|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 12:35:21 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
I came here only to state my opinion towards the multitude of Scriptural translations available to us because it was mentioned. My intentions were not to throw anyone off their soapbox. I guess I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:25:57 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
For those to whom it may concern: To answer the OP, here are a few "severities," if you will, that should be addressed.
1. In the NIV, look up these passages. Tell me if they exists. If thet do not, tell me why.
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
1 John 5:7.
2. Isaiah 9:3 "You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy" NIV "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy" KJV
This shows a COMPLETE opposite thought and contradiction placing this in the "sever" category.
3. In the NIV, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely left out in 1 John 5.
"7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." NIV
However, the KJV states "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Now, for some odd reason the authors of the NIV chose to leave out this extremely significant phrase, and I'd like to know why. I could take the NIV and preach against the Trinity. This is quite severe IMHO.
4. Ever heard this passage before?
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."
Note that the words in bold have been omitted from the NIV. These words are not useless words. They own much meaning and context to the passage, yet for some reason are absent in the NIV.
5. How about this passage?
Matthew 26:35 "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, THEY PARTED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS."
Note again the words in bold are completely absent in the NIV. The words in bold, hoever, are quite significant, as they fulfill the prophesy found in Psalm 22:18. VERY SIGNIFICANT!
6. Who killed Goliath? I think everyone here can say with a resounding "David!" Well, not according to the NIV.
2 Samuel 21:19 "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. "
Yet, just before this in 1 Samuel 21:8-9 it says
"8David asked Ahimelech, Don't you have a spear or a sword here? I haven't brought my sword or any other weapon, because the king's business was urgent. 9The priest replied, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, is here; it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you want it, take it; there is no sword here but that one. David said, There is none like it; give it to me."
So I guess in all of your churches that use the NIV, you can no longer tell your kids the story of David and his slingshot. Or can you? The NIV records it two completely different ways. I guess Goliath was killed by two separate individuals simultaneously. 
7. "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to judgment."
The bold words are absent in the NIV. This verse alone, according to the NIV, makes Jesus a sinner in Mark 3:5. This is pretty darn severe to me!
CONCLUSION: There is your evidence. Study it, ponder it, and pray about it. IMO, the NIV isn't that great of a translation. Too many problematic contradictions/omissions for me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 8:58:28 AM
|
|
|
Stephanos
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
As much as I detest the NIV as a translation (I prefer my NASB), I also dislike blind attacking of something with out all the facts.
As to the "problems" with the NIV you listed.
as to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 7...these all deal with the same issue. And that is that the early manuscripts used to translate the bible into english, do not all agree and contain the same imformation. Take forinstance the verse you gave in 1st John 5. The problem here is that most earlier manuscripts, these are the ones in Greek now, DONT have the added text. While most translations include this part, but add a foot note, the NIV just does not add it at all. Now you might find issue with their method of what is included and not included in terms of their study of the different manuscripts, but just because they did not include that verse, which again does not occur in the earliest manuscripts we have of 1st John in the original greek, does not mean that it is a evil translation.
as to point 6, it should be noted that these to Goliaths are NOT the same person, any more than Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot are the same person. Notice the difference, Goliath the Philistine, and Goliath the Gittite.
As to point 2, while my Hebrew is not very strong, it should be noted that the majority of translations side with the NIV and translate as "...and increase" not "and not increase". Furthermore, if you read down in context of the entire passage, this verse is a prelude to the comming of the Messiah. See Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is given..." I think that is a reason FOR joy, not against the giving of joy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 9:20:41 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 152
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
every1,
My point was not to evaluate the quran. All I wanted to show is that absence of multiple versions doesn't, by itself, guarantee unity among the followers.
quote:
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
1 John 5:7.
In each of these cases, my NIV has a footnote that begins, "some manuscripts", and includes the verse omitted from the main text. Except in the case of 1 John 5:7. In that case, it says, "late manuscripts of the Vulgate".
I've been told that the translators of the NIV had more manuscripts available to them than the translators of the KJV and that, in some cases, they used a different manuscript than the KJV had used.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 10:03:18 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1728
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
every1needsgod,
Do yo have a copy of the original Greek and Hebrew autographs, written by the original authors themselves?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:29:25 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
As much as I detest the NIV as a translation (I prefer my NASB), I also dislike blind attacking of something with out all the facts.
Are you accusing me of something? There was no blind attacking on my part, if that is what you insinuated.
quote:
As to the "problems" with the NIV you listed.
as to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 7...these all deal with the same issue. And that is that the early manuscripts used to translate the bible into english, do not all agree and contain the same imformation. Take forinstance the verse you gave in 1st John 5. The problem here is that most earlier manuscripts, these are the ones in Greek now, DONT have the added text. While most translations include this part, but add a foot note, the NIV just does not add it at all. Now you might find issue with their method of what is included and not included in terms of their study of the different manuscripts, but just because they did not include that verse, which again does not occur in the earliest manuscripts we have of 1st John in the original greek, does not mean that it is a evil translation.
as to point 6, it should be noted that these to Goliaths are NOT the same person, any more than Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot are the same person. Notice the difference, Goliath the Philistine, and Goliath the Gittite.
As to point 2, while my Hebrew is not very strong, it should be noted that the majority of translations side with the NIV and translate as "...and increase" not "and not increase". Furthermore, if you read down in context of the entire passage, this verse is a prelude to the comming of the Messiah. See Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is given..." I think that is a reason FOR joy, not against the giving of joy!
Ok great. You say all this just to prove my point. Yes, the NIV uses entirely different manuscripts, and is therefor entirely different than some other translations. My only point here is that in all of the translations available to the English speaking people, they ALL differ somewhere, some in more severe areas than the other! I gave you examples from the two most popular and most used translation (the KJV and the NIV) and I showed you in 7 different areas how severely they disagree. You can explain those differences away, and go into the Greek and Hebrew to show which one you believe is right, but that does not change the fact that THEY DISAGREE, which was my only point. You all wanted me to proved examples of these "severe contradictions" so that is exactly what I did.
The fact is this. I have studied the issue, and I do not count it a blessing to have all of the versions we possess. I just don't! Truth is truth regardless to what Bible you read. And EVERY Bible contradicts each other in some area or the other, some either distorting the truth or completely leaving it out. It's up to us to figure out what is truth, and not just pick the most flashy Bible off the shelf, or the one that is easiest for you to read. Those are not the guidelines to finding truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:33:32 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've been told that the translators of the NIV had more manuscripts available to them than the translators of the KJV and that, in some cases, they used a different manuscript than the KJV had used.
The first part I'm not sure of, but the second part is absolutely true. The manuscripts used in both translations are partly the same, and partly different, hence the differences in doctrine found in both of them. That's my point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:36:24 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3966
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
For those to whom it may concern: To answer the OP, here are a few "severities," if you will, that should be addressed.
4. Ever heard this passage before?
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."
Note that the words in bold have been omitted from the NIV. These words are not useless words. They own much meaning and context to the passage, yet for some reason are absent in the NIV.
CONCLUSION: There is your evidence. Study it, ponder it, and pray about it. IMO, the NIV isn't that great of a translation. Too many problematic contradictions/omissions for me.
How does this change the meaning? Matthew 6:9-15 NIV:
9.This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10.your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11. Give us today our daily bread.
12. Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
14. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
As far as meaning, the NIV is actually more clear, esp. verse 13. If your complaint is the modern English is less poetic than "Old" English, fine. But to argue that the NIV is less accurate as a translation is lost on me. I believe if you prayerfully study this in more depth, you will be less fearful about the NIV.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:37:12 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
every1needsgod,
Do yo have a copy of the original Greek and Hebrew autographs, written by the original authors themselves?
This is a silly question. Of course I don't! But I know what you point will be. I've heard it too many times, and frankly, I gag every time I hear it. It goes something like this:
"Well, since you don't know exactly what the original authros wrote, by this time there could be mistakes in any translation. So really you can't find truth in the Bible, you can only find truth from the Holy Spirit. So, just pick whatever Bible makes you feel good, read it, and "let the Holy Spirit guide you." You will be all right!"
But, if this is not the point you are leading to, and perhaps I jumped to conclusion, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:41:00 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
As far as meaning, the NIV is actually more clear, esp. verse 13. If your complaint is the modern English is less poetic than "Old" English, fine. But to argue that the NIV is less accurate as a translation is lost on me. I believe if you prayerfully study this in more depth, you will be less fearful about the NIV.
No, cow, I could care less about poetry. That's not my forte. What I care about is when one chooses to leave out a certain portion of a passage that has much meaning.
p.s. The NIV is not a translation I am fearful of. There are other translation that I HAVE grown fearful of over the years, but the NIV is not one of them. I actually own and read an NIV once in a while for cross-reference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 1:47:38 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3966
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
As far as meaning, the NIV is actually more clear, esp. verse 13. If your complaint is the modern English is less poetic than "Old" English, fine. But to argue that the NIV is less accurate as a translation is lost on me. I believe if you prayerfully study this in more depth, you will be less fearful about the NIV.
