Featured The End of the NIV84?

Nope...

No...They aren't....if you sit the NIV side-by-side with the KJV (and I have)those verses ARE missing. I have done it myself. You must remember that KJVers such as myself make our comparisons in two ways. #1-We compare the original language textual families (W&H / CT / Textus Receptus,etc). and #2-We compare the different translations one with another. In MY case,the comparisons I make are between the translations since I don't speak or read Greek and Hebrew. However..I am no dummy and I can examine the evidence that is offered to me by men on both sides of the issue who are educationally qualified to analyze it. Obviously, I have chosen to accept the evidence for what I believe and YOU have gone the other way. In comparing between the translations the MV's ARE different many times because of the differences in the underlying textual foundations from which they are derived.(the CT vs the TR). In the case of the NIV,if my understanding is correct, it is derived from the CT using a translation method called "Dynamic Equivalence" and part of the problem is that there is so much alteration to the text that things ARE omitted. If what (we) believe is right then being judged according to the Word in Rev.22:18-19 may be a fearful thing in that great day.
In any case...the discussion is, as always, far too polarized to continue with any hope of profit or edification as its goal. There are some posters here that make comments that are so "snarky" and smug that it makes me unwilling to want to continue lest I stoop to the same level(this is as far as I will go in speaking my mind). I have good reasons and sound logic for the things I believe but nobody will want to continue in a civilized manner when they are subjected to complete disrespect. I guess if that's the way you "play the game" you get to win...even if it is by default! (I'm not talking about you Ann) Frankly, I try to choose my words carefully in here to try and avoid being offensive. Others are not quite so careful or respectful. I can state catagorically that none of us are going to change our minds at this point and we may, in fact, do damage to other observers by escalating it further. I am content, satisfied, and blessed in my convictions as I assume you are as well. Any comments I make about the matter going forward are and will be simple affirmations in my belief that the KJV is the superior English-language translation above all other English-language translations. That is the hill I stand on...I will stay there. I will not hash and re-hash all the details. They are a matter of public record and available to anyone who has questions. I believe in a perfect Bible. The folks who embrace the MV's don't. Have a nice day.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Evidently, you do not believe in a perfect Bible in English before 1611 since no pre-1611 English Bibles agree with the KJV 100%. Evidently, you do not believe in perfect preserved original language manuscripts since no preserved original language manuscripts agree with the KJV 100%.

Readings were added to the Textus Receptus that were found in a minority of Greek NT manuscripts, and some readings were added from the Latin Vulgate or by conjecture that were found in no Greek NT manuscripts at all. The KJV was based on imperfect sources.

It has not been demonstrated that the KJV has a superior rendering of every original language word to those in all other English translations. You cannot support your opinion with consistent, sound evidence based on consistent, just measures or weights that were true both before and after 1611.

You evidently stand on a hill that depends upon the same type divers measures and fallacies that are evident in all forms of a KJV-only theory.

When compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, there are at least some places where another English Bible such as the Geneva Bible or the NKJV has a better or more accurate rendering than the KJV.

The fact that another English translation can have a clearer, better, and more accurate rendering than the KJV in some places would show that the KJV is not a perfect translation.

The fact that the 1611 KJV was changed in hundreds of places [even over 2,000 places] is evidence that the 1611 KJV was not perfect. The 1611 edition of the KJV had kept some errors from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. The fact that the 1769 Oxford KJV was changed in over 200 places is evidence that the 1769 KJV was still not perfect. Changes were made in Oxford KJV editions as late as the 1880's and in Cambridge KJV editions as late as the early 1900's. There are present KJV editions with changes made after that although in some cases there were some KJV editions that already had them much earlier. In a number of those places, another pre-1611 English Bible such as the Geneva already earlier had the rendering that was introduced into later KJV editions.

In what year did the KJV supposedly first become perfect?

After the perfect Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles, where do the Scriptures suggest that a perfect edition of a translation would be first created after 1900?

 

But would it be included in the text, or as a footnote?

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Ok. Not quite the same thing though, is it?

 

Footnotes are interesting, giving alternative translations to passages. The KJV used to have them, more so then the NIV in fact. They have gone away through the years. They clearly state that the translators believe the text is what is in their opinion the best option, but that it might be different, so her is the later native, you can choose.

 

For the previously stated reasons....

This will be my LAST post in this thread and it is addressed to Ann (with sincere respect). Those verses ARE NOT in the Zondervan 1996 edition "thinline" NIV that I have in my hand. I won't go through the whole list because it is pointless but we'll take the first verse on Bro.Knox's little memory plan as an example: The KJV is as follows in Matthew 17:21 -( I will include verses 20 and 22 that surround it for context):
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.(bold mine)
22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
(KJV)
Now:
In the NIV it readsand I will include the verses it is surrounded by as well so I'll post from vs.20 - vs.22):
20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” [21] [a]

(MY COMMENT HERE):
(Please NOTE that verse 21 is removed from the text and relegated to a FOOTNOTE)
As far as I'm concerned that not only alters the text but also calls into question the AUTHORITY of the entire verse. The average reader may not even notice that the verse has been removed.

22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.
(NIV)

I could supply more but I won't because I know it will change nothing with anyone here. To remove a verse from the text and replace it with a footnote is the same to me as not putting it there at all. For the record the verses I have posted HERE were cut and pasted from BibleGateway but they are the same as the print version I have in front of me. Bye ya'll. Say all ya want about me....I have grown some alligator skin. By the way...Logos...all that the stuff that you have posted proves is that you don't accept or believe the same Manuscript Evidence that I believe. Basically all you are proving by what you have posted is that there is no such thing (in your opinion) as a "perfect" Bible anywhere in this world. Just because I can't explain it very well does NOT mean "it ain't so". Stepping off my soapbox now....leaving the room!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

You are incorrect again. My accurate statements posted on the previous page of this thread do not prove what you claim. Pointing out the truth does not indicate any rejection of the actual preserved original language manuscript evidence.

It is a fact that there is no Hebrew OT manuscript that agrees 100% with the KJV's Old Testament and that there is no Greek NT manuscript that agrees 100% with the KJV's NT. It is a fact that there were readings added to the printed TR Greek text editions that were not and are not found in any existing Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

Those who claim perfection for the KJV would be the ones who in effect reject the actual original language manuscript evidence that is claimed to support the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. That manuscript evidence may support the underlying text of the KJV overall, but it does not support every reading and rendering found in the KJV. The KJV translators sometimes departed from the actual text of the Hebrew Masoretic Text to follow marginal readings in the MT, to follow Jewish tradition, or to follow some other source.

Accepting the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Byzantine Greek NT Text does not lead to a modern KJV-only view. Perhaps you have been misinformed about the original language manuscript evidence by biased unreliable KJV-only sources.

 

You contradict yourself. Superior and perfect are certainly not the same.

You can prefer the KJV( of whatever stripe you choose to go with) and claim it's a hill you wish to stand on...but come on,in the next breath mantaining it's perfect are two different things.

You somehow belive that going with the KJV alone as the English version is an article of faith. No,it is not.Believing that Jesus is the Christ and the only way of salvation is singular and stands alone ...not your very weak article of faith in a particular version of the bible.

 

It's the ESV advocates who are also the NIV2011 bashers who are wrapped up in the inclusive language debate.

 

I got a chuckle from a comment that D.A.Carson made in his article :The Limits Of Functional Equivalence In A Bible Translation

"I cannot help remarking,rather wryly,that in light of the ESV the argument of Poythress and Grudem sounds a bit like this:'The Language is not changing,so we do not need to respond to the demands of inclusive language. But if it is changing,the changes are driven by a feminist agenda,so they are wrong and must be countered if we are to be faithful to scripture. Because of the changes,we will make some minor accommodations in our translations,but if others make any other changes,they are compromisers who introduce distortions and inaccuracies and should be condemned,because changes aren't necessary anyway!' "

 

seems there two main objections to the Niv2011!

Some like me feel that its a good version, jusy went overboard addressing the gener issue in the bible, while others feel that its no ggod to to "CT texts", or else being 'Dynamic translation!"