NIV/NAB/RSV

[brent]

Ever wonder why a Methodist or Church of Christ can't use a KVJ, NKJ etc to lead someone to the Lord? Because of the omission of words, leaving the words "be ye baptized."

Check out these verses:

Phil 4:13
NASB and NIV are saying: I can do all things through him who gives me strength.
KJ is saying: I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me.
Anyone can be the "him", lower case h. Satan could be the him. That verse becomes nothing more than a Joel Olsteen motivational tool for business.

"Men" replaced Holy men in 2 Pet 1:21
"heart" replaced pure heart in I Pet 1:22
"adequate" replaced perfect in 2 Tim 3:17
"prosperity" replaced righteousness in Prov 21:21
"prosper" replaced peace in Jer 29:11
"You have made him a little lower than God" replaced For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels in Ps 8:5
"Obey" replaced believeth in John 3:36

The NASB/NIV/RSV hack away at little things that lead one to believe in the properity message, works for salvation, etc.

[charl]

Since the NASB is widely considered the most accurate of the major translations, perhaps the problem was not replacement, but just the opposite; the teams were working independantly of "other" translations (which shall remain nameless) and with older texts.

BTW no I have never wondered about anything Methodists do.

[brent]

Since the NASB is widely considered the most accurate of the major translations, perhaps the problem was not replacement, but just the opposite; the teams were working independantly of "other" translations (which shall remain nameless) and with older texts.

BTW no I have never wondered about anything Methodists do.

Well, "wide" is the road that leads to hell. Check out some of the names for Satan/Lucifer in the NASB. They are the same used for Christ in the KJ, NKJ, etc. Again, the antichrist will walk in and be able to say "See here, I am the morning star, I am a divine being, I am God! I am the one written about in your bibles!"

[winterlens]

"You have made him a little lower than God" replaced For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels in Ps 8:5

I can't comment off the cuff about the other verses, but this actually is a valid translation of Ps 8.5. The word used is Elohim, literally, "Mighty ones," but also used of God, e.g., in Genesis one. It makes better sense to use angels, especially considering that it appears to be what the translators of the Septuagint used, but it's technically a valid translation.

[charl]

Dude I told you before his antichristness would hate the NIV. They are Vulgate guys. And the KJV used the Vulgate you know....heheh

[Petra_Pete]

KJ is saying: I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me.
Anyone can be the "him", lower case h. Satan could be the him. That verse becomes nothing more than a Joel Olsteen motivational tool for business.

Not to perpetuate the KCV only debate, but I would like to put a few things out there to ponder.

First, let's throw out the "motivational tool for $$$" thing. It's stupid. Period. We don't really know the person's motivation and to announce something like this borders on slander.

Second and more pertinent to the quote above. When the NIV, NASV, etc. use lower case "h" instead of making it a capital when referring to the Devine, it isn't because they don't respect God or want to make Jesus lower than he really is, the answer is simple. IT ISN'T IN THE ORIGINAL. The Greek doesn't do this nor does the Hebrew. It was a literary device in the 1600's to show respect and to make a distinction between Devine and mortal. When the NASV, NIV, etc. make it lower case, it is simply more accurate to do so.

Third, the manuscripts used for the New Testament in the KJV in 1604 (when it was commissioned) we not as old as the manuscripts that we have available today. Because of archeology and other discoveries, more (thousands really!) manuscripts were found that were older and thus closer to the autograph (original). In the 1600's the oldest manuscripts available dated back to about 1000 AD, but today we have thousands of manuscripts dating back to the 3rd and 4th century.
Stay with me, this is where it gets good!
What this shows is that though hundreds of years passed, very little was changed! The text was essentially the same as it was hundreds of years before; there goes that stupid "telephone game" argument that some people try to use to discredit scripture! It also tells us that the KJV is a good version to be used, though not the only (in my opinion).

Fourth point, or really, three and a half. Why then the more words in the KJV? While it could appear that there might be a conspiracy to change stuff in "modern" translations (which use older and thus more reliable manuscripts), the reason I am about to propose is very plausible and acceptable by leading scholars and experts today (not to mention it is logical). Here it is: In copying from one to another, it is better to have a stupid man copying rather than a smart one. This is because a smarter one is more likely to add a word here and there for clarity so that readers won't have as much question to the meaning of what he's copying. A stupid man wouldn't be this smart or likely to be thinking ahead like this. In copying, I believe one is more likely to add words for clarity rather than take words away to make it more difficult for future generations to understand the words of Christ and his message. In translating using various manuscripts trying to find and use the best ones out there before it gets into English, the translator (or better yet, a body of translators working together) should use the shorter rather than the longer text in the Greek. He (they) would also use the Greek that is more difficult to read grammatically for the same reason as mentioned above (copyist switching word order for clarity).

Fifth, some personal comments rather than technical ones. I have studied the originals and still take my Greek NT with me to church on Sunday. I follow along in it when the pastor reads from the English. My church uses the NIV. Though it reads nice, it is a thought-for-thought translation and thus looses something. The thought-for-thought translating is accurate, but I am still frustrated because they had some smart translators working who wanted the reader not to be confused as to meaning. As such, word order is changed for clarity and can be difficult as times to follow along (esp. some of Paul's letters). But like the copyists of old, of which the KJV translators based their translation from about 400 years ago, the meaning is the same. The message and meaning remains in tact. The New Living Translation is probably taking the baton from the NIV as we speak. It is even more up to date in it's wording, but with many (if not a bit more) of the same frustrations. RSV same story, just older than the NIV. The NIV sort of picked up where the RSV left off in popularity.
One thing the KJV has going for it that I like is that it is a word-for-word translation which, in my opinion, is better. However, the English is 400 years old making it difficult for many of today's readers. But I wouldn't discourage anyone from reading and using this version if they so choose. As an aside, the NKJV is a good compromise- same translation, but with today's English. They have also kept the writing style the same as the older version where every verse is a paragraph thus halting any flow of thought or ease of reading. Also, a verse a paragraph is not any manuscript; younger or older. (but it's a minor point)
I am not a huge fan of the NewNIV, NewRVS, NewWhateverVersion or the Message. The Message because it is a paraphrase and they should never be used for Bible study since it is one person translating rather than a body (no check and balance) The others because I believe they have begun to compromise the essence of the originals. They have added words here and there, changed others here and there not out of better or older manuscript evidence, but I believe out of (more liberal leaning) public pressure and/or political correctness. Certainly these versions are softer in translation than any of the ones in our subject line.
In my own devotions and personal study I use the New American Standard Version. I use one that does not have a verse a paragraph but use one that is a "reader's edition." It is a word-for-word translation and I believe they try to keep the stylistic intentions of the author in its paragraph divisions. It is more stilted in its reading and some find this frustrating (NIV is certainly much easier in reading), but it is something I endure.

Sorry to make this so long. It is much longer than I originally hoped and intended, but I wanted to add something to this thread. Thank you for your patience.

[brent]

There was no slander. Have you read Olsteens stuff? It is a good business motivation, positive mental attitude message. There isn't much related to the Gospel of Jesus Christ either. It is somewhat unscriptural to teach that repeating certain phrases over and over brings things to pass. Or that saying your a child of the King is great for getting you out of speeding tickets, or getting a favorite parking space (that's in the book). You can create all kinds of lah-lah in your head, but reality says, and so does Jesus Christ, "Take up your cross and follow me." And we should expect no better treatment than Jesus got, as he says the same.

Again, I am not a KJV only guy. I like reading the amplified. I find that by the time I have gone through the Vines, Moody Press and Strongs, I have found the amplified has it pretty much summed up.

I do not read any version that has used Godless people, like the United Council of Churches, or homosexuals, or anyone else with a jacked view of Jesus Christ to interpret God's word.

The fact that recent documents verify the message in the KJ is good enough for me. Again, older does not mean most correct. How far back can you go?

I get tickled when I hear the lame argument about added words. Thy English language sucketh. There are no languages that transfer directly to and from Hebrew or Greek. Talk to a Wycliffe (sp?) translator. I know a girl over in Africa, translating for them. The language that she is translating the bible into has exponentially fewer words. They don't even know what some of the animals are in the bible. So they have to tell a story to relay a concept that they will understand. Their bible may have more words. As long as it relays the truth, who cares? Same goes for English versions. We had to have extra words so it would make sense.

No the Hebrew and the Greek did not capitalize. That's why they used their words and repetition of words to make a point. They had a reverence for the names of God that we do not share today. The translators put capitals in as an identifier. It is a good idea, because that is what our culture relates too.

