Niv Is Better Than The Kjv
- Thread starter Where is the Messiah
- Start date
Huntingteckel
Inactive
Do the NLT too Paul! That's generally the less literal translation I use if I'm not reading the NASB.
I don't really use the NIV, although I do have one in my office.
Paul, what versions do you suggest?
I don't really use the NIV, although I do have one in my office.
Paul, what versions do you suggest?
I agree, and an interesting question to think about is, are the original documents themselves "scripture," or are they themselves translations of scripture (where "scripture" would then be the thoughts that originated from God, then translated through the limitations of human language.)
Every language is limited to a finite number of concepts possible to articulate, and it's not possible for, say, Koine Greek to articulate every spiritual concept with full accuracy using only its existing concepts. In other words: new concepts must be somehow added to the language. The writers, then, must either coin new words, or take advantage of the complexities of existing words in order to accurately communicate meaning when trying to add a concept that doesn't already exist in the linguistic tradition, and I think we see this happening in the New Testament pretty often. A translator may very well need to add new words or phrases to prevent loss of meaning: a word-for-word translation may rob the original document of its meaning because of the way multiple simultaneous meanings of words can be used to create alternate meanings, and it's not possible for that feature to transmit into another language (especially a language with origins in a different language family) without adding words or paraphrasing. A translation that refuses to add words or paraphrase, then, may risk drastically changing what is being communicated in the original document.
Last edited:
Agreed...and this leaves us in a conundrum...this is why I had to do a year long study of the quotations found in the pre-Nicene fathers...
They were closer to the originals that were given to their Apostolically appointed leaders (at least in the east as no autographs were entrusted to the west except Mark's gospel which was started in Rome and finished in Alexandria)
In Justin I found 8 pages of quotes and a bunch of paraphrases and inferences (where a doctrinal position is expressed but no scripture particularly is implied)...in just Against Heresies (of Irenaeus student of Polycarp the student of St. John)....I found about 12 pages of direct quotes...by the time we get to Clement of Alexandria in his works I found 19 pages of direct quotes...this is my default text...these reflect the original texts passed on still hundreds of years before Sin or Vat...in 90% of the quotes they support the rendition finally agreed upon and given in the Majority text (but that still leaves about a 10% area of variance)...
They were closer to the originals that were given to their Apostolically appointed leaders (at least in the east as no autographs were entrusted to the west except Mark's gospel which was started in Rome and finished in Alexandria)
In Justin I found 8 pages of quotes and a bunch of paraphrases and inferences (where a doctrinal position is expressed but no scripture particularly is implied)...in just Against Heresies (of Irenaeus student of Polycarp the student of St. John)....I found about 12 pages of direct quotes...by the time we get to Clement of Alexandria in his works I found 19 pages of direct quotes...this is my default text...these reflect the original texts passed on still hundreds of years before Sin or Vat...in 90% of the quotes they support the rendition finally agreed upon and given in the Majority text (but that still leaves about a 10% area of variance)...
that's true .. all languages have limitations and all translations therefore suffer from "translational loss" .. however the Greek language is superior to the Hebrew language in being a more defining language for the most part ..
hence to understand the intent of scripture, we must have help by the HS ..
I do know the NASB is closest to the literal Critical Text so of those versions it is my favorite...but much is opinion (even mine). As for the NLT it utilized the most diverse OT examples (not the Sin Vat versions) and only applied the concept approach when the literal appeared difficult to understand. The NT is based mostly on the Nestle Text which is a bit more like Sin and Vat as they are (but still eclectically selects from each)....these CT versions must do this because there are not even a four passage sequence between Sin and Vat where there is not some variance...So any, but read a variety of versions...and if you can access a Greek interlinear based on the Majority Text I would go for that...there is a reason that it became the accepted text.
Oops...I see some of these post are rather old brother Paul.. so put this post in context of our others discussions please....
Brother Paul you are giving a false impression of these things and the very best biblical Greek scholars disagree with your conclusions... and if we went point by point (which I have a life and don't really want to do) every point you make could be shown that these MUCH OLDER text are clearly more accurate.
Also you use the term pre-Nicene "fathers" as if that term would separate these men from the heresy of mans religion and the errors that built the false Roman system. I have read all these letters and I would not consider any of these men to represent the Holy Spirit and the truth of the gospel. These letters are the birth of the anti-Christ system in my view and have almost no spiritual value and very little value as it relates to the Greek text.
Last edited:
Oops...I see some of these post are rather old brother Paul.. so put this post in context of our others discussions please....
Brother Paul you are giving a false impression of these things and the very best biblical Greek scholars disagree with your conclusions... and if we went point by point (which I have a life and don't really want to do) every point you make could be shown that these MUCH OLDER text are clearly more accurate.
Also you use the term pre-Nicene "fathers" as if that term would separate these men from the heresy of mans religion and the errors that built the false Roman system. I have read all these letters and I would not consider any of these men to represent the Holy Spirit and the truth of the gospel. These letters are the birth of the anti-Christ system in my view and have almost no spiritual value and very little value as it relates to the Greek text.
So which MUCH OLDER texts are older and closer to the originals than those quoted from in the first two centuries? Can you name them? I also have a life but am not sure to which you are referring? and if these texts are the beginning of the Anti-Christ system then where did the REAL TRUER texts become revealed? IN the 1500s? Or in Egypt during the 4th and 5th centuries? So please tell m to which you are referring my brother...
