So does the Hebrew. The NIV is the more faithful translation here (perhaps there is another explanation you haven't thought of), while the KJV "corrected" this verse.
It was not uncommon to refer to a "block" of books of the prophets by the name of the dominant prophet. As is also the case in Matt 27:9 which is attributed to Jeremiah, but is from Zech 11:13. This same "Isaiah" reading is in ancient "good Bibles", like the Peshitta.
Both. Jesus distributed them, via the disciples. Just like God used Satan to cause David to take a census, which removes the "problem" of comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1.
Matt 5:22 doesn't say that to be angry is to sin. It says that the person who is angry is subject to judgment - i.e. that anger will be evaluated by the Judge to see if it was sinful or not.
The previous verse says "whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (KJV). Same phrase, referring to judgement (not sin). God killed people. If verse 22 is a problem in the NIV, verse 21 is a problem in *every* Bible (including the KJV).
Probably not, but this is related to Mosaic law about the activities of a mother and new male child (Lev 12:2-4) - it does not deal at all with a sinful condition.
Both. Salvation is now, ongoing, and future. (Rom 13:11, Phil 1:19, 1 Thess 5:9, 2 Tim 2:10, Heb 9:28, Heb 10:39, etc).
Stumbling blocks make people stumble. ;)
I sort of see how some might see these as problems, but I also see how they can be as easily explained and accepted as similar "problems" in other versions like the KJV.
NIV problem, part II
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by carajou, Oct 16, 2003.
Page 2 of 5
-
AV Defender said:
KJV:Revelation 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
I think there is a little more than just "cut and paste" going on here.
I'll say. Didn't Gail Riplinger tell us to watch out for New Age Bibles that referred to God or Jesus as the "one"?
-
The first point I had made in my post is that Christ is the foundation of the Christian faith, hence the word cornerstone. The second point is that the Editors of the NIV got it wrong when they changed "cornerstone" to "capstone" in several New Testament verses.
Acts 4:11 "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner" (KJV)
They're talking about a stone (Christ), which was rejected (by the ruling elite), and which was set down in front of them as the cornerstone of an up-and-coming faith they didn't like.
I have here the Greek New Testament, the Textus Receptus, the TR with variants, as well as various other translations in the English language, and I have yet to find the Greek word for capstone. If the NIV is a better English translation, more faithful to the Greek than any other, based upon all those ancient manuscripts, where is the word "capstone" in Greek?
Thus is the Greek New Testament of Acts 4:11, as best as this website will allow a transliteration:
outov estin o liqov o ecouqenhqeiv uf umwn twn oikodomwn oikodomountwn o genomenov eiv kefalhn gwniav
The translation of this verse is "the stone the builders rejected, has become the head of the corner". It does not say "...has become the capstone". It's a different word altogether. Unless someone wants to claim "scholarly enlightenment" and either attempt to find the word capstone in the ancient and modern Greek lexicons, or try to put a spin on the above verse and "prove" it says capstone.
So, what I get in response are those who claim I'm a member of the KJV-or-nothing crowd, when I've never made that claim. I get a "doctor" who claimed I have a "cut-and-paste mentality", when a check of the good "doctor's" own posts clearly show a "cut-and-paste mentality" on his part. And I get a "scholar" who does not know what a lead-in paragraph is, and thinks I should be writing for his private reading pleasure. If such people choose to be insultive from the get-go, I can be just as insultive right back.
Oh, "Doctor" Gordon, the Greek words you have stated in your first response to my post ("Greek words = head, top and angle, corner, quarter", remember that?) don't look Greek to me...they look awfully like English. If you're going to speek Greek, put Greek up there. -
incorrigible (in kore je bel, -kar-)adj.
not corrigible; that cannot be corrected, improved, or reformed, esp. because firmly established, as a habit, or because set in bad habits, as a child
n.
an incorrigible person
incorrigibility or incorrigibleness
n.
incorrigibly
adv.
Lacy -
God perfectly preserved His Words in many accurate translations such as KJV (English), Olivetan Bible (French), Luther Bible (German) and others.
NIV and KJV agree each other on John 1:1, for example, because this passage is identified to the wording of the autographs. -
-
I've got to have some leech therapy.
on Monday.
-
Askjo said:
-
What is perhaps most significant for the dicussion at hand is that the textual character of the early papyri is far closer to MSS like Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) than to the Greek MSS behind the KJV. -
Dear rsr,
There are definitely "staunch" NIV folk around.
Although I don't use it as my primary Bible, its greatest strength (IMO) is that it is in the language of the common (koine) man.
I only wish that there could be a TR version of the NIV.
Also:
Archangel and I have debated his statement as to P66 and its alignment to the Aleph/B and/or the Traditional Text. It is not clear cut, it is subjective and prejudicial to the researcher.
http://logosresourcepages.org/received.htm
HankD
[ October 18, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: HankD ] -
Thanks for the information.
-
rsr, if you missed the URL I gave (I posted/inserted it later) here it is again.
It is a good read.
http://logosresourcepages.org/received.htm
HankD -
-
-
(1) It states "Dr. Gordon Fee has shown that in John chapter 4, P66 agrees with the Traditional Text (and thus the King James Bible) 60.6% of the time when there are textual variations." This is a wildly misleading interpretation of Fee's figures, which simply report the raw percentage of agreements between any *two* MSS without indicating what percentage of these agreements are shared in common by the rest of them. To see how misleading this is, consider other numbers in the same study. Fee reports that B *also* agrees with P66 60.6% of the time, and that P66c (the corrector of P66) agrees with B 67.2% of the time -- a slightly higher percentage than the TR, which agrees with P66c 65.6% of the time! To determine the textual character of P66, one must set aside the places where P66, B, and the TR all agree, and *then* look at what pattern of variation emerges. And what emerges is that P66 resembles B more than it does the TR.
(2) It states that "While P66 is a mixed text it does demonstrate so called Byzantine readings well before that era," followed by a table of examples. The examples are misleading because none of them can really be classified as "Byzantine readings." One of them (Jn. 6:46) is not found in *any* known MS, Byzantine or otherwise; two of them are also found in "Western" texts (Jn. 5:17 in D, and Jn. 6:69 in the Old Latin), and all the rest are found in B, which is hardly "Byzantine!"
As for the rest of the web page, its misleading statements and outright errors would take an article of comparable length to point out. Caveat lector -- let the reader beware! -
-
Archangel, you proved my point.
Everyone has there own bias including you and I.
HankD -
-
-
It does make life interesting.
HankD
Page 2 of 5