New International PerVersion

[lukecash12]

Luke,

I don't know how much reading you can tolerate but have a look at Dr. Thomas Holland's Manuscript Evidence Class here

Most authors attack the "gloss" of translations and seldom the root.
I have read this guy extensively and he has, in my opinion, the best attitude toward the translation issue of anyone I know.

He says things like; "The Bible is not inspired". At first glance this seems heretical but his explanation is superbly simple. It was the men who were inspired and the result was an inerrant text.
2Pet 1:21KJV 2Tim 3:16KJV

The only question left to be decide, then, is: Where does the original text reside? Is it destroyed and needs to be reconstructed by modern man? Or has God preserved it in all generations?

Great reference. I would say that this question was basically resolved around the end of the 19th century. We have every reason to be confident that we possess the original:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kenyon/sotb.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/skilton1.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/faulty.html

I especially recommend the third article by Michael Marlowe as it demonstrates what's going on right now. The reason that the first two articles are still perfectly valid is that this issue has remained static basically since then.

Because we have so many manuscripts to compare, which come out of independent traditions, textual criticism can be used in a very straightforward manner:

Codex Sinaiticus is often defective, omitting a large number of words. Why then is it esteemed by critics? Because it is possible to use a manuscript with discernment, making allowances for its characteristic errors. Most of the omissions in Codex Sinaiticus have occurred by reason of a common mistake of copyists called parablepsis (παράβλεψις, looking beside) due to a homoiotéleuton (ὁμοιοτέλευτον, an identical ending) of words in the immediate context. The scribe of Sinaiticus was especially prone to make this mistake. In the following passages the words crossed out are omitted in Sinaiticus.


1 Cor. 13:1-2

εαν ταις γλωσσαις των αθρωπων λαλω κ(αι) των αγγελων αγαπην δε μη εχω γεγονα χαλκος ηχων η κυμβαλον αλαλαζον και εαν εχω προφητειαν και ειδω τα μυστηρια παντα και πασαν την γνωσιν και εαν εχω πασαν την πιστιν ωστε ορη μεθιστανειν αγαπην δε μη εχω ουθεν ειμι

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Here the scribe had copied the verse up to the end of the first occurrence of the phrase αγαπην δε μη εχω “and have not charity,” but when he looked up to his example again to continue copying, his eye fell upon the second occurrence of the phrase, from which he continued, omitting all of those words between the two occurrences of the phrase.

These homoiotéleuton omissions number about 300 in the New Testament of Codex Sinaiticus. And because they are readily recognized as scribal errors, they are not taken seriously as various readings by the editors of critical editions. The three omissions used for examples above, and many more like them, are not even mentioned in the notes of the critical editions currently used by translators.

That God has preserved the Scriptures in such a condition of essential purity as we would expect is manifestly the case. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament has survived the millenniums in a substantially and remarkably pure form. Among the extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from the Christian era there is an extraordinary agreement. Kennicott in his edition of the Hebrew Bible with variant readings deals with consonantal variants in more than six hundred manuscripts. 3 Dr. Robert Dick Wilson has pointed out that there are about 284,000,000 letters in the manuscripts considered by Kennicott and that among these manuscripts there are about 900,000 variants, approximately 750,000 of which are the quite trivial variation of w and y. 4There is, Dr. Wilson remarks, only about one variant for 316 letters and apart from the insignificant w and y variation only about one variant for 1580 letters. The variants for the most part are supported by only one or by only a few of the manuscripts. Dr. Wilson has elsewhere said that there are hardly any variant readings in these manuscripts with the support of more than one out of the 200 to 400 manuscripts in which each book is found, except in the full and defective writing of the vowels, a matter which has no bearing on either the pronunciation or the meaning of the text.

 

[George Affleck]

Great reference. I would say that this question was basically resolved around the end of the 19th century. We have every reason to be confident that we possess the original:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kenyon/sotb.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/skilton1.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/faulty.html

I especially recommend the third article by Michael Marlowe as it demonstrates what's going on right now. The reason that the first two articles are still perfectly valid is that this issue has remained static basically since then.

Because we have so many manuscripts to compare, which come out of independent traditions, textual criticism can be used in a very straightforward manner:

I am not so quick to think that these explanations as outlined by Marlowe are valid. They may be; but I have objections.

