|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: NIV - 8/28/2008 1:18:21 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
It's too bad that it took me so long to write my last post, since evry1needsgod posted while I was writing. But, I'll go ahead and respond.
quote:
1. Aging. The resources and utilities available to the writers/translators 2000 years ago were crude and at the least insufficient. They could not guarantee the preservation of a document over 2000 years. Let's say I find manuscript X, which dates almost 2000 years ago, using this same logic, I would assume they are more perfect than manuscript Y that had been found, say, 200 years later. Now, with this same logic, I will assume that all the additions in manuscript Y are false, because they are not found in manuscript X.
This is dangerous, because manuscript X had 200 years in which it could have aged, losing parts of it that provide truth. Whereas manuscript Y, found 200 years after manuscript X, was a copy of manuscript X, and includes those lost words/phrases/verses/chapters that were found absent in manuscript X.
Conclusion: It is faulty to assume an older manuscript is more perfect and more conclusive. It is often just the opposite.
This is not a problem. Those who study the manuscript evidence do not classify a manuscript as having a short reading when there is a worn spot or whole in the manuscript. They have marks in the critical text apparatus - the part of the Greek New Testament which documents which manuscript has which reading - to indicate that a manuscript has a worn spot or whole in the text. And, based on the handwriting size and style, they will indicate that it appears to support either one reading or the other.
quote:
2. When men copied manuscripts long ago, they often destroyed what they had copied from. Why? For the exact reason as stated above. They knew the consequences of one finding a partial manuscript. So they copied, then destroyed the original. In many cases, they were partially destroyed, leaving only partials of the original. When found, one may assume that the "partial" is not partial, it is really whole. They then assume, by your logic, that the copy of the original found years later added what the author of the original did not intend. But in reality, the newer, copied manuscript is truly whole, and the original is partial. Do not assume that a manuscript with an older date grants it the right of "more perfect." This simply is not true.
This is a theory made up by the KJVO people. There is NO evidence to show it is true. It may have been true of the Masoretes who copied the OT scriptures for the Jews, but not so the copiers of the Christian Bible. Part of the evidence is the vast amount of Biblical manuscripts. The other part is the writings of the early Christian writers. Studying their writings will show anyone who looks the fact that the writers quoted from differing scriptures. They quoted both the NIV style of text, and the KJV style of text. And this can be determined even taking into account that sometimes they quoted inaccurately from memory and sometimes they paraphrased a quote. It is still clear that they did quote from both kinds of text, especially earlier in church history. Later, the fact that the eastern portion of the church retained the scripture in Greek, while the western portion switched to Latin affected the kind of text they quoted.
quote:
I sense a bit of a harsh knack (if you will) in you towards those who believe the KJV is perfect. That is ok, as long as you do not let that bias prevent you from learning truth. I am not saying that the KJVO crowd holds truth, I am simply warning you. I wish I could reply to a few or your comments, but the mods here are pretty strict on this subject, and will barely let the words KJVO be uttered with out shutting down the thread.
Not at all. I try to be as respectful as I can when discussing with them. But, I will stand up against their teaching because I am convinced it is a false one and dangerously false. It's too bad you are leaving because I think the mods will allow it as long as it remains in relation to the NIV.
quote:
Of course you don't believe the KJVO crowd holds facts, because that is not what you believe. But others believe the entire opposite, and would sit here in a heart beat and tell you you don't hold facts either. Please don't let yourself become like that. We all have our beliefs. You can't prove to me that the KJV is imperfect any more than I can prove to you that it is. That's why it's a belief. You believe the NIV is a good translation, I don't, and we have reasons for those beliefs. Try not to claim one side has the facts over the other. Have YOU truly studied the issue? Have YOU read resources from every side? Yes, I have, and I have drawn my conclusions on this studying. I hope and pray the same goes for you.
No, it is not just because that is what I want to believe. If I say the KJVOs are inaccurate, misleading, or even actually lying about certain statements, it is because I have found it to be absolutely true. And, no one at this site or any other has ever seen me say that the KJV is imperfect. I have never said so. It is simply a different version of the word of God, and no more, nor no less perfect than the other versions. (some translations, however, are better than others)
I am committed to follow God. I am committed to follow the truth, whatever it is, whether I like it or not. I have spent 10 years or more studying this issue and praying that God will show me the truth. If God were to show me that the KJV is the only true, pure word of God, I would never again read another translation. I have said that time and again, and God keeps confirming to me that both the KJV style of text (TR) and the NIV style of text (CT) are His word. He has chosen to preserve His word in this way. I have studied some of the writings of those who promote the CT and I have studied some of the websites of the KJVOs.
When I studied the history of the Septuagint, I was not using either CT proponent resources, or TR proponent resources. As I read, I began to perceive and understand (without any human telling me) that God was indeed behind and involved in its translation. The spread of its copies throughout the world using the network of synagogues around the world prepared the Gentile world for the coming of the Gospel. Wow, it still sends shivers up and down my spine when I think of it! And then, when I considered the way the NT writers quoted OT scripture, and they were led by the Holy Spirit in doing so, that clinched it for me. That evidence is found in an unbiased source, the Bible, the word of God, no matter what version you search in.
So, the differences between versions don't bother me. They don't really contradict as much as some would say they do. All it takes is a little research into why they are there, and if the various readings are in keeping with scripture. So, I don't believe that these differences are a reason to say that the NIV is not a good translation.
The way the NIV always translates the word for "flesh" as "sinful nature" could be a reason someone might think the NIV is not a good translation, but, although I have not looked up every instance of that word, the ones I have looked up and checked with a commentary, the commentary usually explained it meant sinful nature. Perhaps I missed looking up the verses where it meant something else.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/28/2008 12:17:30 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I know this may seem as a cop-out to most here, but I promise you this is genuine.
Don’t sweat it.
quote:
Note the bold. This is BAD. Who says that what is older is more reliable??? This is the greatest pitfall people make. They assume that since they found a manuscript older than the one they had before, the original is "more perfect." This is completely false. Why?
Not completely false. The older manuscripts have a tendency to agree more completely. Just a tendency, and it’s not 100% true. You’re correct to note that there are certain other families of texts (Syriac?) that seem to be newer but reliable as well. In my post, I wrote “older and more reliable” – intending to mean there’s a subset of the older texts that are more reliable as well as other possibly newer but reliable texts from which to draw conclusions.
The point of my post being that if the NIV translators had additional reliable resources to draw from, it would be expected that certain portions of a bible drawn from a more limited set of resources would contain verbage missing from the new one.
quote:
1. Aging. The resources and utilities available to the writers/translators 2000 years ago were crude and at the least insufficient. They could not guarantee the preservation of a document over 2000 years. Let's say I find manuscript X, which dates almost 2000 years ago, using this same logic, I would assume they are more perfect than manuscript Y that had been found, say, 200 years later. Now, with this same logic, I will assume that all the additions in manuscript Y are false, because they are not found in manuscript X.
This is dangerous, because manuscript X had 200 years in which it could have aged, losing parts of it that provide truth. Whereas manuscript Y, found 200 years after manuscript X, was a copy of manuscript X, and includes those lost words/phrases/verses/chapters that were found absent in manuscript X.
Conclusion: It is faulty to assume an older manuscript is more perfect and more conclusive. It is often just the opposite.
This is true, but my point doesn’t hinge on age – just reliability. I’ll agree there are some older texts that are less reliable than some other newer ones. The point is that the NIV translators had access to some reliable texts that earlier translators did not, and hence some of the differences. Given what we know to be true of copyist errors, a text is more likely to undergo a lengthening rather than a shortening, and a “smoothing” of language rather than a preservation of an awkward phrasing.
quote:
And with that, I retire. Thanks for the debate! I'll be back eventually.
In Christ,
ZG
Good luck in school and come back when you can.
BT
_____________________________
“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 - 8/28/2008 1:05:26 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3966
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I know this may seem as a cop-out to most here, but I promise you this is genuine. I leave for college at 4 in the morning tomorrow, and I will most likely be absent from this site for quite some time. And with that, I retire. Thanks for the debate! I'll be back eventually.
In Christ,
ZG
Please come back after you settle in at college. God Bless.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV and Spanish - 8/28/2008 1:17:27 PM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 152
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
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?
My response is off topic from the discussion between cow and every1.
For about 4 years now, I've been studying from a side by side Bible containing a Spanish Translation (Reyna-Valera 1960) and NIV in English. There is an NIV in Spanish as well, but I don't have it. Some people in my Bible studies have KJV or NKJV.
I've found that the differences between NIV and NKJV are greater than the differences between NKJV and RV60. This surprised me. I expected the difference between English and Spanish to have more impact than it does. I attibute most of the difference to differences in manuscripts used.
I make most of my commentaries on the Spanish Bible over in the Spanish Salon. doping so makes sense to me. I just thought I'd throw this in here, since you mentioned Spanish.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV and Spanish - 8/28/2008 2:40:24 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've found that the differences between NIV and NKJV are greater than the differences between NKJV and RV60. This surprised me. I expected the difference between English and Spanish to have more impact than it does. I attibute most of the difference to differences in manuscripts used.
There would be some amount of differences between the original version of the RV and the KJV. The KJV translators did not follow one specific Greek NT edition, but made their own choices. I don't recall when the RV was originally translated, or from what text, but I believe it would be somewhat similar as it would have used at least one of the same text editions. At some point, I believe the RV began to use the more recent text editions, but I don't recall if that was the 1960 version.
This illustrates my point that God has allowed His word to exist in various editions. Even the original KJV and the original RV had certain distinct differences. Just as both had distinct differences with the Latin version which was used by the western part of the church for centuries before the translation of both the KJV and the RV. And, all of these differ somewhat from all the other ancient translations, for example, those in the 5 Egyptian dialects, the Ethiopian, the Syrian, etc.
As long as any translation is based on the printed Greek editions that we have today, whether any of the TR editions, or any of the CT editions; and don't add or remove any readings without solid manuscript evidence, it should be an acceptable version of the word of God.
As far as I know, the NIV faithfully follows the CT editions. I have not found any unsubstantiated readings.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV and Spanish - 8/29/2008 10:17:55 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 152
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
I'm using "RV60" as an abbreviation for "Reyna-Valera 1960". I don't know whether or not the abbreviation "RV" is already in use for some other purpose, like "Revised Version".
Reyna translated the Bible into Spanish in the 1560s, while living in Geneva. I suspect that his manuscript source was similar to that used for the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was the one used by the pilgrims who came to Massachusetts on the Mayflower. Valera edited and published Reyna's work. There are descriptions of the Reyna-Valera translation on the web. Some of the best descriptions are in Spanish.
The 1960 revision was primarily to bring the Spanish more in line with 20th century Spanish, as spoken in Spain. Spanish evolves just as English does, only more slowly. Latin American Spanish (the kind I speak) has diverged from Spain style Spanish, but not as much as American English has diverged from British English.
I do not know anything about the contents of the Geneva Bible, or anything about the contents of the original Rayna-Valera translation, except what I've picked up from studying RV60. RV60 has some words and constructs that are not familiar to me, but I would expect that in an English translation as well.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV and Spanish - 8/29/2008 10:24:35 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11498
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Let's try to keep this thread on the subject of the NIV.
Thanks!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV and Spanish - 8/29/2008 2:24:53 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I'm trying to stay on topic of the NIV.
But, may I let Strider know that I knew he was referring to the Reina Valera (Spanish version) and not the Revised Version. And, that if he'd like to read the Geneva Bible, he can find it at Studylight
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/30/2008 8:49:51 AM
|
|
|
chinesechristian
Posts: 20
Joined: 8/24/2008
From: china
Status: offline
|
niv (new international version) is a good version . i am a chinese christian ,i have kjv version , nrsv
version ,good news version , and niv version . if i read english , generally ,i just read niv version ,i
think this version is very good ,
i give an example :
isaiah 714: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son ,and will call him immanuel (niv)
a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him immanuel (good news version)
nrsv is the same to good news version ,use "woman "not "virgin". so i think niv is more reliable
_____________________________
Jesus loves you ,I love you too!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/30/2008 1:48:47 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Just a comment about your example of Isaiah 7:14.
The Hebrew word actually means "young woman", not specifically "virgin". When the NT writer, Matthew I think, quoted this verse, he was quoting the ancient Greek translation, which did use a word that specifically meant "virgin".
Those translations which choose to translate the Isaiah verse with the more accurate translation of "young women" do so for very good reasons, not to deny the virgin birth of Jesus. Their interest is in accurately translating the passage in its Hebrew context. Which is very interesting if you study it. The kingdom of Judah was under attack, and God sent a message to King Ahaz to be calm and trust in Him. God even told Ahaz to ask for a sign that God would protect them. Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, so God gave the sign of a young woman conceiving and bearing a son, and that by the time that son reached a certain age, the two threats to Judah would be gone. It is a wonderful story of God's grace, because God stood by His word in spite of the fact that Ahaz was disobedient, refused to ask for a sign, and refused to trust in God. The two kings threatening Judah were taken care of within the time framework given by God.
When we focus on the messianic nature of the prophecy in vs 14, we can miss this example of God's grace and steadfastness. At least, I never realized it until I studied this issue of whether the translation of "young woman" was inaccurate or not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/30/2008 10:37:01 PM
|
|
|
AboundinginHisGrace
Posts: 403
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
I personally do not like the NIV, as for some of the reasons mentioned above. Here is another one that has not been mentioned
John 3:16"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. NIV
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. NKJV
According to the bible once we become christians we become God's children's. So with the NIV that would be contradicting that because it says His one and only son. The KJV/NKJV/NASB etc have only begotten son that is two totally different meanings.
_____________________________
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: NIV - 8/31/2008 1:38:33 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
According to the bible once we become christians we become God's children's. So with the NIV that would be contradicting that because it says His one and only son. The KJV/NKJV/NASB etc have only begotten son that is two totally different meanings.
Not really. Both translations make it clear that Jesus is God's only Son. The Bible teaches that we are God's children, but makes it clear that we His children in a different way.
"Only", "unique", "one of a kind", and "only-begotten" are all accurate translations of the Greek word.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
