Serious Question

Larry, I check out a commentary because they seek to tell me what they think the Scriptures actually say. That is the same as the NIV. It isn't a valid method of interpretation at all. It is just unfortunately accepted by many.

I think it was Robert Thomas of the Master's Seminary who did an excellent work on the method of translation of the NIV.

The duty of the translator is to translate what was actually said. It is up to the interpreter to figure out what that meant. Basic communication demands that.

Take this post for example. If a person were to put this post in German, he isn't at liberty to guess what this post means and then translate it. He is to translate exactly what I said. Otherwise he risks completely missing what I said. The NIV is guilty of this in multiple places. Those who read this in German must figure out what I meant. Savvy?

 

Trust the NIV? </font>[/QUOTE]UH, YES!
After all, it correctly translates Rom 3:4, and 3:6 without using the name of "God" inappropriately.

No word for "God" exists in any manuscript in Rom 3:4,6 , but the KJV adds it in these places (among others).

SO YES you can trust the NIV.

 

Just take a look at the thread "the NIV calls Lucifer Jesus" to get just a glimpse of what is wrong with the NIV and how they have "interpreted" instead of "translating". The KJV translators used "formal equivalancy" and the received text(the text used/believed in the churches), and the NIV and many modern versions have used "dynamic equivalancy" and the critical greek texts (brand new since 1881 and continues to be changed). Dynamic equivalency is basically the same thing as interpretation, and an interpreted translation that the translators have taken upon themselves to interpret what they "thought" the author was saying rather than tranlsate literally to what the text says, and also translate from texts that have been corrupted as their sole manuscript evidence and authority. I wouldn't even trust it as a good commentary, but it is a commentary and not the whole or accurate word of God. There must be some interpretation when it comes to a translation to which cannot be avoided. However it is a much different thing to use this method to the extreme, rather than where it is needed in order to convey the full meaning. By the view of some here, concering how the KJV translators translated, they should give up the KJV and not even touch it, if this is truly what they believe about it. It only shows how far someone will go, to bash the true word of God in order to excuse those things that have corrupted it and then be found a hypocrate.

Do not listen to those who cloud this issue by telling you it doesn't matter which method or which texts are used. This is what the whole debate is about. It is important, because we are talking about God's pure words of truth, and the church is responsible for that truth, for the church is the pillar of truth. If we let any amount of error in, when will it end? When will the excuses end? Do not listen to those who would tell you that God's words could not be accurately preserved and rendered from the Hebrew and Greek to English and still be the same, and therefore not hold to the same authority as the origional(because they do/are and they have been). They are trying to cloud you from seeing the errors and making excuses for them by clearly denying the promises and power of God concerning his words of truth.
Also, do not forget that, Satan from the beginning has been using God's words in an altered manner to deceive God's people.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Not really. A commentary seeks to explain the text. A translation tells us what the text says.

Not at all. The NIV is not a commentary in the least it is a translation. It uses the same translation method used by anyone translating language today, anywhere in the world. They don't translate woodenly according to the words. They translate to communicate. I have demonstrated in other places that the form used by the NIV is necessary for communication.

RL Thomas did the section on Thessalonians in the EBC, which uses the NIV as its text. I am not sure what you are referring to here.

You are making a false dichotomy here. To translate what was said is to communicate the meaning. When I speak, it is not the words that are that important. It is the meaning that the words communicate when used in relation to the other words. The NIV does what it does because grammar and syntax in other languages is not what it is in English. When you communicate in English, you have to use English grammar and syntax.

The NIV is guilty of that in very few places. The translator cannot translate "exactly what was said." It would make no sense at all in most cases.

This is a pretty simple issue. I don't like the NIV in all cases. I enjoy reading it. I do not like preaching from it. But it certainly is not a commentary on Scripture. Those are the kind of attacks that KJVOs make against it and it is inappropriate whether it comes from them or someone else.

 

Daniel David said:

It contains the Word of God, without actually being the word of God. If you want to know what God said, please use a translation that translated what was actually said, not interpreted and then translated.

Well, the KJV's out then. Guess we're all going to have to learn Greek.

 

No, I do not. I can't believe you are smarter than me, right? However I can see you can't find the solution on "God forbid" on some passages. Go to get the Oxford dictionary. This dictionary agrees with the KJV.
You are so !!!! Tinytim!

 

michelle said:

Just take a look at the thread "the NIV calls Lucifer Jesus" to get just a glimpse of what is wrong with the NIV and how they have "interpreted" instead of "translating". The KJV translators used "formal equivalancy"

Ah, yes, that must be why at Isa. 14:12 the KJV translators inserted the proper name "Lucifer" which does not appear in the Hebrew text they were translating from.

