SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : TNIV - Your Thoughts??

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
Krispy, are you sure you're quoting the Philippians verse from the New King James Version?



My mistake... thats how the [b]NIV[/b] "translates" that verse... not the NKJV.

Even I am capable of a mistake now and then! :-)

Krispy

 2005/3/23 8:09









 Re:

Quote:
No version is perfect!! Even the KJV is flawed!! Besides that the Old English language used in the KJV is very confusing. How do you translate the word Thou or Thee into Chinese?



Instead of just making statements that the KJV is flawed, why not offer some proof. I've not once stated that a version is flawed without backing it up with some evidence.

As far as how Thou and Thee are translated into Chinese... I am no expert in the Chinese langauge (except that I know what Kung Pow Chicken is). However, if I am not mistaken, the Chinese language does have words for "you" singular and "you" plural, and that is how it would be translated. I found this information in my studies on Bible versions, and so I am trusting that what I read was correct. If I am not correct, I am open to being corrected, if anyone knows any different.

I'm glad your friends are involved in a translation ministry, but the basic difference between the Reformers Bibles, the Bibles of Wycliff and Tyndale, and the KJV [b]vs.[/b] the modern English "bibles" is the underlying text is completely different.

Reformers Bibles, the Bibles of Wycliff and Tyndale, and the KJV are based on the Received Text, which consists of over 2,000 manuscript witnesses which are in almost complete agreemnt with the exception of a few minor grammatical nuances.

The modern versions are based on 2 manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus, and these 2 manuscripts dont even agree with each other. Each of them have gaping holes in the text where scripture has been removed, and many scriptures have been altered, compared to the Received Text. Both are heralded by the Roman Catholic Church as the "real" manuscripts, and they claim the Received Text is corrupt. If one wants to trust the Roman Catholic Church on this issue, be my guest... but I surely do not.

If you just go on the odds alone, you have to side with the Recieved Text. 2,000+ to 2.

But there is much more to it than that. The history of the 2 different schools of manuscripts is very very interesting, and different. I suggest you study it out a little better.

Krispy

 2005/3/23 8:19
inotof
Member



Joined: 2005/1/7
Posts: 267
Morehead, KY

 Re:

Does nyone know if they use the textus recptus to transalt the NIV or do they use another manuscript? Just curious, don;t mean to get off suject, but it is relevnt.


_________________
David

 2005/3/23 9:13Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Does nyone know if they use the textus recptus to transalt the NIV or do they use another manuscript? Just curious, don;t mean to get off suject, but it is relevnt.



You're right... it is extremely relevant because the NIV is the most popular modern version.

The NIV is absolutely [b]not[/b] based on the same text as the KJV. (Textus Receptus)

Krispy

 2005/3/23 9:51









 Re:

My point was simply that we can't allow the enemy to get us distracted by arguing about which version is the best. My point was that Jesus Himself is who we are seeking and the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us. NOT THAT WE DON"T NEED THE BIBLE! You referenced comparisons of John 6:47 but I can just as easily point to Colossians 2:9

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" ( Colossians 2:9 NIV).

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9 KJV).

I could just as easily say the KJV leaves room for confusion by saying him instead of Christ.

My point is we need to be careful but not so careful we are paranoid!

Also I have seen the whole interview by Leonard Ravenhill. I believe his opinion was KJV was the best. However his point was that we can't make an idol out of the bible and use it to hit people over the head with it.

 2005/3/23 14:07
Zumb
Member



Joined: 2005/3/16
Posts: 8


 Re: TNIV - Your Thoughts??

Right, but the main reason that the newer translators chose those manuscripts is that they were earlier manuscripts not even discovered at the time of translating the KJV in 1611. So yes there are some verses missing and some things added but the same could be said about the KJV.

Nobody has even mentioned the ESV yet, do some research on it. It retains ambiguitys gets the most accurate word for word translation, tries to keep poems as poetic as they were. I can't explain it as well as they did.

http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy

Here is what they say

Translation Philosophy


The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.


In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a “thought-for-thought” rather than “word-for-word” translation philosophy, emphasizing “dynamic equivalence” rather than the “essentially literal” meaning of the original. A “thought-for-thought” translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture.


Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be “as literal as possible” while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence.


Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.


As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language. As such, it is ideally suited for in-depth study of the Bible. Indeed, with its emphasis on literary excellence, the ESV is equally suited for public reading and preaching, for private reading and reflection, for both academic and devotional study, and for Scripture memorization.


From all that I know about translation which isn't really a huge amount this is the most accurate english version.