1. Any solution put forward by critical scholars as to what may or may not have happened to produce a variation in ancient manuscripts is purely speculative. Regardless of how convinced an expert(s) may be of their opinion, they were not "a fly on the wall" observing the copying procedure. The actual reason could be completely different if the truth were told so we/they should not put ultimate faith in an opinion.

2. Notwithstanding the wild accusations of Bart Ehrman (an agnostic), the copying procedure was not a vocation lacking standards or open to anyone out of a job; there are plenty of attestations to this. They were not total idiots. It was undertaken by those with higher education who were aware of the fastidious and impeccable O.T. scribal traditions. It is actually remarkable that there are not more variants in the over 5000 extant MSS.

3. As mentioned above, the copyists were not idiots. But Marlowe would have us believe that the scribe who produced Sinaiticus made the same gross error type in 1Cor 15:27-28 as he did in 1Cor 15:25-27, within, probably, the same few minutes. The interesting thing is that what was omitted was, theologically, the same substance worded differently. I think it was deliberate or he copied the exemplar faithfully and it contained a deliberate error.

4. There is also the problem of spacing. Papyrus was limited to the point where every square inch was valuable. A copyist would (generally) use the same size page as the exemplar or scaled similarly, and it would be obvious, as soon as the mistake was made, that there was something wrong.

5. But I have a bigger problem with textual criticism - one of dating. Without fail, those who tell us they can reconstruct the original autographs by scientific means also state that the oldest MSS are more reliable because of their relative proximity to the original. This doesn't make sense to me.

What makes sense to me is that, if you have a 2nd or 3rd century MS in excellent condition, it's because it was hardly ever used. They knew it was riddled with errors so they tucked it away somewhere (closets are UV free) for a rainy day and used the one they knew was perfect. That is why it was in such good condition! In case of fire, well perhaps we can get along with the 95%er 'till we can afford to reorder a perfect one.

6. But the even biggerest p) problem I have is this:

God, who went to the trouble of inspiring godly men from many centuries to produce an inerrant Word of revelation, couldn't preserve it past the original autographs which are now lost!

 

[George Affleck]

verb (used without object), justified, justifying.
5.
Law.


to qualify as bail or surety.



Picture this.

Adam is imprisoned in a flesh body of death.

Proof of this is in the fact that Adam had faith, but his faith was dead.

He was not deceived but he did not have the kind of faith to please God.

So how's he gonna make bail or in other words get justified get set free.

Answer is he aint.

He's got no cash.

So Jesus Christ and his faith in God that pleases God makes him the bail or justification for Adam.

Christ became the bail by his faith and paid the price at his death.

So then when we first believe in him we are bailed out by the faith of Christ.

That verse is about justification for Adam.


We are saved by hope, the redemption of our bodies,The Holy Spirit is a downpayment on that hope, guiding, teaching and quickening our mortal bodies.


I dont know what yer thinkin' but if Adam could have believed Christ, why didn't he do it when he could touch him and talk to him?


I'll tell yuh why.

Because Adam was a natural man whose spirit was guided by his touch taste, feel flesh body.

Until God gives a person of his spirit to commune with our spirit one cannot experience being sons of God.

Spent time in the Bighouse have we?

 

[patrick jane]

Spent time in the Bighouse have we?

rotfl !!!!!!

 

[lukecash12]

I am not so quick to think that these explanations as outlined by Marlowe are valid. They may be; but I have objections.

1. Any solution put forward by critical scholars as to what may or may not have happened to produce a variation in ancient manuscripts is purely speculative. Regardless of how convinced an expert(s) may be of their opinion, they were not "a fly on the wall" observing the copying procedure. The actual reason could be completely different if the truth were told so we/they should not put ultimate faith in an opinion.

2. Notwithstanding the wild accusations of Bart Ehrman (an agnostic), the copying procedure was not a vocation lacking standards or open to anyone out of a job; there are plenty of attestations to this. They were not total idiots. It was undertaken by those with higher education who were aware of the fastidious and impeccable O.T. scribal traditions. It is actually remarkable that there are not more variants in the over 5000 extant MSS.

3. As mentioned above, the copyists were not idiots. But Marlowe would have us believe that the scribe who produced Sinaiticus made the same gross error type in 1Cor 15:27-28 as he did in 1Cor 15:25-27, within, probably, the same few minutes. The interesting thing is that what was omitted was, theologically, the same substance worded differently. I think it was deliberate or he copied the exemplar faithfully and it contained a deliberate error.

