NIV problem, part II

P66 agrees with Aleph 14 times, with B 29 times, with TR 33 times.

 

Strange then that he should be responsible for the following

</font>[/QUOTE]I have already responded to his misleading statement earlier in this thread

 

P66 agrees with Aleph 14 times, with B 29 times, with TR 33 times. </font>[/QUOTE]Where? In what portion of Scripture? Could you be more specific, please?

The Fee study discussed earlier was a collation of variants in John chapter 4. Of 61 variants, P66 agrees with the TR 37 times (60.6%). But P66 *also* agrees with B 37 times (60.6%) -- the *same* number and percentage of agreements as the TR!

 

In and of itself, that P66 agrees with the TR 37 out of 61 times goes a long way towards debunking the W&H Byzantine conflation theory.

HankD

 

In and of itself, that P66 agrees with the TR 37 out of 61 times goes a long way towards debunking the W&H Byzantine conflation theory.
</font>[/QUOTE]How so? That number doesn't tell us how many of those agreements are *also* shared by B. Unfortunately, Fee's study doesn't provide the details of his collation, just the raw numbers. If it did, then what we'd have to do to determine the degree of textual resemblance between P66, B, and the TR is to tabulate all the instances where P66 and B agree against the TR, and all the instances where P66 and the TR agree against B. Only then would we begin to see whether it's the TR or B that P66 resembles most. I did a quick check of John 4 in the critical apparatus of the NA 27 and came up with the following numbers:

Number of times P66 agrees *with* the TR *against* B - 8
Number of times P66 agrees *with* B *against* the TR - 18

Of course, a more detailed collation of the kind Fee has done would be needed to establish any firm results, but the preliminary observation is that the text of John 4 in P66 is more like the text of B than it is like the text of the TR.

 

Even one agreement with the P66-TR would move the debate in a small way towards refuting the W&H conflation/smoothing theory concerning the Byzantine Text.

I do see your point concerning a more detailed study and I do agree. Not only a more detailed study is needed but more evidence.

HankD

 

How so? Could you please elaborate?

The agreements between P66 and the TR are typically in the direction of "fuller and more complete" readings. This suggests that the editors and scribes who created the Byzantine text generally selected these "fuller and more complete" readings when they found them in older MSS, "cherry-picking" the ones they liked best and incorporating them into their Byzantine text. So this would lend support to W&H's textual theory, not refute it.

 

The Wescott and Hort theory was that the Byzantine Text was/is a conflated and smoothened text from the originals. They felt that when it came to a variant since earlier Aleph/B uncials variants were generally shorter and more difficult, therefore they were correct being earlier and closer to the originals.

Supposedly the Byzantine scribes/priests "smoothed" out the text.

The fact that P66 (200AD) agrees in some cases with the "longer", "conflated" variant of the TR (which I illustrated a few months ago) indicates a variant from an earlier mss that is not a conflation but perhaps represents the original in a better state than Aleph/B (particularly Aleph) according to their (W&H) own criteria. Of course P66 was not around at the time being brought to light in 1956.

HankD

 

Sorry, no cutting-and-pasting. I got the info from a booklet I have entitled, Is the NIV the Word of God? or something to that effect.

Thanks for the welcome.

Sorry, Dr. Bob, but I don't read Greek or Hebrew. I pretty confident that God gave me all I need to know in English.

------------------------

Bro. Ed,
I'm still disappointed that you haven't jumped on the NIV crowd for not citing which NIV they are using { NIV(1973), NIV(1978) or NIV(1984) } or is it just a KJV thing?

 

Here are some more NIV translation issues to consider:
( Warning - Dr. Bob, the following has been cut-and-pasted with a little format tweaking)

#1: Genesis 4:8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

The NIV omits the verb 'and it came to pass.' In fact, the NIV complete concordance will tell you that they have 'not translated' this verb a whopping 887 times. Not only does the NIV not translate this verb here but they also added 'Let's go out to the field.' Their own footnote says this comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint [LXX - Greek,] the Vulgate [Latin] and the Syriac but that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

#2: Genesis 47:21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other.

The NIV footnote says this comes from the Samaritan and the LXX, but that the Hebrew says: "he removed them to the cities."

