Another NIV error

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by deacon jd, Oct 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to share with some of my [inflammatory comment snipped] brothers and sisters another NIV error. Yes thats right another one. Please turn in your NIV bible to (Mark1:1-2) You will find that the gospel of Mark opens with scripture from the Old Testament being used to introduce us to John the Baptist. Both verse 1 and 2 are quotations from Old Testament but where. Verse number 1 is a quote from the book of Malachi chapter 3:1 and verse 2 is a quote from Isaiah chapter 40 verse 3. In the AV 1611 KJV we find that these quotations are referred to as being written by the "prophets" being plural which is correct. Unfortunately in the NIV Bible [corrected to resolve an attack on the Bible] these quotations are referred to as being "written in the prophet Isaiah". Now which is it. We know that these two verses are obviously from two different prophets, but in the NIV it is said to be written by only the prophet Isaiah. Again we have another attack upon the accuracy of the Word of God made by a [corrected to resolve an attack on the Bible] Bible.
     
    #1 deacon jd, Oct 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2006
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Goodness we need to correct the author of Mark, he must have been mistaken.

    Let us correct the earliest Greek manuscripts.

    This is a weakness of the Byzantine Priority stance.

    Rob
     
  3. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    why does this op so remind me of "yea, hath God said?"

    [​IMG]

    if the arbitrary criterion of "accuracy" were to be applied to the AV, wld we have ANY bible left?

    when will these self-appointed modern-day bible correctors (of MVs) stop?


     
    #3 Forever settled in heaven, Oct 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2006
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I'm not sure here, maybe a scholar can help me, but I seem to remember that at that time the Prophets were referred to by the term "Isaiah."

    Any help, or correction, would be appreciated.
     
  5. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i ain't no scholar, but here's a link that might help:
    http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=676

    check out the rest of the article via the link.

    i'm wondering, however, on the basis of the Luke 24 paradigms of the 3-fold Hebrew canon (Moses/Law, Prophets, n the Psalms/Writings) if Isaiah, being the head of the Prophets, might've stood for all of the prophetic books just as the Psalms stood for all of the Writings.

    can we page a Hebrew scribe or something? :1_grouphug:
     
    #5 Forever settled in heaven, Oct 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2006
  6. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Irenaeus favored "In the prophets" over "in Isaiah prophet" on Mark 1:1-2 because he wrote, "Plainly does, the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets.." (Against Heresies III:10:5, :11:4, :16:3)

    I would say that Frederic Kenyon disagreed with Daniel Wallace. Frederic explained that 1 of 2 text readings was replaced because he showed that this replacement is the alteration in interests of accuracy because the quotation included words from Malachi and Isaiah.
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    It seems that it was an accepted practice that when mixing quotations together from multiple sources to only name the most important or prominent prophet (in this case, Isaiah). By the way, the first phrase of the quote is actually closer to the wording of Exodus 23:20 than Malachi 3:1. Notice that none of the OT verses are exacly word-for-word as Mark has written it.
     
    #7 franklinmonroe, Oct 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2006
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is not a new discovery. To be fair, any version (not just the NIV) that uses this underlying Greek text would have the same 'problem'. It is not an 'error' of translation. This is really an attack on that Greek text, not a particular English version.
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    In fact, it is just as likely the opposite occurred. In the face of the 'problem' of only Isaiah being credited in the text, a well-meaning copyist decided to 'correct' the inspired original author's word by placing "prophets" in the text. This explanation for the difference between Greek texts fits the documentary evidence ("Isaiah" in early MSS, and "prophets" being in late MSS) as cited by Dr. Wallace (which is very similar to the note at this verse in the NET).

    JF&B states: Instead of the words, "as it is written in the Prophets," there is weighty evidence in favor of the following reading: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet." This reading is adopted by all the latest critical editors. If it be the true one, it is to be explained thus--that of the two quotations, the one from Malachi is but a later development of the great primary one in Isaiah, from which the whole prophetical matter here quoted takes its name. But the received text is quoted by IRENAEUS, before the end of the second century, and the evidence in its favor is greater in amount, if not in weight. The chief objection to it is, that if this was the true reading, it is difficult to see how the other one could have got in at all; whereas, if it be not the true reading, it is very easy to see how it found its way into the text, as it removes the startling difficulty of a prophecy beginning with the words of Malachi being ascribed to Isaiah.
     
