the footnotes. Some KJV translations put these verses in parentheses to show that they weren't found in the earliest manuscripts.

It's not that the verses are missing from the NIV, but that they were added to the KJV.


Not necessarily. The source material was different for the KJV than the modern translations. The KJV used the "Textus Receptus" which was a compilation of over 1000 ancient manuscripts. The modern translations only use the oldest manuscripts (which are quite few in number). No one has yet proved that older is necessarily better than a wide variety of manuscripts.

That having been said, there is not enough difference between any of the translations to warrant all the controversy. I use many, the New Living Translation for its narrative flow and easy-to-understand epistles (it is the best one for kids); the New American Standard for studying a passage in the N.T. (my Greek Cypriot friend, who reads the N.T. in the Koine Greek, says the NAS is the most like the Greek); the older NIV (1985, I think) for the Old Testament (my Jewish Christian friend read the Tanakh in Hebrew and she said that the NIV was the closest to the Hebrew--she hated the new NIV, by the way); we use the ESV in our church as something of a compromise on all the different criteria; and yes, I use the KJV for memorizing a passage because it is the easiest to memorize.

The Bible you will use daily is the best translation.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not necessarily. The source material was different for the KJV than the modern translations. The KJV used the "Textus Receptus" which was a compilation of over 1000 ancient manuscripts. The modern translations only use the oldest manuscripts (which are quite few in number). No one has yet proved that older is necessarily better than a wide variety of manuscripts.

That having been said, there is not enough difference between any of the translations to warrant all the controversy. I use many, the New Living Translation for its narrative flow and easy-to-understand epistles (it is the best one for kids); the New American Standard for studying a passage in the N.T. (my Greek Cypriot friend, who reads the N.T. in the Koine Greek, says the NAS is the most like the Greek); the older NIV (1985, I think) for the Old Testament (my Jewish Christian friend read the Tanakh in Hebrew and she said that the NIV was the closest to the Hebrew--she hated the new NIV, by the way); we use the ESV in our church as something of a compromise on all the different criteria; and yes, I use the KJV for memorizing a passage because it is the easiest to memorize.

The Bible you will use daily is the best translation.
You are right in that you say not "necessarily" and that they use different manuscripts. In fact the NIV (84...the 2011 is corrupted with man's additions and gender neutral language) uses the oldest manuscripts...Alexandrian mss. But the NIV 84 is also eclectic in that it uses all available mss in determining a final rendering of the text.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only if it quite accurate or you are filling yourself up with corrupted text. It seems accuracy is quite important as Jesus said the following...
Matthew 4:4:
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Your conclusion is false. NIV is a translation; it is not an interpretation...KJV, which is a good translation, goes further as an interpretation than does NIV.
The word for word translations "sound" great, but not so very. Language is not taken in that way so the renderings of one of those direct, word for word translations is easily misunderstood.
A word-for-word is what a person should want for a 'dynamic' translation, as the NIV has biases added to it and therefore is NOT God's word.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A word-for-word is what a person should want for a 'dynamic' translation, as the NIV has biases added to it and therefore is NOT God's word.
Which version of the NIV? not the 84...it is the KJV which when compared with the new (oldest) Alexandrian mss that has a lot of additions.
Word for word sounds good, but not so much when working with languages which do not translate sensibly that way.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Which version of the NIV? not the 84...it is the KJV which when compared with the new (oldest) Alexandrian mss that has a lot of additions.
Word for word sounds good, but not so much when working with languages which do not translate sensibly that way.
I understand that word-for word translation from the Hebrew/Greek to English can leave the English reading choppy and cause some problems with idioms of the original language. These are, in my opinion, minor issues that can be overcome. My issue with the NIV is not about choppy language or not identifying an idiom but its blatant attempt to change doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand that word-for word translation from the Hebrew/Greek to English can leave the English reading choppy and cause some problems with idioms of the original language. These are, in my opinion, minor issues that can be overcome. My issue with the NIV is not about choppy language or not identifying an idiom but its blatant attempt to change doctrine.
Again, which year of the NIV? The NIV 1984 is a superb rendering in my view. The 2011 NIV brought major changes and I feel it is not an acceptible version to use...by anyone.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Again, which year of the NIV? The NIV 1984 is a superb rendering in my view. The 2011 NIV brought major changes and I feel it is not an acceptible version to use...by anyone.