 2005/3/23 14:14Profile









 Re:

I just bought an ESV, my only complaint is that it hasnt come out in a study Bible version like the NIV I have from Zondervan, which I love. I have pretty much all the versions, and love them all, they all excite me....its the Word of God and thats always exciting.

what's NOT exciting is constant controversy and backbiting and arguing among the Body.

oh well.......when we get glorified, other Things will captivate our minds.

 2005/3/23 14:29









 Re:

Quote:
My point was simply that we can't allow the enemy to get us distracted by arguing about which version is the best. My point was that Jesus Himself is who we are seeking and the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us. NOT THAT WE DON"T NEED THE BIBLE! You referenced comparisons of John 6:47 but I can just as easily point to Colossians 2:9



I completely disagree. If you check the warnings in Dueteronomy and Revelation concerning the adding to or taking away from the Words of God... one has to conclude that it's a [b]very[/b] big deal to God. If it's a big deal to God, it's a big deal to me. Paul warned about those who mishandled the scriptures, and if it's a big deal to Paul... it's a big deal to me.

No one is making an idol of the Bible, but God said that He exaults His own Word above His name.

Krispy

 2005/3/23 16:02









 Re:

Quote:
Right, but the main reason that the newer translators chose those manuscripts is that they were earlier manuscripts not even discovered at the time of translating the KJV in 1611. So yes there are some verses missing and some things added but the same could be said about the KJV.



The KJV translators made no secret that they added some words to the text, but they said they did so so that the sentence structure would make sense in English. Everytime you see a word in italics in the KJV it is a word they added for this reason. At least they didnt make a secret about it, they were very honest and open about it. Get a Greek Linear Bible and try to read the literal translation... it's hard.

Yes, it is true that the [b]Catholic Church[/b] makes the claim that the Sinaticus and Vaticanus are older... but there is no proof. Just their word on it. I dont know about you, but I dont trust an organization that did it's best to murder anyone who tried to translate teh Bible into English a few centuries ago... including William Tyndale... whose translation was used for over 80% of the KJV.

Some claim "well, these two manuscripts are older, so if something isnt in them, then it must have been added to the Received Text." [b]However[/b], there are references in the writings of the 1st and 2nd century church fathers that mention portions of scriptures that are missing from the Sinaticus and Vaticanus... and these writings of the early church fathers are older than the RCC claims the Sinaticus and Vaticanus to be.

Sinaticus and Vaticanus disagree with about 90-95% of all known manuscripts, and they even disagree among themselves. Both have a long history of corruption and obscurity.

Omissions of Sinaticus and Vaticanus

[b]Vaticanus omits:[/b]
a.) Everything from Genesis 1:1 to 46:28.
b.) Psalms 106-139
c.) All of First Timothy
d.) All of second Timothy
e.) All Titus
f.) All of Revelation
g.) All of Hebrews after Chapter 9:14 to the end of the book
h.) Our Lord's agony and blood like sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22:43- 44
i.) Our Lord's prayer for his adversaries. Luke 23:34 "Father forgive them; for they know not what they do."
j.) Mark 16:9-20. There is a significant blank space in the manuscript where this passage would have gone, testifying for it's inclusion in the Bible.
k.) The story of the women taken in adultery John 7:53 - John 8:11
l.) Heb 9:15 to the end of the book.
m.) 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13

Vaticanus adds the Apocrypha to the OT.

[b]Sinaticus omits:[/b]
a.) John 5:4, 8:1-11
b.) Matthew 16:2-3
c.) Romans 16:24
d.) Mark 16:9-20 Again, there is a significant blank space where these verses should have gone.
e.) Acts 8:37
f.) 1 John 5:7

Sinaticus adds: The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the NT and the Apocypha to the OT.

As you can see... these two "more reliable" manuscripts do not even agree with each other. Yet the Received Text is made of more than 2,000 manscript witnesses that agree with each other with the exception of a few grammatical nuances.

God has preservered His Word... [b]just as He said He would[/b]. If the Sinaticus and Vaticanus are more reliable, then one must believe that God kept His Word hidden from man for nearly 1,500 years.

I reject that. Thats not the God I serve. The God I serve keeps His promises.

Krispy

 2005/3/23 16:21









 Re:

I would also like to point out that I would support a Bible in more modern English [b]if[/b]:

a) it used the same Greek and Hebrew underlying text that the KJV used.

b) it maintained the pronoun usages of "thee" and "thou" and "you" (differentiating between "you" plural, and "you" singular.

...so far no one has.

Krispy

 2005/3/23 16:27





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy