Getting a new bible and wanting you help.... Long post

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Koontzy, Sep 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Koontzy

    Koontzy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I grew up on the KJV on the bible, the first I had was the origonal 1611, and now I am reading the authorized KJV.... I do enjoy the websites that do have alot to say about the NIV and others, but have also seen where people have alot of answers to the questions KJV people ask.. so I have a few questions for everyone, and hopefully people here will be able to answer them..

    OK first on the NIV
    1.) why is Mathews 18:11 missing? I know some NIV study bible have the verse in the footnotes, but why?
    which also makes me wonder what are so many verses missing in the NIV,TNIV,ESV,NASB ect.....
    does the NIV call satan Jesus????? I heard it does? what verses do people use for this and what do people that read the niv have to say???

    I am planning on getting a really good study bible... I saw a cool looking NIV(archeological study bible) but have heard teh TNIV and ESV have really good study bibles..

    what would the best study bibles be in all the modern versions???


    thanks:)

    God Bless
    -Ryan
     
  2. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Koontzy: //why is Mathews 18:11 missing? I know some
    NIV study bible have the verse in the footnotes, but why?//

    Actually 'NIV study bible have the verse in footnotes' shows
    a lack of understanding of footnotes.
    There are three basic types of footnotes:

    1. Comentary footnoes
    the kind that 'study bible's have a lot of
    these comentaries are the opinion of the editor/writer of the Bible

    2. Cross reference footnotes
    these just list similar passages
    these cross references are good when you study a Bible:
    helping the Bible explaine the Bible

    3. Translator Footnotes
    These Translator Footnotes shows the variations
    between the sources; and are a necessary part
    of the translation
    (by the way /BTW/, the following are frequently
    plural terms that are usually used as singular:

    1. KJVs (King James Versions)
    2. TRs (Latin: Textus Receptus) English Received Texts
    3. MTs (Majority Texts)


    Here are some of the Margin Notes of the KJV1611 Edition
    of the New Testament (NT)
    showing that even the translators of the original KJV
    had available multiple sources which varied):


    KJV1611, Mt 1:11 "Iosias begate Iechonias"; footnote,
    "Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias"

    KJV1611, Mt 26:26 "and blessed it";
    footnote, "Many Greeke copies haue, gave thanks"

    KJV1611, Lk 10:22 "All things";
    footnote, "Many ancient copies adde these words,
    And turning to his Disciples he said."

    KJV1611, Luke 17:36,
    footnote: "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

    KJV1611, Ac 13:18 "suffered he their manners";
    footnote, "Gr ETROPOFORRHSEN, perhaps, for ETROFOFORHSEN, as a nurse beareth or feedeth her childe, Deut 1.31, 2 macc 7.27. according to the Sept[uagint] and so Chrysost[om]"

    KJV1611, Ac 25:6 "more then ten dayes";
    footnote, "Or, as some copies reade, no more than eight or ten dayes"

    KJV1611, 1Co 15:31 "your reioycing";
    footnote, "Some read, our"

    KJV1611, 1Cor 15:55 "O grave";
    footnote, "Or, hell"

    KJV1611, Eph 6:9 "that your master";
    footnote: Some reade, both your and their master"

    KJV1611, Jas 2:18 "without thy workes"
    footnote: Some copies reade, by thy workes"

    KJV1611, 1Pet 2:21 "suffered for us";
    footnote: Some reade, for you"

    KJV1611, 2Pet 2:2 "pernicious wayes";
    footnote: "Or, Lascivious wayes, *as some copies reade*"
     
  3. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    May I suggest a computer Bible, like the free one, e-sword.
    You can download it at www.e-sword.net

    You get many translations, commentaries, and dictionaries plus a lot of extras.
     
  4. FERRON BRIMSTONE

    FERRON BRIMSTONE
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Macarthur Study Bible available in NKJV and NASB, best study Bible available. In the NIV go for the NIV Study Bible by Zondervon.
     
  5. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ryan,

    Like yourself, some time ago I was in the market for a new Bible. I also grew up with the KJV. I suggest that you determine which translation is best for you before choosing the study notes.

    As I started to research into the history of how we got our English Bibles, I found a startling fact that most Christians don't know or don't acknowledge: there is not a singular definitive Greek text (from which to translate into English). BYW, there are also multiple Hebrew texts in which to base an OT translation.

    In terms of just the NT, all the scraps of ancient Greek manuscripts from all early centuries are compiled and compared (work done by the science of textual criticism). No two major manuscripts are exactly alike. Most of the variations are somewhat minor, but this the beginning of the answer to your question.

    Consequently, incomplete Greek manuscripts that are similar are grouped together to form a complete text. There are two to four 'families' of similar Greek text (depending on how one makes distinctions). The names of two major Greek families are the Majority Text (aka Byzantine Text or Western Text) and the Critical Text (aka Minority Text). The Majority Text (MT) is so named because there are many more ancient examples of it in our possession. A subset of the Majority Text is the Textus Receptus (TR) which is the underlying Greek of the KJV. There is an entire debate ongoing about whether the TR is a good representative of the original Greek.

    Some folks think that the MT is more reliable because there are more documentary witnesses to it. However, most of this proof still exists because it relatively not as ancient (6-10th centuries) and many more copies of Scripture were made. We have found fewer manuscripts supporting the Critical Text (CT) but that could be because they are older (3-5th centuries, much closer to the time of the apostle's original writing) and have been deteriorated. Most modern scholars think that the CT is better/more reliable because there had been less time for corruption/mistakes to creep into the copies. There is evidence that tends to indicate that the MT had verses and words added into the Greek text over time. Therefore, the CT is a shorter text than the MT. This is why most 'modern' versions do not have all the verses found in the KJVs.

    Many study Bibles have footnotes alluding to important Greek variants other than the one they primarily base their translation upon. It is important to recognize that most good translators will reference multiple sources and occasionally use these in their version. Some versions put the textual variants within brackets within their text so as to not interrupt the traditional verse numbers. Even with all the differences in Greek texts no major doctrine is affected and God's word is preserved.

    Another thing most people are unaware of is that there are at least three methods of approaching a translation from one language to another: there is 1) a literal, almost word-for-word method called 'formal equivalency'; 2) less literal, thought-for-thought method called 'dynamic' or 'functional equivalency'; 3) and the paraphrase.

    The KJV and NASB are examples of fairly literal translations. It is important to recognize that even literal translations must make subjective decisions about the words they choose for the English text. The NIV is less literal, but most people agree that reading it is more natural and smoother. "The Message" is and example of a paraphrase which is tantamount to a commentary.

    So, typically in a study Bible a more literal version is desired. Dynamic versions are great for daily reading and understanding difficult passages. Paraphrases are perhaps useful to get a broad overview, or for youth and other groups with limited understanding. Multiple versions in these different styles also gives a voracious reader some variety. Some other considerations: will you read this Bible aloud (maybe to children)? will you carry it to church (to follow a speaker)?

    Clearly, I recommend having several translations. However, if you must limit yourself to one there are several translations that are generally suitable. The NASB, ESV and the NKJ are all in the 'KJV tradition' and will sound familiar (more literal and TR based). Other (mostly dynamic and CT based) versions you might consider: Holman Christian Standard (HCS), NET, AMP, NIV, NLV. Once you select the translation, then see what is offered in that one in a study Bible format with notes.
     
  6. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would also like to say that it would all depend on what type of studying you are doing....
    And it sounds as if you are very interested in translational issues.

    If that is the case, then you may want to get a NET Bible. I got one a couple months ago, and it has all the translators notes, and why they translated the text the way they did.

    For example here is what the NET Bible study notes write about the verse you used in the OP:

    The most important mss (א B L* Θ* Ë1,13 33 892* pc e ff1 sys sa) do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg W Θc 078vid Ï lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed, as it were, from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

    Here is a link to the NET Bible, you can download it on your computer, or get one printed...I got mine off ebay, and paid $24 for it. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3086
     
    #6 tinytim, Sep 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2006
  7. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't be looking for only one translation, but a couple. Since you already have the KJV, I would suggest the HCSB, NLT2, ESV and NASB. I'm not crazy about the NIV, but I do have it. I feel the HCSB is similar and easier to read than the NIV. I believe the HCSB either comes in a study Bible now, or will in the near future.

    I second the e-sword reccomendation! I downloaded 24 different translation for free from them, not to mention 16 commentaries...all free!
     
  8. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    370
    FranklinMonroe - Thank you so much for your succinct, unbiased information on the translations of the Bible. Very well done. :D

    OK - To answer your questions, Koontzy -

    1.) why is Mathews 18:11 missing? I know some NIV study bible have the verse in the footnotes, but why?

    It's not that the verse is missing - it's where it is on the page. Since it is 'missing' in some texts, the NIV chose to put "Some manuscripts"...and have verse 11 in there. If it's not in all of the reliable texts, then there is question as to whether or not the verse was added later - and not original - so the NIV is pointing this out.


    which also makes me wonder what are so many verses missing in the NIV,TNIV,ESV,NASB ect.....

    I don't know what over verses are missing but I know that, as FranklinMonroe pointed out, there are different texts that are used to write the Bible and there are words/verses that may be a little different than each other. The important thing to note, however, there are no differences in any major doctrine of the Bible, praise God!

    does the NIV call satan Jesus????? I heard it does? what verses do people use for this and what do people that read the niv have to say???

    The verse here is Isaiah 14:12 - KJV"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" and the NIV says :"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

    If you look up what the original Hebrew word, it is "heylel" meaning "shining one, morning star, Lucifer; of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)" So using 'morning star' is a proper translation. It is not that the translators of the NIV decided to say that it was Jesus but they were translating the word as it's meaning - "morning star".

    Hope that helped some!
    Ann
     
  9. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Sister Annsi -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:
     
  10. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    And, going back to an earlier post, e-Sword on your computer is one of the best ways to get the widest variety of translations -- most of them free.

    Great way for comparing, too. Study notes, and (yeah!) Josephus' Antiquities and Wars. Tons of information available.

    Enjoy!
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thanks, Ann.

    I didn't address the issue of Jesus being called Satan in the NIV. It so ridiculous!

    Can any one imagine how long a Bible version would exist in stores if it actually did that? (Not to mention, it wouldn't be given the time to become a current high selling version?)

    If I was gonna make up a lie to discredit a translation, I wouldn't even use this slander because it is so completely ludicrous!
     
    #11 franklinmonroe, Sep 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...