Deleted
This thread came back to life, wonderful.
well you have given no example of a conflict between the MUCH OLDER text and the modern text that you seem to have confidence in? We have discussed this issue a little and I believe you used some very weak sources as your example? Such as Origen...who is KNOWN to change scripture as he pleased. Give a direct example from a reliable source and we will see if your ideas can stand a real test?
Last edited:
And when you communicate what God says in the Bible is it only always a direct quote or do you also sometimes paraphrase? Of course you do and I never use (nor have used) Origen as a "Proof" of anything...I made reference to things like both Sinaiticus (clearly not older and last edited in around the 12th century) and Vaticanus (though providing a space for it) do not contain Mark 16 after verse 8 but Irenaeus in 130 - a60 A.D. quotes from it. What did he do, make it up? He received his teachings from Polycarp the student of John the Apostle. Wouldn't Polycarp's copy be much older than these two later edited items that are in such disagreement with each other? And you did not answer my question...which TEXTS are MUCH OLDER than those the appointed church leaders of the first 2 centuries received? Name them please...
MMurphy
Inactive
Here is an interesting thought, and I don't mean it to spark debate or accusations about what it means to believe in Biblical inerrancy, but I've been reading a book about Christianity's history, and its very academically critical about the Bible, and its pointed out discrepancies in the Gospels (fun fact, the Greek term for good news is evangelion, which was latinized into evangelium, and then transliterated into English, evangelical, but the Anglo-Saxons creatively translated the Greek word for good news into Old English Godspell, now who is with me for turning Gospel back into Godspell?) so I was thinking about it, and some of the issues that were pointed out, and some of them seemed like they were being overplayed, like the different writing styles, but then were the incoherent descriptions of the nativity, and who exactly was first to see the resurrected Christ, so one thing I considered was perhaps the histories were not protected from fallacy but rather the tenants of the faith and the rules about morality. What say you?
Well the reason Mark 16 was missing was because the text itself was damaged and a missing portion, as I recall? This is very different than the idea that the text did not recognize these scriptures. And edited does not take away from the overall witness and age of the over all text. It was very common that those who used the text would write upon the manuscripts themselves as they used these writtings. Yes I have heard the idea that Polycarp was this and that and some would try to establish him as a direct student of John, which is a common tactic of those who attempt to mislead others. What contradiction in his writtings with the older text are you trying to establish?
Cool! So are you saying these edited 4th and 5th century texts are MUCH OLDER then the ones that the earliest church fathers had received in the 1st and 2nd centuries (here is where most flip flop to say by this they mean MUCH BETTER)?
I have heard folks claim apparent discrepancies in he scriptures, these often come from folks who are very relgious but have very little understanding of the gospel and The Holy Spirit who wrote these things. For instance most do not understand the four gospels represent the four faces of Christ as shown in the temple that Matthew showed Christ as King of Kings..fulfilling certain prophecy in regards to the Kingdom..Thus we have His heritage back to David and Abraham. That the gospel of Luke shows Christ as the "son of man" or the "last Adam" and gives His geneology back to Adam...That in Mark, He is the suffering servant that a servant has no geneology...In John He is "The Son of God" and God..and John starts his gospel that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God... The four faces of Israel, on their standards and on the temple veil. The man, the ox, the lion, the eagle. Son of man, the servant, the King, God manifest.
Last edited:
Well I need an exact example, because as has been said it was very common to (edit) or write upon a certain manuscript, and the word could mean alot of things to different people. The point being when these issues are looked at by the very best Scholars they are convinced these older manuscripts are far more accurate that the modern text that you would ask others to depend upon. And again I make the point that Origen is not a reliable source...which I believe you are trying to use again as a source? Give a direct example of a conflict that sheds real light on this issue and we will search out the truth together.
Yes but Mizpa these are one group of modern scholars (2000 years after the fact) most of whom do not believe the most basic Christian doctrines...consider this....
Sinaiticus (a text long discarded for burning, found in an Orthodox library, which you are saying we today should be relying on) and Vaticanus (a Roman Catholic text known to exist and only held and controlled by the Vatican, which you are saying we should be relying on), which disagree with over 90% of all other extant samples (which according to modern liberal scholars must all be incorrect if these are indeed the best), which disagree with each other in over 7,000 places (each adding to and taking away where seems fit), and disagree just in the gospels in over 3,000 places (and not just spelling errors or repetitions but entire passages), are reliable!
Okay then since they are in such stark disagreement (even opposing one another), both cannot be the best or the more correct, so which one is it? The one the Orthodox church threw away or the one the Vatican kept hidden?
Neither the Nestle hodge podge eclectic (he picked and chose as he felt appropriate) or the Westcott/Hort hodge podge eclectic (they picked and chose what they thought appropriate) agree with each other (these also disagree in 1,000s of places), so which of these is the correct or best? Choose!
And no! It has been noted by many Textual Critics that Vaticanus simply has a blank space where these passages of Mark would have been…so which is best? Sin or Vat? Which is the reliable edited version? Or is it neither? Then in that case which modern hodge podges (with personally selected choices from both, with some personal interpretations added) are the best or more correct?
Why did all of Christendom select what we have in the majority of examples that go back even farther if these were the better?
Think about it? Most of the people that are telling you this do not even believe the Bible is true...yet them we should trust in? They (like Sin and Vat) cannot even agree with each other (hence a version for any need to scratch any ear with a particular itch)