King James Bible vs. Modern Translations (Honoring The Deity of Jesus Christ)

[Arwen4CJ]

The purpose and passion of International Bible Society is to faithfully translate and reach out with God's Word so that people around the world may become disciples of Jesus Christ and members of his Body.

 

[Mastersman]

The Bible does no good to anyone if you cant understand it. In my own Bible study I compare different versions to get the full meaning of some verses but the King James is always the the one that I use as a foundation translation. I think this is one of the issues that satan uses to divide and distract Christians

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Today's New International Version (TNIV)
A Word to the Reader
Today's New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the New International Version (NIV). Among the many English versions of the Bible that appeared in the twentieth century, the NIV (1973, 1978, 1984) has gained the widest readership in all parts of the English-speaking world. It was a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The fact that participants from the United States......(pretty much says the same thing as the NIV there). Responsibility for the NIV text, and now also for the text of the TNIV, is held by a self-governing body, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), comprised of biblical scholars from colleges, universities, and seminaries. During the revision process, many of the original members of CBT have been replaced by other scholars owing to retirement and other causes, but a similar geographical and denominational mix has been maintained.

From the beginning the translators have been united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. For them, the Bible contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, sheds unique light on our path in a dark world and sets forth the way to our eternal well-being. Out of this deep conviction, the Committee has held to certain goals for the NIV and for the present revision: that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use. The Committee has also sought to preserve a measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English.

There is a sense in which the work of translating the Bible is never finished. This very fact has prompted the Committee to engage in an ongoing review of the text of the NIV with the assistance of many other scholars. The chief goal of this review has always been to bring the text of the NIV abreast of contemporary biblical scholarship and of shifts in English idiom and usage. Already in 1978 and again in 1984 various corrections and revisions to the NIV text were made. In the TNIV the Committee offers to the reading public the latest fruits of its review.

The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a word-for-word rendering of the original texts......(it goes on to almost say the same thing as the NIV did). It is the Committee's hope that these headings may prove more helpful to the reader than the traditional chapter divisions (which were introduced in the thirteenth century.)

(It goes on to talk about the Hebrew texts that they based the translation on, which is almost identical to what they said in the NIV).

The Greek text used in translating the New Testament has been an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. The translators have made their choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where uncertainty remains.

The New Testament authors, writing in Greek, often quote the Old Testament from its ancient Greek version, the Septuagint. This is one reason why some of the Old Testament quotations in the TNIV New Testament are not identical to the corresponding passages in the TNIV Old Testament. Such quotations in the New Testament are indicated with the footnote "see Septuagint)."

Other footnotes in this version are of several kinds, most of which need no explanation....(it says pretty much the same thing as the NIV).

It should be noted that references to diseases, minerals, flora and fauna, architectural details, clothing, jewelry, musical instruments and other articles cannot always be identified with precision. Also, linear measurements and measures of capacity can only be approximated (see Appendix I). The manner in which Hebrew proper names are to be represented in English has not become fully standardized. In the TNIV the spelling of many names has been revised to conform more closely to current scholarly practice and to the phonetics of the Hebrew originals. A list of such changes can be found in Appendix II, following the biblical text. A parallel list provides the spelling of these names in the NIV. Although Selah, sued mainly in the Psalms, is probably a musical term, its meaning is uncertain. Since it may interrupt reading and distract the reader this word has not been kept in the English text, but every occurence has been signaled by a footnote.

Three changes of special note in the TNIV are the frequent substitution of "Messiah" for the more traditional "Christ," the replacement of "saints" in the most cases with alternative renderings, and a greater sensitivity to shifts in English idiom. A word about each is in order.

While "Messiah" (from the Hebrew) and "Christ" (from the Greek) both mean "Anointed One," what began as a title full of meaning to the early Jewish hearers of the gospel tended in the later Greek-speaking churches to become just another name for Jesus. So where the term is clearly used to designate the God-sent deliverer of Jewish expectations (primarily in the Gospels and Acts), it was judged more appropriate to use "Messiah." However, where this sense seems less prominent (primarily in the Epistles), the transliteration of the Greek word ("Christ" ) has been retained.