I wouldn't play too fast and loose with accusations against the NIV, if I were you. Any finger you point can be pointed right back at the KJV.

 

Askjo said:

However I can see you can't find the solution on "God forbid" on some passages.

So it's OK for a Bible to use "dynamic equivalence" as long as it's the KJV doing it.

 

"The dynamic equivalancy denies the nature of the Bible, ignoring God's warnings about adding to or taking away from God's Word, making God's Word conform to man's culture rather than making man's culture conform to God's Word, changing God's Words, substituiting man's thoughts for God's Words and is based on half-truths."

"Dynamic Equivalency Death Knell of Pure Scripture" By David Cloud.

 

I agree with Daniel David. Dr. Bob, when you say the NIV is "literal", it all depends on what you mean by "literal". I know, I know: ALL Bibles have some level of dynamic equivalence. However, some have more than others. (I'm thinking of that bit in Hebrews in the NIV that is actually all about Sarah, but the NIV turns it into a passage about Abraham, even though he is never mentioned in the text). If I'm stuck, I'd like to see a translation that attempts to translate the WORDS. Also, since I believe in the TR, I would be more inclined to look at the NKJV, MKJ and 21stCentury KJV if I found my KJV difficult.

 

"The dynamic equivalancy denies the nature of the Bible, ignoring God's warnings about adding to or taking away from God's Word, making God's Word conform to man's culture rather than making man's culture conform to God's Word, changing God's Words, substituiting man's thoughts for God's Words and is based on half-truths."

"Dynamic Equivalency Death Knell of Pure Scripture" By David Cloud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone's not telling the truth again. DE does not deny the nature of the Scripture. It does not ignore God's warnings. It in fact affirms those warnings. IT does not conform God's word to man's culture. That is an absolutely ridiculous and unthinking statement. It communicates God's word to man's culture, and that is the purpose of translation. David Cloud has long been shown to be a fraud on this issue. He has been confronted about his false doctrine, his outright false statements, and his false accusations against men of God. He has refused to repent.

 

Askjo:"The dynamic equivalancy denies the nature of the Bible, ignoring God's warnings about adding to or taking away from God's Word, making God's Word conform to man's culture rather than making man's culture conform to God's Word, changing God's Words, substituiting man's thoughts for God's Words and is based on half-truths."

"Dynamic Equivalency Death Knell of Pure Scripture" By David Cloud.

Then I guess the KJV ignores these warnings in the "God forbid" verses you just mentioned since 'me ginomai' doesn't mean either God or Forbid in English.

 

Lea:I own 4 copies of KJ1611
1 copy of NKJV
and 2 of the NIV version.

I'm not sure why I have all these copies but, I use them. I also have 4 Little girls. that and DH has his (one of the 4 KJV 1611's )

Are your KJ1611 copies replicas of the AV 1611 or are they later revisions such as the 1769 Blayney's Edition?

The genuine AV 1611, or a copy thereof contains a preface "To The Reader", a List of Holy Days, & the Apocrypha.

In a genuine or replica AV 1611, John 3:16 appears thus:

"For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."
(Note the spelling)

as compared with the later KJV editions in common use today:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

(Note the spelling)

While not being critical, I hope you see there ARE differences in the AV 1611 & the KJV editions now in common use. Discussion of these differences belongs in another thread.

 

Thank yo for your contribution to
Double Standards:

---719 - It is OK for a Bible to use "dynamic equivalence" as long as it's the KJV doing it.

 

How do YOU trust D.E. in false translating these words? Here are lists:

1. Blood = death in English tongue.
2. Snow = coconut in United Bible Societies translation.
3. Lamb = seal pup in Eskimo
4. Candlestick = a grain bin in India
5. Storehouse = basket in Mexico.
And more...

David Cloud said, "D.E. changed God's Words, substituiting man's thoughts for God's Words." He is right.

You quoted:

You accuse him for "false statements" "false doctrines" and "false accusations." You ignore God's warnings and play the game with God.

David Cloud refused to repent because he did nothing wrong. He fought for the Word of God. You did not. Then you should repent.

 

Complain against the KJV concerning "God forbid"? What does the Oxford dictionary define "God forbid"?

 

How do you expect people in Asia for example, or parts of Africa, to relate to the whiteness and purity of snow, when the whitest thing they have ever seen, is coconut meat ?

And what does an Exkimo know about a lamb better than he does about a seal pup which he sees everyday ?

Do you know what a tricycle is ? Or can you relate to a jeepney as a Filipino knows a jeep ?

 

God said He'll preserve the jots and the tittles, therefore i reject dynamic equivalency.

pinoy, i grew up here in sunny tropical Singapore learning about, snow, sledding, elves and imps, sleigh-rides......

we don't have to change the bible (God forbid)(!!!). just study it and also have good teachers!!!