No, cow, I could care less about poetry. That's not my forte. What I care about is when one chooses to leave out a certain portion of a passage that has much meaning.
p.s. The NIV is not a translation I am fearful of. There are other translation that I HAVE grown fearful of over the years, but the NIV is not one of them. I actually own and read an NIV once in a while for cross-reference.
You did not address my question about how the Matthew 6:9-15 NIV is a problem for you.
The KJV is a translation, not the original, so what has made it the sacred text? Is a translation in Spanish not to be trusted because it isn't exactly like the KJV?
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 2:01:21 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
You did not address my question about how the Matthew 6:9-15 NIV is a problem for you.
My apologies. Well, how is leaving out the bold in Matt 6 NOT a problem for you? The bold preaches of our God dwelling in Heaven, His will being done NOT ONLY on earth but in heaven also (which is very philosophical, and that alone is a message any pastor could preach), and DELIVERANCE from evil temptations (because God can not tempt man)! Um, ya, this is a problem to me.
quote:
The KJV is a translation, not the original, so what has made it the sacred text? Is a translation in Spanish not to be trusted because it isn't exactly like the KJV?
Never did I state the KJV was the original. I know I clearly stated, more than once, that the KJV is a translation. Nor did I state the KJV was perfect, and I will not let this thread go there.
My only point throughout my posts is to show how multitudes of Scriptural translations is not necessarily a blessing. The OP asked for problems in the NIV, I provided only 7. I guess I'm sorry for answering the OP's question???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 3:22:27 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3966
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
You did not address my question about how the Matthew 6:9-15 NIV is a problem for you.
My apologies. Well, how is leaving out the bold in Matt 6 NOT a problem for you? The bold preaches of our God dwelling in Heaven, His will being done NOT ONLY on earth but in heaven also (which is very philosophical, and that alone is a message any pastor could preach), and DELIVERANCE from evil temptations (because God can not tempt man)! Um, ya, this is a problem to me.
KJV: Our Father which art in heaven
NIV Our Father in Heaven
Both convey the same meaning. The NIV makes the statement more actively.
KJV: Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
NIV: your will be done on earth as it is in heaven
Where is the difference???????????????
KJV: but deliver us from evil
NIV: but deliver us from the evil one (footnote: or evil)
How does deliver differ from deliver?????????????????????????????
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 3:34:43 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
My only point throughout my posts is to show how multitudes of Scriptural translations is not necessarily a blessing. The OP asked for problems in the NIV, I provided only 7. I guess I'm sorry for answering the OP's question???
no need to get so upset. This is just a discussion, no one is on a soapbox. I'm glad you finally posted some of your problems. I have to leave for work, I'll come back and answer them later.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 3:58:44 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
My only point throughout my posts is to show how multitudes of Scriptural translations is not necessarily a blessing. The OP asked for problems in the NIV, I provided only 7. I guess I'm sorry for answering the OP's question???
no need to get so upset. This is just a discussion, no one is on a soapbox. I'm glad you finally posted some of your problems. I have to leave for work, I'll come back and answer them later.
I'm not upset at all, I'm just a bit confused.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 4:19:06 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1728
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
But, if this is not the point you are leading to, and perhaps I jumped to conclusion, I apologize.
I am happy to report that you did jump to conclusions, for I would be equally put off by a statement similar to the one you presupposed me to make.
My point was, rather, that since we lack the original copies, there is no way to absolutely guarantee which manuscript is closest to the originals. Different translation styles will be governed by different theories and practices in regards to textual criticism. The NIV clearly uses a different philosophy of choosing which manuscripts it will use than, say, the KJV did. So, just because a version does not include certain disputable (and believe me, they would have to be very disputable to not be included) does not necessarily mean that version is inferior.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 4:32:55 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
But, if this is not the point you are leading to, and perhaps I jumped to conclusion, I apologize.
I am happy to report that you did jump to conclusions, for I would be equally put off by a statement similar to the one you presupposed me to make.
My point was, rather, that since we lack the original copies, there is no way to absolutely guarantee which manuscript is closest to the originals. Different translation styles will be governed by different theories and practices in regards to textual criticism. The NIV clearly uses a different philosophy of choosing which manuscripts it will use than, say, the KJV did. So, just because a version does not include certain disputable (and believe me, they would have to be very disputable to not be included) does not necessarily mean that version is inferior.
Ok, but it does mean that they contradict each other, correct??? This is precisely my point!