Everyone has different history and time lines about the English bible. In the 1380s Wycliffe worked on the first English bible. I have seen a German bible that followed that from the 1400s. I am of the persuation that the motives of those people then, when translating, were completely different than today, knowing that if copies were held in some countries, they might be put to death. Also they had a complete reverence for God that is foreign to us today. At a Christian bookstore, I saw a T-shirt that said, "God's middle name ain't dammit".

[charl]

There is no one way to spell Wycliffe Wyclif Wycliff, so don't worry about having it right.

Also a little known anglo-saxon version exists. Sometimes it is considered English, sometimes not.

Still unsure of how a person's belief system makes it hard for them to translate one word into another language equivalent. Devoutness, while good, is not necessarily a mark of authenticity. Otherwise the JW's "translation" would have us beat.

de rien=it's nothing.

[Hartmanfan]

Devoutness, while good, is not necessarily a mark of authenticity. Otherwise the JW's "translation" would have us beat.

How true.

[Hartmanfan]

Phil 4:13
NASB and NIV are saying: I can do all things through him who gives me strength.
KJ is saying: I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me.
Anyone can be the "him", lower case h. Satan could be the him.

Have you ever heard the old adage "a text without a context is a pretext"? if you read a few verses up instead of cherry picking the Bible, you understand that "Him" is Jesus. Just a thought.

[gman]

That's a good point. Chapter and verse are an invention of man. In New Testament times they most likely would have read the entire letter and not just snippets like we do. Or at least whole sectrions so the context was correct. Scholars were able to identify sections, I'm the early church could have done the same.

[knotodiswrld]

I do not read any version that has used Godless people, like the United Council of Churches, or homosexuals, or anyone else with a jacked view of Jesus Christ to interpret God's word.

This from the book The Early Stuarts and The Three Kingdoms:

The Early Stuarts and The Three Kingdoms on King James Sexuality.JPG (76.97 KiB) Viewed 5676 times

For the full text:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1D9VrP ... utput=html


Of course, James I had little to do with the actual translation of the KJV. Basically, he provided the funds and hired the translators (all of whom were Anglican clergy BTW, so it's basically a "Church of England" translation). And by all accounts, these translators were devout men who did their prayerful best with the resources they had.

But the same can be said of the one lesbian known to have been involved in the NIV. She was basically a consultant on proper grammatical style. She did not have anything like the influence to alter the NIV's emphasis. In fact, the passage prohibiting homosexual activity seem much more clear in the NIV than the KJV. She did her job. She made sure the style of the writing communicated the idea the actual translation committees thought it should.

I find the NAS to be the best of the modern language translations for study, though I generally preach out of the NIV.

[prem]

Actually, most of the 'prosperity' preachers use the KJV, as it's the easiest for them to twist into their distorted versions of orthodox Christian doctrine, being written in a very antiquated form of our language that is largely inaccessible to the modern man.

---Prem

[knotodiswrld]

That's true, Prem. Although there is one notable exception who uses the Amplified Bible ... if you consider her to be a "Prosperity Gospel" teacher.

But as you say, the Prosperity teachers tend to use the KJV, and then to focus on tiny points of grammar, syntax, or vocabulary to make the point they want to make. Of course, they only do that when it benefits the point they are trying to prove.

[prem]

I remember finding it interesting that the KJV translators preferred to use the words 'him' and 'his', starting with lowercase letters for pronouns that clearly pertained to a member of the Trinity (Father, Jesus, or Holy Spirit), yet were very careful to capitalize any pronoun referring to King James in the dedication of the translation. It seems that they were elevating the wrong sovereign in their minds.

'But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.' (Romans 8:11 KJV)

'The Lord of heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of that great God, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour.'

I also noted the following in the various translations of Romans 8:16:

'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:' (KJV)

'The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,' (NASB)

'The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children' (NIV)

Here we clearly have a false doctrine embedded within the text of the KJV, reducing the Holy Spirit to an 'it'. The later translations more correctly refer to the Holy Spirit as 'him' or 'Him', which is in line with orthodox Christian doctrine regarding the third member of the Holy Trinity being a Person and not a thing.

NOTE: I am stating all this clearly tongue-in-cheek...quite frankly, I don't see a whole lot of difference in what translation you use, provided it is one that is not a deliberate mistranslation like the GNB/GNFMM, NWT (JW's), or Inspired Version (Mormons). I do think, however, that the KJV is not as usable a translation if for nothing else than its archaic language that could lead a modern day reader to misunderstand the text.

---Prem