Concerning "saints," current usage (as reflected in major dictionaries of the English language) burdens it with meanings that lie outside the sense of the original-language words. The main Old Testament term that has traditionally been rendered "saints" refers to those who are faithful to God. The New Testament term primarily designates those who have become followers of the Christian Way as people consecrated to God and thus belonging to the Lord in a special sense.

Although a basic core of the English language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural forces continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV are the removal of nearly all vocative "O"s and the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns. relative to the second of these, the so-called singular "they/their/them," which has been gaining acceptance among careful writers and which actually has a venerable place in English idiom, has been employed to fill in the vocabulary gap in generic nouns and pronouns referring to human beings. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, "anyone" or "everyone" or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns.

Sometimes the chapter and/or verse numbering in English translations of the Old Testament differs from that found in published Hebrew texts. This is particularly the case in the Psalms, where the traditional titles are included in the Hebrew verse numbering. Such differences are marked by asterisks (*) in the text and informative footnotes set off in a separate line (or lines) at the bottom of the page. In the New Testament, verse numbers that marked off portions of the traditional English text not supported by the best Greek manuscripts are now set alongside the immediately preceding verse numbers and placed in brackets (see, for example, Matthew 17:20[21]).

Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, although long accorded virtually equal status with the rest of the Gospels in which they stand, have a very questionable --and confused--standing in the textual history of the New Testament, as noted in the bracketed annotations with which they are set off. A different typeface has now been chosen for these passages to indicate even more clearly their uncertain status.

Basic formatting of the text, such as lining the poetry, paragraphing (both prose and poetry), setting up of (administrative-like) lists, indenting letters and lengthy prayers within narratives and the insertion of sectional headings, has been the work of the Committee. However, the choice between single-column and double-column formats has been left to the publishers. Also, the issuing of "red-letter" editions is a publisher's choice--one that the Committee does not endorse.

The Committee has again been reminded that every human effort is flawed -- including this revision of the NIV. We trust, however, that many will find in it an improved representation of the Word of God, through which they hear his call to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and to service in his kingdom. We offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been made.

The Committee on Bible Translation
August 2003

The Feminist Agenda behind the TNIV

FEMINIST TNIV "BIBLE" PROMOTED AS THE "ALL-INCLUSIVE" BIBLE FOR OUR TIME. ANTICHRIST WILL APPEAR AS "ALL-INCLUSIVE"!!

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Okay, now my question is which Bible do you believe is the word of God?

As I've said before, I believe that all legitimate Bible translations are the word of God. This includes the KJV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, NKJV, and many others.

 

[Oak]

Not all can be the word of God, but all can be the message.

 

[tucksma]

The word of God are the original texts, what we have is a translation. A better question would be which bibles are the best attempts at being the Word of God.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

If the New American Standard Bible was produced with such "conviction" then why have they revised it so much? Why do they continue to change and revise scores of passages in the NASB?

The so called "$holarship" behind the NASB is shifting sand, that's why.

The NASB translators never claimed their translation was perfect, nor did they claim that no future revisions would be necessary. They have revised their translation for the same reason that other translations have gone through revisions -- because the English language (and thus to add clarity) and biblical scholarship change.

They never change anything of doctrinal significance.

If the American Standard Version was supposedly "highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy" as they claim, then why did it go bankrupt in less than 25 years?

The ASV went completely bankrupt by 1924.

Again, in saying that a particular translation is "highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy" does not mean that they think the translation is perfect.

You were quoting from the section in which the NASB translators were stating English Bible translation history, and they were arguing that the NASB would continue in the same tradition. The translators wished to place the NASB in a long line of respectable Bible translations, including the KJV.

The translators recognized the KJV as a good translation, but that the English language had changed a lot since 1611, as had Bible scholarship. Previous Bible translators also thought this. The translators wished to continue with the idea of "authorized versions."

The ASV was among those translators that were in the line of recognized "authorized versions," by biblical scholars. But the English in the ASV also became outdated (and so was the scholarship), so various Bible translation committees produced Bible translations to try to produce a more up to date authorized version.

So the next one in line was the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

Then there appear to be at least two translations that sought to be an update to the RSV. There was the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and there was the English Standard Version (ESV). I'm not sure which one was produced first -- I'd have to look that up.