Yes, I may have my opinion about the NIV, and I may not prefer it to the KJV, but that is just my opinion. The OP's question was not "which Bible is the best?" its was "Are there things wrong with the NIV?" That is not word for word what the OP asked, but I took the liberty to paraphrase it. I do believe that was his question, so I provided a few examples. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 4:40:27 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1728
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ok, but it does mean that they contradict each other, correct??? This is precisely my point!
Then I misunderstood you, and apologize. Yes, there are contradictions. However, I believe most versions (at least, most popular versions) do not have contradictions serious enough to have any schisms over.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 7:29:28 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, I believe most versions (at least, most popular versions) do not have contradictions serious enough to have any schisms over.
Then we agree to disagree, which is fine with me!. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 7:50:47 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1728
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then we agree to disagree, which is fine with me!
Works for me, too. : )
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 7:52:35 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
My apologies. Well, how is leaving out the bold in Matt 6 NOT a problem for you? The bold preaches of our God dwelling in Heaven, His will being done NOT ONLY on earth but in heaven also (which is very philosophical, and that alone is a message any pastor could preach), and DELIVERANCE from evil temptations (because God can not tempt man)! Um, ya, this is a problem to me.
Just something for you to consider -
But what if the bolded sections you show aren't always in some of the older and more reliable manuscripts? I'd need to go back and check, but I believe that might be the case here. While the KJV text is longer, more theologically eloquent, and reads better, that's often an indicator that it's not necessarily the better translation of the original. Sounds wrong, but bear with me.
This is a rule of thumb fairly well followed in translations of older documents. As documents get copied over time, they have a habit of getting "explained" a bit via small additions and "cleaned up" to eliminate awkward phrasings. It sounds counterintuitive, but (all other things being equal) the current state of our research is that the shorter phrasing is to be preferred over the longer, and the more awkward over the less awkward.
The fact that certain omissions show up in the NIV shouldn't necessarily be understood as a problem - it's often the case of correcting a pre-existing problem in older translations.
Just an interesting possibility that I thought might be relevant here.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 8:49:02 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Ok, I think we are now actually getting to the heart of the OP's question. I would guess that the OP has run into some of the same websites/books/people as evry1needsgod.
evry1needsgod, if I may address a couple of things you said before I get to the issue of the specific problems:
quote:
quote:
As much as I detest the NIV as a translation (I prefer my NASB), I also dislike blind attacking of something with out all the facts.
Are you accusing me of something? There was no blind attacking on my part, if that is what you insinuated.
quote:
The fact is this. I have studied the issue, and I do not count it a blessing to have all of the versions we possess. I just don't!
The reference to "blind attacking of something without all the facts" comes from the fact that your list of problems comes straight from KJVO websites - not that you copied them from there, but, those are the exact claims they make. You said you have studied the issue, but how have you studied? By reading KJVO websites and KJVO books? Or, have you checked other, non-KJVO resources?
If all you have done to study the issue, is read the KJVO resources, I'm sorry but you don't have all the facts. I'm sad to say those resources are not accurate. This is not opinion, this is fact. I don't like to accuse people of lying, because in some cases it might just be a matter of misinformation. But, some of what is reported by the KJVO resources has to be deliberately lies. And, as you said, truth is truth.
For an example, and it is an important one, some KJVO sites will tell you that the Septuagint did not exist until Origen created it in the 2nd or 3rd century AD (I don't recall right now which). But this is not true, there are manuscripts which date back to the 1st century BC.
Another example is the claims made against Mr. Wescott and Mr. Hort. In her books, Gail Riplinger provides a number of quotes supposedly made by them which indicate that they were closet Catholics and into spiritism, etc. She probably knows that their writings are now very hard to get access to. Those quotes have been manipulated and mangled and do not say what Wescott and Hort actually said. I've seen it documented.
As you say, truth is truth. And, it seems to me if something is the truth, it doesn't need lies to support it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/27/2008 10:12:50 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
1. In the NIV, look up these passages. Tell me if they exists. If thet do not, tell me why.
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
1 John 5:7.
Ok, as you already know, this is a matter of manuscript evidence. You said:
quote:
Yes, the NIV uses entirely different manuscripts, and is therefor entirely different than some other translations.
Not so. The NIV uses the same manuscripts, PLUS, a lot more. The KJV translators could only examine the evidence provided by 1,000 manuscripts, 2,000 at the very most. The United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland committees both made critical texts - Greek New Testament texts which include the manuscript evidence found in ALL of the existing known manuscripts - which total over 5,000.
The KJV translators used EVERY resource available to them, the critical texts edited by Erasmus, Stevens, and Beza, plus a totally different critical text known as the Complutensian Polyglot. They also examined every other language translation available to them. From what they have written, I think they would a | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