Does the 1984 version pervert John 3:16 this way "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The word for word translations "sound" great, but not so very. Language is not taken in that way so the renderings of one of those direct, word for word translations is easily misunderstood.

I have examined a word for word translation that preserves the exact same word order. A great deal of it was incomprehensible.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does the 1984 version pervert John 3:16 this way "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."?
I am on the run now and will get back with you further if you wish, but the KJV had many, many additions and interpretive language as it passed through versions and years. When the oldest...believed oldest...manuscripts were discovered in recent years which enabled a direct comparison and language appears to have been added.
No "begotten" in John 3:16...we are not fooled though, or shouldn't be, if Jesus is God's son and we are also given the details of the conception, visit of angel messengers, etc. and the words "God With Us" ...meaning of His name.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I am on the run now and will get back with you further if you wish, but the KJV had many, many additions and interpretive language as it passed through versions and years. When the oldest...believed oldest...manuscripts were discovered in recent years which enabled a direct comparison and language appears to have been added.
No "begotten" in John 3:16...we are not fooled though, or shouldn't be, if Jesus is God's son and we are also given the details of the conception, visit of angel messengers, etc. and the words "God With Us" ...meaning of His name.

Not having "begotten" is an affront to the deity of Christ.

monogenēs

mono = one/only
genes = begotten

No valid, sound reason for leaving it out.

Also changing "should" KJV (subjunctive mood) to "shall" NIV (indicative mood). Why this change?
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not having "begotten" is an affront to the deity of Christ.

monogenēs

mono = one/only
genes = begotten

No valid, sound reason for leaving it out.

Also changing "should" KJV (subjunctive mood) to "shall" NIV (indicative mood). Why this change?
The changes arise from using the Alexandrian mss for NIV; KJV uses the Textus Receptus mss...they differ. The idea behind using the Alexandrian is that they were newly discovered and are believed older than the Textus Receptus and the belief that they are less tainted with additions made for understandability for the reader...none the less, they are additions/interpretations and not pure Scripture. NIV is eclectic in that all mss groups were used to render the text...rendering them from the Alexandrian and in light of the Majority Text.
Also, differences between mss are noted via footnote.
Nothings is perfect.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The changes arise from using the Alexandrian mss for NIV; KJV uses the Textus Receptus mss...they differ. The idea behind using the Alexandrian is that they were newly discovered and are believed older than the Textus Receptus and the belief that they are less tainted with additions made for understandability for the reader...none the less, they are additions/interpretations and not pure Scripture. NIV is eclectic in that all mss groups were used to render the text...rendering them from the Alexandrian and in light of the Majority Text.
Also, differences between mss are noted via footnote.
Nothings is perfect.
The reason the NIV left out 'begotten' was because it used corrupted flaw text tampered with by Gnostics. If the NIV was willing to tamper with something as important as the deity of Christ, is possible they were loose with other things? Yes it is.

Before I go further, let me post that I am not a "KJV onlyist" for I use other versions but mostly KJV. So my issue here is primarily with the NIV and not so much about any texts it was based upon but its blatant attempt to change God's doctrine.

Why was the subjunctive mood in John 3:16 changed to indicative mood?
Why was David's words perverted having him say he was born a sinner when he was not Psa 51?
Why was the Greek word sarx translated "sinful nature" when man does not have a sinful nature?
Why was Romans 10:9,10 made to read belief only saves when the bible does not teach such?
(These are a few examples of doctrinal tampering found in the NIV)

Whether the author's of the NIV used one text or another, these changes to God's word were put there on purpose because of a biased theology. The bible does not teach these thing so they took the liberty to force these man made doctrines into their (per)version. Hence we have a Non Inspired Version.

I agree with you that no version is 100% perfect, but the KJV is far more correct in its rendering of the above verses I cited when the NIV is just plain wrong.
 
Upvote 0