4. There is also the problem of spacing. Papyrus was limited to the point where every square inch was valuable. A copyist would (generally) use the same size page as the exemplar or scaled similarly, and it would be obvious, as soon as the mistake was made, that there was something wrong.

5. But I have a bigger problem with textual criticism - one of dating. Without fail, those who tell us they can reconstruct the original autographs by scientific means also state that the oldest MSS are more reliable because of their relative proximity to the original. This doesn't make sense to me.

What makes sense to me is that, if you have a 2nd or 3rd century MS in excellent condition, it's because it was hardly ever used. They knew it was riddled with errors so they tucked it away somewhere (closets are UV free) for a rainy day and used the one they knew was perfect. That is why it was in such good condition! In case of fire, well perhaps we can get along with the 95%er 'till we can afford to reorder a perfect one.

6. But the even biggerest p) problem I have is this:

God, who went to the trouble of inspiring godly men from many centuries to produce an inerrant Word of revelation, couldn't preserve it past the original autographs which are now lost!

While I'd love to got into a whole heap more of detail about how reasoning is done by textual critics, I think it's worth mentioning that the remaining MSS problems are not doctrinal. Can we agree on that?

 

[George Affleck]

While I'd love to got into a whole heap more of detail about how reasoning is done by textual critics, I think it's worth mentioning that the remaining MSS problems are not doctrinal. Can we agree on that?

Do you consider the following verses that are absent from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus doctrinal?

Matt 18:11KJV Matt 6:13KJV (last part) and the ending of Mark 16?

 

[exminister]

the kjv has never threatened my beliefs
and
the niv shouldn't threaten yours

The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

When I was in college and we were studying Koine Greek we compared translations and agreed the NIV did a decent job. I grew up with the KJV and at times it can be difficult to understand the old English, but after memorizing ones favorite verses it is hard to give it up. But the wonderful thing today is we have many versions and there are websites that even show you the Greek. I find it more broadening and richer to look at a text from different angles. But as the one example shows it still is only subtle differences.

 

[Interplanner]

When I was in college and we were studying Koine Greek we compared translations and agreed the NIV did a decent job. I grew up with the KJV and at times it can be difficult to understand the old English, but after memorizing ones favorite verses it is hard to give it up. But the wonderful thing today is we have many versions and there are websites that even show you the Greek. I find it more broadening and richer to look at a text from different angles. But as the one example shows it still is only subtle differences.

My background is pretty similar, but does the OPer have a problem with Gen 1:2's note that "the earth became..."?

 

[HisServant]

http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

And another cultist outs themselves.

Maybe you should study why the NIV was attempted in the first place, who did the translation, how differences of opinion were handled and who had the last say before you past judgement?

Rev. Raymond Dillard, Phd was probably the most respected teacher I have ever had and I sat through a course he taught on the mechanics behind the NIV and it was probably the best course I have ever sat through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Bryan_Dillard

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Spent time in the Bighouse have we?

Is that what you will ask Jesus when you see him?



John 8:36 KJV


36 If the Son therefore shall make you free , ye shall be free indeed.

 

[patrick jane]

And another cultist outs themselves.

Maybe you should study why the NIV was attempted in the first place, who did the translation, how differences of opinion were handled and who had the last say before you past judgement?

Rev. Raymond Dillard, Phd was probably the most respected teacher I have ever had and I sat through a course he taught on the mechanics behind the NIV and it was probably the best course I have ever sat through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Bryan_Dillard

I prefer KJV but i have heard numerous elders even in their 90s that say NIV is the best.

 

[intojoy]

I prefer KJV but i have heard numerous elders even in their 90s that say NIV is the best.

The NIV is a paraphrase not a translation

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I find it more broadening and richer to look at a text from different angles.

This is true, for example, one can glean much from an Amplified Bible at times. Comparative translations study can be most enlightening. I've found some wonderful insights in Bibles older than the KJV, and modern language perspectives from comparing all the moderns.

As to the NIV in specific, I have a near pristine copy of the NIV that I don't know where it is anymore, packed away somewhere, from decades ago. Also preferring the KJV, NASB, ESV or RSV sometimes, there's just been no use for the NIV in my life, which, as mentioned by others, is much more a paraphrase (though not the most egregious paraphrase) and not a conservative translation. I've found it important, in some targeted, difficult areas of scripture, to seek what is closest to the word-for-word Greek. That said, though, I was listening to a sermon the other day where the pastor read Psalms 73 from the NIV, with a little commentary, and was struck by the clear presentation of its truths in modern language we can all relate to, very much enjoyed and was moved by the NIV translation. Here is that psalm from the NIV, which perhaps some others may also appreciate.

