NIV error

You can get one from Amazon by Hendrickson Publishers (hardcover!) for $20. It contains all the back matter (table of contents, preface, the translators to the reader, and almanac) and all the marginal notes.

I bring my Hendrickson 1611 almost exclusively in church. I love following along and reading the olde spellinge

 

Outta' curiosity (or is that curiositie :tongue3: ) does it have the Apocrypha?

Ed

 

YEs, other Ed, the Hendrickson 1611 reprint does have the
Apocrypha.

I have the Nelson KJV1611 Edtion reprint. I used to have both
and never found a difference between the two.

Nearby is a topic of mine: Daily readings from the KJV1611 Edition.
Such readings include the Apocrypha.

 

Well deacon jd has probably realized now that he has not enlightened this forum, but rather has exposed his own ignorance of what is maybe the classic example of the KJV translators not following literally the original Hebrew text that they had before them.

Skeptics have been using this apparent problem against Bible believers for decades. There are many plausable resolutions (as already suggested by Rasnom), including that the words fell out of the manuscripts by scribal carelessness.

So the AV could be right... but it is reasonably expected that literal translations have a particular responsibility to translate the text as they find it (with major variants placed in footnotes). Words added for smoothness in English should be itailicized or bracketed. A paraphrase would not necessarily be held to this same standard.

Usually, the proponents of the superiority of the AV will quote Revelation 22:19 as condemnation of any modern translation that "... shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy" and then cite various verses where words or verses are 'ommitted'. However, these sames evangelists will not admit that the AV translators have violated the previous verse that states that God will add the plagues that are written in this book to those that "shall add unto these things" (Rev. 22:18, KJV).

There is no exception for arrogant translators that attempted to reconcile in their text of apparent errors that exsist within the original language manuscripts.

Disclosure: I do believe David killed Goliath, and I do like the KJV.

 

umm...deacon jd? Your quotes indicate that you're using a later edition than the 1611 that you bragged on in your OP. (1769, maybe?)

Check with Ed Edwards...I'm sure he'll give you pointers on picking one up.

 

The inspired version

My brother insists that his particular version of Scripture is most (or exclusively) acceptable for studying.
We are not the first culture to encounter this disctictively disruptive doctrine.

In the year 383, Pope Damasus urged Jerome to standardize the Latin text of scripture which had become hopelessly diverse.
Jerome responded:

After portions of his texts circulated about Augustine responded.

You see, it appears that Augustine was quite attached to his Latin versions and thought they has a superiority over the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
Augustine suggests that footnotes are valuable to explain divergences from a standard.

Somewhat like Ed, I believe we should embrace the different versions and use them to teach others how to correctly (and critically) study the Scriptures.

Rob

 

Deacon jd, it would have been more accurate if you had said you wonder how many who have read the thread have seen that yet another MV "error" is shown to be more accurate than the KJV reading. And you were given a straightforward answer that you apparently don't want to accept - that the KJV translators added words to what the original said.

 

TinyTim, it took a real Christian to go back and confess your previous error. I just pray that those in the congregation were as forgiving as you were honest. And yes, the NIV is the word of God. And as the word of God, the NIV, along with all other legitimate modern Bible versions (omitting NWT, JST and CWT, of course), should be treated with respect. There are far to many who slander and blaspheme the word of God if it is in any version but the one they choose to read - and this slander and blasphemy cannot possibly be from the Holy Spirit.

 

HOW??
Can imperfect MSS produce a perfect Bible?

 

Only if the "perfect Bible" is the KJV, because there's always an exception to be made for the KJV (aka the "Poster Boy for Special Pleading").

 

Well, since we find it impossible to heed the warning I guess this one has to be closed as well.

We are not going to discuss the KJV issue in every thread.