    #9 franklinmonroe, Oct 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2006
  10. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Unless there is more, this statement does not prove that Irenaeus actually favored the words "in the prophets" for the text in Mark's Gospel. It merely shows that Irenaeus (as many others) recognized that there is more than one prophet quoted in this passage. Notice his use of "holy" before the word "prophets" in the Iranaeus quote. Does he in Agaist Heresies (or anywhere) specifically state that in his opinion " in the prophets" are the original inspired words?
     
    #10 franklinmonroe, Oct 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2006
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This page on the internet contains the intellectual property
    of Jack Moorman:

    http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv4.htm

    says: //" ... Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote
    the words of the holy prophets, " (Against Heresies III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3).//

    Unless the person has a copy of "Against Heresies" and
    checks the citations (III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3 -- BTW, only one of the
    three are quoted by Mr. Askjo) he is likely committing intellectural
    fraud. The common courtesy is to cite the source of the
    intellectual property of the person doing the actual research.
    Again, if a person actually turns to citations
    10:5, 11:4, and 16:3 of the IIIrd part of AGAINST HERESIES,
    one can cite as noted above.
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    That is very possible. Malachi is not a book unto itself in the Hebrew Tanakh, but is just one of 12 (Minor) Prophets grouped together in one volume. Isaiah does stand under its own title.
     
  13. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Irenaeus (c. 130–202) AGAINST HERESIES [link] III. 10:5. [bolding added]
    Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. * The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God.” Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in “the spirit and power of Elias,” Luke i. 17. “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding See ii. 35, 3. this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;” Mark xvi. 19. confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Ps. cx. 1. Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

    * The Greek of this passage in St. Mark i. 2 reads, τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ , i.e., His paths , which varies from the Hebrew original, to which the text of Irenæus seems to revert, unless indeed his copy of the Gospels contained the reading of the Codex Bezæ. [See book iii. cap. xii. 3, 14, below; also, xiv. 2 and xxiii. 3. On this Codex, see Burgon, Revision Revised , p. 12, etc., and references.]

    Look up the other sited references on your own.

    Rob
     
  14. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    So far there has been three of four different explainations on why the inaccuracy is there, and not one of them has been a good one or one that the average Chrisian could understand. The bottom line is when Mister of Ms average, every day Christian (that hasn't been to bible college and trained how to explain away contradictons and error in the MV bibles) opens their NIV that is full of error their faith is weakened in the Word of God. If what all of you are saying is correct, then their is no perfect Word of God available to the English speaking believer. Why don't you believe that God is big enough to supply us with a perfect translation. God is big enough. I do not believe that I need to learn Greek or Hebrew to understand the Word of God. I'd rather have the Holy Ghost of God!!!
     
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bet the "Baptist board" in 1612 said the same thing...
     
  16. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for answering my question. Oh wait ..... you didn't.
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    For the record, I am not necessarily a NIV supporter. I've been saved for about 30 years and didn't own a NIV until this year. All those years as an average 'everyday Christian' I found many apparent contridictions in my KJV, all of which have some way to be reconciled (but it may take some 'training' to accomplish).

    The 'bottom line' is that the Bible has difficulties, regardless of version. Look at the many problems within the genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke, for example.

    I do believe that God is 'big enough' to supply a perfect translation of every verse... the Holy Spirit impresses upon me that those perfect verses may not all be in one volume. Why didn't God just make it easy? Perhaps because "narrow is the way..."

    I am currently just starting to learn Greek, and I am convinced that knowing the original languages is the best way to come the closest to understanding God's original message. We are not compelled to learn Hebrew and Greek today because some one else has already done the work (learned them and translated them into English) for us. Without these dedicated scholars (starting with Tyndale, whom paid with his life) we wouldn't even have English versions to debate about!
     
  18. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    I believe that God is big enough to supply us with his word as He intended to preserve it.
    I believe that he gave us reason to learn all we could of the world around us (some more than others :tongue3: ).

    I believe that his holy Spirit resides in all believers even those that use the NIV.

    Rob
     
  19. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the NIV is full of errors and these errors weaken faith in the word of God, then what about where the NIV corrects errors made in older versions? Wouldn't those errors also weaken faith in the word of God?
     
  20. deacon jd

    deacon jd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carrying a KJV is not what saved me. Yes I believe that there are many brothers and sisters that are saved who use a MV bible. Yes I believe that the Holy Ghost resides in all believers even those who carry NIV bibles, but we need to be careful that we do not listen to those who we feel are more "educated" than we are instead of the Holy Ghost. The world around us is going to hell friend. Jesus tells us to "learn of me"not the world. If you believe that God is big enough to supply us with his word without error in the English language then where is it. God is not the author of confusion we do not need fifteen different versions to understand the Word of God.
     
    #20 deacon jd, Oct 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...