#3: Both the NIV and NASB change the Hebrew in Judges 14:15 where the KJB, RV, ASV, Youngs, the Jewish translations and many others correctly say "ON THE SEVENTH DAY." Here the NIV, NASB say 'ON THE FOURTH DAY,' which the NIV tells us comes from SOME LXX and the Syriac, but the Hebrew says "ON THE SEVENTH DAY."

 

Michael, Are you ready to stick with the standard you are applying to the NIV and NASB? When the KJV departs from the Greek or Hebrew, are you willing to apply whatever conclusions you have made about the NIV or NASB to the KJV... or are you going to insist on a double standard like other KJVO's do here?

 

The Wescott and Hort theory was that the Byzantine Text was/is a conflated and smoothened text from the originals. They felt that when it came to a variant since earlier Aleph/B uncials variants were generally shorter and more difficult, therefore they were correct being earlier and closer to the originals.

Supposedly the Byzantine scribes/priests "smoothed" out the text.

The fact that P66 (200AD) agrees in some cases with the "longer", "conflated" variant of the TR (which I illustrated a few months ago) indicates a variant from an earlier mss that is not a conflation but perhaps represents the original in a better state than Aleph/B (particularly Aleph) according to their (W&H) own criteria. Of course P66 was not around at the time being brought to light in 1956.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I still don't see how this disproves in any way W&H's theory of the text. According to W&H, the Byzantine text was created sometime in the 4th C. by scribes who wanted a smoother and fuller text. W&H stated that they sometimes achieved this through conflation and harmonization. To this we can add that sometimes they also retained the *already* smoother and fuller readings they found in earlier MSS like P66.

 

A good example would be Rom. 11:4, where the KJV reads:

"But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." (Rom. 11:4, KJV)

The italicized words "the image of" are found in *no* Greek text and (so far as I know) no other English translation of the verse. The KJV is guilty of *adding* to the word of God here.

 

Study your Hebrew. You will find that this connective is a temporal connector and "now" communicates the meaning of it quite well. This type of objection is common from people who use Strong's concordance but have no clue what they are talking about. You have fallen into that trap, unfortunately.

It is really unfortunate that many people do not bother to learn Hebrew. This is a place that shows how inadequate the KJVO position really is. There is much more to the discussion than this simplistic foolishness. The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch predate the Hebrew text by a considerable number of years. That gives it a lot of weight in this considerations. It is not a simple cut and dried matter, just like the NT isn't.

Understanding some of these issues should be a requirement for jumping into the fray. Unfortunately it is not. You likely know no Hebrew and will not take the time to study it. So you rely on teachers, which is fine. But in relying on teachers, it is imperative to surround yourself with good teachers who know what they are talking about. In this case, you have not. You have believed the wrong people who do not know what they are talking about.

 

Without the image of Baal, where would they not bow the knee to Baal?

 

Without the image of Baal, where would they not bow the knee to Baal? </font>[/QUOTE]You are missing the point. The KJV *adds* to the word of God. We know this for three reasons:

(1) These words are not found in *any* Greek MS, including the TR from which the KJV was translated;

(2) These words are not found in *any* English translation I'm aware of either before or after the KJV, e.g.,

"But what says God's answer to him? I have to Me seven thousands of men that have not bowed their knees before Baal" (Wycliffe, 1388)

"But what saith the answer of God to him again? I have reserved unto me seven thousand men which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Tyndale, 1534)

"But what saith the answere of God to him? I haue reserued vnto my selfe seuen thousand men, which haue not bowed the knee to Baal." (Geneva, 1560)

(3) These words are not found in the KJV's own translation of the verse being referred to in Rom. 11:4 --

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, KJV)

The KJV *adds* to the word of God. Do you think it's all right to add to the word of God?

 

Sure, if you can show me an example of where the KJV translators added non-italicized words to a verse. Wait a sec, is that fair? The big difference is that the KJV translators where honest in their translation and let you, the reader, know when words were supplied in order to make more clear the implicit sense of the Greek. All translations employ this practice but unlike the KJV they do not use italics to inform you of where words have been supplied by the translators. This, in my opinion, is a very deceptive practice on their part. Were these translators to put their added words in italics some of the more dynamic equivalent translations would consist of mostly italicized words. This is one of the reasons they don’t indicate to you when they have added words not in the Greek to the text.