I read somewhere that the scholars who were responsible for the NASB thought that the RSV was too theologically liberal, and that they wanted to produce a more theologically conservative scholarly version. That information wasn't in the preface to the NASB, so I'm not sure about the reliability of that information. I do know, though, that they wanted to put out a respectable Bible translation that could be used in the same way that the authorized translations of the past were used.

I'm pretty sure that the translators behind the NIV also had this goal in mind.






ever changing NASBs - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Published on Jun 30, 2010

In these three videos I show PROOF that Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins, and that their goal has ALWAYS been to make money with the NIV.

I don't doubt that Harper Collins owns Zondervan. Harper Collins is a huge company, and they publish a lot of things. Just because Zondervan publishes some NIV Bibles doesn't make the NIV evil. The publishers are not the ones on the translation committees. Furthermore, I'm sure that Zondervan publishes KJV Bibles, too. Does that make the KJV evil? Of course not. Neither does it make the NIV evil.

Zondervan is known for being a basically more theologically conservative Christian publishing label.

I knew someone who refused to buy anything labeled Zondervan because she was convinced that everything with the Zondervan label was too theologically conservative. Some professors at my seminary (I went for a counseling degree, but I had friends in the MDiv program) wouldn't let people use books that were published by Zondervan in their papers because they thought Zondervan was too theologically conservative.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

The Feminist Agenda behind the TNIV

FEMINIST TNIV "BIBLE" PROMOTED AS THE "ALL-INCLUSIVE" BIBLE FOR OUR TIME. ANTICHRIST WILL APPEAR AS "ALL-INCLUSIVE"!!

Must every version other than the KJV involve some evil plot by Satan?

I think that the inclusive language stuff in the TNIV is being badly misrepresented as having a "feminist agenda."

First of all, there are different kinds of inclusive language. There is inclusive language that applies to humans (and there are different levels of this), and there is the idea of inclusive language for God.

The first type (the inclusive language for humans) I normally don't have an issue with, so long as it isn't carried to an extreme.

The second type (inclusive language for God), I do have a real problem with. The TNIV does not apply this kind of inclusive language, so I have no complaints there.

However, let me define it so you know what I mean. Using inclusive language for God can be anything from never using a pronoun to refer to God -- so never saying "He," and instead saying "God" or "Godself." Carrying the idea farther, God might sometimes be referred to as a "she," especially when referring to the Holy Spirit. All of this is to avoid using "male" language for God.

Along those same lines, people who insist on using inclusive language for God want to change words like, "Father, Son, King," and any other "male" words in reference to God. So instead of saying "Father," they might say "Mother-Father God" or "Creator." Instead of referring to Jesus as the Son, they might use the phrase "Redeemer."

But like I said, the TNIV does not try to use inclusive language for God, so the translation is fine that way.

They do use inclusive language in reference to humans. Instead of saying "mankind," or "men" or something like that to refer to all humans, they use language like "humankind." I have no issues with this. I don't have issues with using "male" language either. So this is really a non-issue for me. Using this kind of inclusive language doesn't change the meaning of the reading, and it has no impact on doctrines.

Nowhere does the TNIV suggest that Jesus is not the only way, as the Anti-Christ will do.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

As I've said before, I believe that all legitimate Bible translations are the word of God. This includes the KJV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, NKJV, and many others.

Alll those Bibles you just listed cannot all be the perfect and inerrant word of God at the same time. Only one of them can be. Why? Because they all conflict with each other in hundreds, if not thousands of places.

God is not the author of confusion.

The Bible (singular) is the inerrant word of God.

And the only one in that list that is the perfect and inerrant word of God is the KJV.

 

[Reformedjason]

Man translated the english bible so they are not perfect. Only God is perfect. He inspired the originals.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I don't doubt that Harper Collins owns Zondervan. Harper Collins is a huge company, and they publish a lot of things. Just because Zondervan publishes some NIV Bibles doesn't make the NIV evil. The publishers are not the ones on the translation committees. Furthermore, I'm sure that Zondervan publishes KJV Bibles, too. Does that make the KJV evil? Of course not. Neither does it make the NIV evil.

Harpin Collins does own Zondervan. Look it up Arwen.

