Hello...

I would like to interject that these "missing" or "added" verses are not [i]deleted from[/i] or [i]added to[/i] the NIV. They simply were not present in the majority of the text sources and ancient manuscripts used in the NIV. In the end, all of these variations are simply the differences between the sources used for the basis of the translations.

As for the superiority of the Textus Receptus, Alexandrian text sources, or other sources (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc...), I simply do [u]not[/u] believe that there is enough evidence to make a final, ultimate verdict in the matter. That is why I personally study both the NIV and the KJV -- which I believe represent the best, and most academic translations of their sources.

Of course, I will always study with my KJV due to the great amount of FREE resources available. The plethora of readily available sources are a wonderful means for serious study of God's Word.

:-)

_________________
Christopher

Hi Krispy...

Yes, we certainly disagree about whether the evidence is present to discredit one set of sources, and ultimately, the versions translated from it. I have read many arguments, pro and con, about the sources used for the NIV. I am inclined to test the sources of such dispute. Currently, a majority (from what I understand) of translators, archeaologists, linguists and manuscript historians support the unbaised authenticity Alexandrian Texts. Does this make it right? Or course not. However, in my opinion, there is enough reason to abstain from making a final judgment in the matter.

The KJV is not without similar criticism. Issues have been historically raised concerning the instructions that were given to the translators of the KJV. For instance, they were instructed to use a questionable version (the "Bishop's Bible") as the basis of the "new" version. Some traditional terms and phrases were retained, seemingly against the wishes of some of the translators. Additionally, some have criticized the translators' exclusive use of "formal equivalence" (word-for-word translation, rather than the "dynamic equivalence" style that conveys thought). Anyone who has translated a passage from Spanish to English (or vice versa) realize the problems associated with exclusive use of either formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence. And of course, there are scholars who believe that the Alexandrian text and other sources are intrinsically superior to the Textus Receptus.

One problem that I have noticed with the KJV is the lack of footnotes. The translators certainly noted areas of dispute -- but they are not included in the finished manuscript. The NIV is quick to include the debated passages, phrases or words with an footnote signifying such rationale and alternative explanations.

As for Zondervan, I'd like to also let it be known that they were independent at the time that the New International Version was published (in 1978). They were not purchased by HarperCollins (which is now owned by NewsCorp) until 1988. No one in Fox, NewsCorp, HarperCollins, or any other secular corporation had any input into the translation.

*EDIT...

- As far as a "copyright" is concerned, you may want to consider that the works by David Wilkerson, Leonard Ravenhill, etc... are protected by copyrights. In addition, certain other works are also legally protected or copyrighted (including the KJV of the Gideon Bibles found in hotels). Does this mean that they are "in it for the money?" Of course not. They simply are protecting their own name. Since it was published, the NIV is allowed to be used in a work up to 500 verses (or less than 25% of a total work). This is not to simply "make money" off of a version -- but to protect it from being commercially reproduced or used in a malignant manner.

:-)

_________________
Christopher

Jay... I'm not being misleading. A copyright held by the "crown" of England is far different from one being owned by a publishing company.

First off, as an American, the "crown" of England is meaningless to me. (sorry philologos!)

Secondly, you dont have to pay royalties to the Royalty, or have their permission to reproduce this.

Once again, Jay... your putting apples beside oranges.

There is no comparison here.

Also, I dont use the copyright issue to proove the KJV is the Word of God. My point about the copyright is that money is involved, and if there is any reason for the over [b]80[/b] modern English versions produced in the last 120 plus years... it's publishing rights. And when there is a copyright on what is supposed to be God's Word, and that copyright generates money for a secular entity... I say there is a problem there.

And yes... I have a problem with a KJV (which has no copyright royalties) costing the same as an NIV at the bookstore.

Krispy

Krispy, the only reason the United States (as one of many) does not recognize the KJV copyright is because of the number of years that has passed since it was created.

Let me put it this way, Go to the United Kingdom and start creating copies of the KJV and "her majesty" has every right to sue you.

Also, in about 90+ years we can all enjoy the NASB, the NIV, the ESV etc. as Public Domain.

Krispy,

I don't want you to think I am picking on you with this, but it is (as the article before said) weak at best and dishonest at worst to use the copyright argument against modern versions.

Basically, the purpose of the copyright is to protect a company like Crossway (ESV), Lockman (NASB), and Zondervan (NIV) from having another company print, distribute, and sell the translation that they spent their time, talent, and treasures creating.

quite a list..... will take a little time to go through.....


thanks Krispy

_________________
CHRISTIAN