--- Begin C-and-P reply ---
Although the word Baal is found 63 times in the Old Testament (not including the many derivatives of this name) it is found only once in the Greek New Testament. As demonstrated above in many places the Greek language is an elliptical language. This simply means that often words have seemingly been omitted from a sentence; however, from the structure and context of the sentence it is plain to see that the words are implied (see our examples above). So, when one is translating from Greek to English one has to be careful to take this fact into consideration. Thus it is in this present verse that we have words that are implied due to the sentence construction of the Greek. As mentioned before, the translators of 1611 made it their practice to compare Scripture with Scripture. Unlike our inept modern ‘scholars’ the translators of 1611 proved their great knowledge of the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments, over and over again by comparing Scripture then giving the proper rendering. An example of their skill in doing this lays before us. In this verse Paul is rehearsing for us the events of 1 Kings 19. Specifically verse 4 refers to 1 Kings 19:18, where we read, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”. Now, it is clear from this verse that the god Baal that was being worshipped in this particular locality was represented by an image. For God says that they had not “kissed him”. It is evident by the verse Paul is referring to that these people were bowing before and kissing ‘the image of’ Baal. It is also evident by the Greek that something needs to be ‘added’ (remember: feminine article with a masculine noun) in the English translation. Therefore, the feminine article (Gr. te) directly implies “the image” (Gr. eikon), which is feminine in Greek, and has been supplied to complete the sense of the sentence.
--- End C-and-P reply ----

Here's two for you that were written before the KJV:

Cranmer 1539- But what sayth the answer of God vnto him? I haue reserued vnto my selfe seuen thousande men, ehych haue not bowed the knee to the ymage of Baal.

Geneva 1557- But what sayth the answer of God to hym? I haue reserued vnto my selfe seuen thousand men which haue not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.


However, I thought the topic of this thread was NIV problems, part II, not the 'KJV must contain errors somewhere!' thread.

While criticizing the KJV for ‘adding’ words to the text that are not literally found in the underlying Greek text our modern version promoters seem to look the other way when their versions are guilty of the very same thing. It is funny how it is so ‘wrong’ for the KJV to do this but when pointed out that their favorite version does the very same thing it is acceptable. A few examples:

Romans 15:16- There is no “priestly” (NIV) or “priest” (NASV) in ANY Greek text extant.

1 Tim. 6:10- Not one single Greek text contains the words “sorts” (NASV) or “kinds” (NIV).

Luke 2:14- There are no Greek readings in any manuscript for "on whom his" (NIV) and "with whom He" (NASV)

1 Tim. 3:16- In an effort to make an intelligible sentence out or an unintelligible one the translators have added "He" to this verse. There is not ONE Greek MS. or ONE Greek text with the word "He". Had they just followed the correct reading Theos (God) they would not have to interpolate like this in order to 'cover up' their blunder.

 

PastorLarry, I admitted above that I do not know Greek or Hebrew, and yes, I would benefit if I took the time to learn either of them. However, I am dependent on those who knew Greek and Hebrew better than you or any other person alive today, IMHO, the KJV translators. Have you read their credentials? Can any modern day translator even approach the KJV translators' understanding of Greek and Hebrew?

The KJV translators were so blessed by God with wisdom and understanding, you'd have to be crazy to assume they didn't know what they were doing.
I would challenge anyone to search all the modern scholars of the new versions and see if they compare to these great men. You will quickly see that these men stand head and shoulders above all modern scholars. That is the greatness of the King James Bible, God raised up these great men at the precise time in history to translate His Word for all people.

 

Without doubt. There have been 400 years of constant language study, discoveries, and increased understanding. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that the KJV knew Hebrew or Greek better than scholars today do.

They were greatly blessed, but no more so than men today are. They knew what they were doing, but no more so than men today do. But the advances in knowledge are tremendous. Just as you wouldn't want a doctor using 17th century techniques on your body, so you should entertain the idea that similar advances have taken place in literature and linguistics. This seems so patently obvious, it is truly a wonder that it even comes up for discussion.

And in subsequent times, he has raised up more men to translate His Word for all people again. Your argument here is purely one from emotion. It has no basis in facts or truth.

 

QUESTION:

Does the NIV contain (or omit) any N.T. verse that is not supported by either Aleph or B mss?