Psalms 73
A psalm of Asaph.

1 Surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart. 2 But as for me, my feet had almost slipped; I had nearly lost my foothold. 3 For I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4 They have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong. 5 They are free from the burdens common to man; they are not plagued by human ills. 6 Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. 7 From their callous hearts comes iniquity; the evil conceits of their minds know no limits. 8 They scoff, and speak with malice; in their arrogance they threaten oppression. 9 Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth. 10 Therefore their people turn to them and drink up waters in abundance. 11 They say, "How can God know? Does the Most High have knowledge?" 12 This is what the wicked are like-- always carefree, they increase in wealth. 13 Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure; in vain have I washed my hands in innocence. 14 All day long I have been plagued; I have been punished every morning. 15 If I had said, "I will speak thus," I would have betrayed your children. 16 When I tried to understand all this, it was oppressive to me 17 till I entered the sanctuary of God; then I understood their final destiny. 18 Surely you place them on slippery ground; you cast them down to ruin. 19 How suddenly are they destroyed, completely swept away by terrors! 20 As a dream when one awakes, so when you arise, O Lord, you will despise them as fantasies. 21 When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered, 22 I was senseless and ignorant; I was a brute beast before you. 23 Yet I am always with you; you hold me by my right hand. 24 You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory. 25 Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. 26 My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. 27 Those who are far from you will perish; you destroy all who are unfaithful to you. 28 But as for me, it is good to be near God. I have made the Sovereign LORD my refuge; I will tell of all your deeds.

 

[Interplanner]

The NIV is a paraphrase not a translation

Oh? See p vii.

 

[HisServant]

The NIV is a paraphrase not a translation

A pure translation of the original texts is impossible due to the cultural and linguistic differences... a dynamic equivalent approach is the best possible way to translate from language to language.

 

[Right Divider]

A pure translation of the original texts is impossible due to the cultural and linguistic differences... a dynamic equivalent approach is the best possible way to translate from language to language.

That must be why the NIV inserts words INTO the text where they do NOT exist in any Greek manuscript.

 

[HisServant]

That must be why the NIV inserts words INTO the text where they do NOT exist in any Greek manuscript.

Which is the proper thing to do if you are trying to impart the meaning of the original languages to the reader.

Don't get me started about all the inclusions in the KJV that are not consistent with the oldest and most reliable manuscripts... there are quite a lot of them.

At the end of the day, if you are really serious about learning what the scriptures say, you should take a course in Greek and Hebrew and stop relying on the translations of others. It IS a worthy endeavor.

 

[Right Divider]

Which is the proper thing to do if you are trying to impart the meaning of the original languages to the reader.

You could NOT be more WRONG.

This insertion is completely unwarranted and CHANGES the meaning.

Don't get me started about all the inclusions in the KJV that are not consistent with the oldest and most reliable manuscripts... there are quite a lot of them.

At the end of the day, if you are really serious about learning what the scriptures say, you should take a course in Greek and Hebrew and stop relying on the translations of others. It IS a worthy endeavor.

Go ahead and show us your genius.

 

[HisServant]

You could NOT be more WRONG.

This insertion is completely unwarranted and CHANGES the meaning.


Go ahead and show us your genius.

No it doesn't change the meaning... if you do not understand what it meant in the original language you sure wont understand what it means in a word for word translation. There are a lot of words that have no modern equivalent.. especially verbs which have a lot more tenses that in current English.

Anyhow, God never promised a perfect translation, he promised his Holy Spirit that will lead us into truth... so arguing about the work of flawed mortal men is kind of useless.

Also, arguing with a cultist is never fruitful.. so I will decline.

 

[Right Divider]

No it doesn't change the meaning... if you do not understand what it meant in the original language you sure wont understand what it means in a word for word translation. There are a lot of words that have no modern equivalent.. especially verbs which have a lot more tenses that in current English.

Anyhow, God never promised a perfect translation, he promised his Holy Spirit that will lead us into truth... so arguing about the work of flawed mortal men is kind of useless.

Also, arguing with a cultist is never fruitful.. so I will decline.

The INSERTION of the WORD "ISRAEL" in Ephesians 3:6 is perfect example of the fact that the NIV is NOT the Word of God.