And regardless of whether Zondervan publishes the NIV or not, would not change the fact that the NIV is a wicked and satanic counterfeit. In other words, even if the NIV was not published by Zondervan, it would still be a wicked, satanic, and corrupt counterfeit.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Man translated the english bible so they are not perfect. Only God is perfect. He inspired the originals.

God is perfect and so is His word. God preserved His pure words (Psa. 12:6-7). And we got them.

 

[Reformedjason]

God is perfect and so is His word. God preserved His pure words (Psa. 12:6-7). And we got them.

We do have His perfect word. We just have to search out the mss we have. The fact that the church did not have the exact reading of the Kjv until 1611 tells us that it is not the exact word God inspired.

 

[Karraster]

God is perfect and so is His word. God preserved His pure words (Psa. 12:6-7). And we got them.

I have great respect for the KJV, always use it, it is good. I also have found it lacking in some regards...such as replacing the names of deity as Lord, LORD, GOD. For that reason to use it (KJV) exclusively you're gonna miss some major information. In defense of the KJV it can be said though, when it replaces those I mentioned, in my version it denotes the change.

Don't like the NIV at all. Can't say much about the others.

KJV does convey in my opinion the best interpretation beyond the original, that I know of....and I have a very difficult time reading Hebrew.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Alll those Bibles you just listed cannot all be the perfect and inerrant word of God at the same time. Only one of them can be. Why? Because they all conflict with each other in hundreds, if not thousands of places.

God is not the author of confusion.

The Bible (singular) is the inerrant word of God.

And the only one in that list that is the perfect and inerrant word of God is the KJV.

All the Bible's are God's Word. I never said that the translations themselves were perfect or inerrant. Only the original manuscripts are perfect and inerrant. To claim that a translation is inerrant makes no sense.

However, all of the legitimate translations all carry God's truth -- and everything we need for salvation and living. They tell us about God, what God has done in the past, what Jesus did for us on the cross, etc. It's the message of the Bible that is perfect and inerrant.

Since there are no original manuscripts that we have, all we have to go on is the oldest copies of manuscripts. That is what all translators have to work with.

The translators of the KJV didn't have access to the original manuscripts, and neither does any translation committee. All translation committees examine the copies of the text to try to determine what the original manuscripts likely said.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Harpin Collins does own Zondervan. Look it up Arwen.

And regardless of whether Zondervan publishes the NIV or not, would not change the fact that the NIV is a wicked and satanic counterfeit. In other words, even if the NIV was not published by Zondervan, it would still be a wicked, satanic, and corrupt counterfeit.

I said that I didn't doubt that they did own it.

I'm simply telling you that I think the argument that the Zondervan publisher publishes a Bible translation, and Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins, thus the NIV is evil is ridiculous.

Oh, look.....I just found this on Zondervan's website:
Zondervan - Study Bibles
Zondervan - Reference Bibles
Zondervan - Children's Bibles
Zondervan - New Testament & Portions
Zondervan - Daily Reading Bibles
Zondervan - Church & Ministry Bibles
Zondervan - Young Adult Bibles
Zondervan - Side by Side Bibles

Look at all those KJV Bibles that Zondervan publishes. That must mean that the KJV is evil. (I hope you know I'm being sarcastic -- but that's also the exact same argument being made about the NIV in that video).

You're welcome to think that the NIV is a wicked, satanic, and corrupt counterfeit all you want. But it contains the same gospel and message as the KJV.

 

[Agricola]

YOu can never convince a brainwashed sycophantic cult member to change how they think, and never will. At end of day its a waste of time, but I just hope that by countering these cults claims, other people will not fall for this nonsense.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

We do have His perfect word. We just have to search out the mss we have. The fact that the church did not have the exact reading of the Kjv until 1611 tells us that it is not the exact word God inspired.

No we don't have to search out any manuscripts. The King James Bible is the 100% pure and perfect word of God. God preserved His words in a Book.

Therefore no Christian needs to search through 5,000+ manuscripts to find out what God said because we already have access to what God said. And its in a Book.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

You're welcome to think that the NIV is a wicked, satanic, and corrupt counterfeit all you want.

Well the NIV is a wicked, vile, depraved, corrupt and wicked counterfeit.

ANY TRANSLATION that would attack the precious Son of God and His Deity, that same translation is a satanic counterfeit.

Furthermore, these wicked modern perversions also try to make a liar out of God.