KJV vs NIV

[Atwood]

IMHO:

The NIV is a mediating translation, mediating between the strict word for word literal and a free paraphrase. It is a relatively easy reading version, which is also a serious translation. But it is interpretive; for example, it rendered sarx (flesh) in Paul as "human nature" sometimes, which is correct, but too interpretive for my taste.

I studied under the guy who became the Secretary of the project, which I believe is the title of the man with the job of coordinating the editing, the chief of the scholarly part of the project (as opposed to salesmen), Kenneth Barker, with whom I took both Greek and Hebrew. Barker I regard as a godly man, a believer in the Word of God, a gifted teacher. Thus I don't regard anything in the NIV as sinister. However, you may not agree with a given interpretation. Think of it as a running commentary if you will.

I believe that the later revisions were done after Barker retired from the project.

Now I don't think of the KJV as the opposite pole to the NIV. There would be 2 poles with NIV in middle: The left pole would be The Living Letters or Philips. The right pole would be the ASV (1901) or possibly the original NASB.

KJV has other issues, like archaic English (he that letteth will let -- do you know what that means? Did you know that the old meaning of let was prevent, opposite of today? And the other main issue is that the texts the KJV relies on are generally late medieval manuscripts of one family, Byzantine.

So when you want a quick gestalt on some book, go ahead & read modern translations like the NIV. When you want to establish doctrine, use a literal translation like the ASV and check it with the original languages. Consult the NIV to see what one evangelical interpretation is.

 

[Atwood]

This contention over translations explains why "sola scriptura" is a false position. It is Jesus Christ alone.
Just a thought.

Vernon, you don't have anything penned by Christ. What you have is scripture breathed-out by God, that is created by God. And your dichotomy between scripture & Christ is a false dichotomy. Christ is not a book we can read. The Bible is not a rival to Christ as another person. The Bible is not a person, but a document given us by God.

Sola Scriptura:

My position is that it is self-evident that the Bible is the Word of God. Of course there is other "word of God." Prophets uttered oral prophecy never preserved. The Lord speaks within the Trinity, with angels, and with saints in Heaven. That is all God's Word, but it is not available to me.

Aside from the Bible, I know of no other document readily available to common men which is God's Word. Now if you have something else, bring it forth & prove that it is God's Word. Until then, I am left with sola scriptura. I think you are too.

 

[Vernon]

Reply to Atwood,

Well stated sir.

Humans wrote, translated and interpret the scripture and christians are in unreconcilable divisions because of these innumerable interpretations. We know that those who wrote the scripture did so being inspired by the Holy Spirit, the problem arises in the translating and interpreting both of which have not received that same inspiration or we would not have the divisions which now exist in the Church (body of Christ).

just a thought.

 

[Atwood]

Reply to Atwood,

Well stated sir.

Humans wrote, translated and interpret the scripture and christians are in unreconcilable divisions because of these innumerable interpretations. We know that those who wrote the scripture did so being inspired by the Holy Spirit, the problem arises in the translating and interpreting both of which have not received that same inspiration or we would not have the divisions which now exist in the Church (body of Christ). just a thought.

Thanks Vernon.

IMHO, only in a cult is there "complete" uniformity of doctrine. There are different sorts of divisions in the Body of Christ, and different sorts of interpretive disagreements. There is the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. Then there is the "we see through a glass darkly." Some doctrinal differences define Christian vs non-Christian, like the Trinity. Some may be firing cannon balls at canary birds.

While we are compiling our list of doctrinal positions, we could rate them 2 ways, both on a scale of 10:
First, how sure are we? A 0 would be completely unsure; we figure a doctrine is totally unprovable & don't know. A 10 would be absolute certitude: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able . . . ." A 6 could be "this is my position as what seems more likely than not to me."
Second, how important is it? Give 0 to a theological tiddlywink, a doctrinal doily. Give a 10 to the deity of Christ.

As to divisions in the Body of Christ, should we also rate them 0-10 in importance? It is important that Christians recognize the unity we have in Christ, even across denominations. But is it really wrong for a group of Christians (who recognize that they are not the only Christians & also love & respect others) -- is it wrong for Christians to form associations based upon their agreement on practical issues to attain some specific ends which they thing they could not accomplish without such associations? Bill Bright formed Campus Crusade. If one group believes in congregational church government and another believes in regional-church presbytery as owner & final authority in a region of all congregations, is it wrong for them to separate into denominations? Is there any way they could not separate? Is it a sin that they separate organizationally? Could believers in immersion of believers co-exist in a congregation that sprinkles babies? I suppose they could even if they consider each others' practice an abomination.