NIV has left out some scripture

[Agricola]

If the 1611 King James is inspired word of God blah blah, then why is the apocrypha included? If something is "inspired by God" then it has to be perfect to start with, so why do we have dozens of re-writtings of the King James from 1611, including The New King James?

Romans 8 v 16
King James
[SUP]16 [/SUP]The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
NiV
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children

The original King James relegates Holy SPirit to just an "it", when you look at the technicallities of translation, this is gramatically correct, but the meaning has changed dramatically, Paul clearly writes that Holy Spirit is a separate individual and part of the God Head, it is this kind of mistake within the King James which changes a lot of meanings and feelings for verses, translation should be about conveying the whole message, not just a technical exercise in translation. Holy Spirit is clearly a living part of the God Head, and versions such as NIV correct this mistake made in the King James. It is also interesting to note the the New King James changes this verse to same as the NIV!

Surely if this was inspired by God or Holy Spirit, then surely the Holy Spirit would not have told the translator to call Himself, IT.

 

[RickShafer]

I never said just read King James!
Look up post #108. - I said if you want to know, you can find out.
Greek-English reference study bible....and on and on....did you think you'd learn it in an afternoon?
Read what I said in post #108.........to study or not to study....that is the question.
Whether it is nobler in the minds of men to either hold to or crank on a certain version.
No sub. for study, but your friend is right. Study the greek.

 

[Agricola]

IF you were refering to my post, I never claimed that.

 

[Bookreader]

Sarah, Get an 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary. You want to know what english words really meant? That's the one.
Republications of the exact same work are available to buy online.
Search: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary.

Since 1864 Webster's has deleted 'obsolete' words to 'make room' for new ones. So it needs to be at least that old.

The only dictionary that I'm aware of that never deletes a word is the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary - but the full version (as opposed to the concise version which most people use) isn't cheap (£600+ when new).
It wasn't written any earlier than Webster's but they actually went to the trouble to add obsolete words from the beginning.

The problem though is that the meaning of words changes over time. Obsolete words can be found out.
But sometimes a simple word in 1611 English now means something else.

It can often be confusing though as to why a word is translated a certain way as the English language changes all the time whereas we are to assume the ancient Greek did not.

 

[Bookreader]

The original King James relegates Holy SPirit to just an "it", when you look at the technicallities of translation, this is gramatically correct, but the meaning has changed dramatically, Paul clearly writes that Holy Spirit is a separate individual and part of the God Head

See this is why we have discussion - to me this verse is one of the few times the KJV got something right that doctrinal bias has made other translators alter.
Paul occasionally personifies the holy spirit of God but most of it is because most bibles
a) capitalise H and S with no reason to do so unless assuming something (i.e. doctrinal bias)
b) use Him when "it" or "the same" are more accurate translation without doctrinal bias.
So, in that way, it is clear. In my opinion it is only in that way that it is clear. You and I do not agree on this (and this is not the thread to argue the point).
But it does illustrate brilliantly what we consider correct or in error in a translation is often based upon our own beliefs. In the above example "itself" and "himself" are equally valid translations for 'autos' which literally translates as 'the same'.

It's sometimes difficult to remember which came first if you came to believe by reading the Bible (as an atheist) and never talked to others about it until afterwards.

When we read many translations we are reading the doctrine the translator/s believed pouring out.
As many doctrines were forced into the church (on pain of death and/or torture) within the first 400 years it's hard to find a non-biased translation.
To give credit to translators though - some try very hard.

It is an almost impossible job for a Christian translator to be unbiased in translation

And of course if a translation comes from non-believers then many would curse it as God-hating.

Would we call someone that wasn't a follower of Socrates as Socrates-hater for translating his works?

 

[RickShafer]

Bookreader - "It can often be confusing though as to why a word is translated a certain way as the English language changes all the time whereas we are to assume the ancient Greek did not."

Well said.
That's why I recommended a Lexicon based on Liddell and Scott.
Sometimes you have to go outside religious study to get an nondenominational view.
I've probably learned more from that one book than my three other lexicons based the bible!

 

[psychomom]

I never said just read King James!
Look up post #108. - I said if you want to know, you can find out.
Greek-English reference study bible....and on and on....did you think you'd learn it in an afternoon?
Read what I said in post #108.........to study or not to study....that is the question.
Whether it is nobler in the minds of men to either hold to or crank on a certain version.
No sub. for study, but your friend is right. Study the greek.

Rick, please will you forgive me?
I was hasty, and didn't read the whole thing.
Not for a moment did I think you would suggest one read only the KJV...and I should have taken the time to check out the whole thread before commenting so flippantly.

penitently,
ellie

 

[RickShafer]

Rick, please will you forgive me?
I was hasty, and didn't read the whole thing.
Not for a moment did I think you would suggest one read only the KJV...and I should have taken the time to check out the whole thread before commenting so flippantly.


penitently,
ellie

Ohhh!; so it was you!!! (now I know who stirred up that controversy)

"Flippantly", I like that word.
"Penitently", I like that word too.
Who could stay mad at such an one who flings around words like that?
Alright....I guess I forgive you......(It was hard though)......(especially since I wasn't mad at you in the first place)

 

[Agricola]

See this is why we have discussion - to me this verse is one of the few times the KJV got something right that doctrinal bias has made other translators alter.

But thing is, in later versions of King James, it has been changed. So what is right? This also shows that the King James is nothing really special when it comes to translation.

 

[richie_2uk]

Hmmm why do people assume the bible is wrong? or is or not accurate? have you thought that the writers are human? therefore, human makes mistakes? Its true the word of God, is inspired but written by men. we need not to question the bible but question the human writers of the bible? The king James had many errors in there translations, but quickly amended there errors. like for example, the only word Easter is mentioned in the bible is at Acts 12: 4. In the error of translation says: " And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after EASTER to bring forth to the people " The writers of King James Bible very quickly to amend the error and put " Pascha " meaning Passover in translation. So you see its not the bible that is not accurate like I heard many people say, point out, and point the finger. its the Writers who in error written the wrong translation or meanings.

 

[Bookends]

People have told me I am going to burn in hell for reading an NIV... yes sure I am. NOT. I hate to think what these KJ only people think of all the poor condemed souls living in non English speaking countries, I guess they think they should all learn English and read the King James in English in order to be saved, so likes of wwjd_kilden should burn her Norwegien translation and just stick with the King James.

People have already explained why the verses are "missing" but they are not really missing. My NIV has all the so called missing verses printed on bottom of page, sure tiny writing, but they still print the "missing" verse.

This is also why its important to learn how to study properly, use several versions of Bible and even Strongs numbering, compare verses, if one verse is wildley different to another, then a check another Bible and see what that says.

I get the impression that most of the King James only people seem to think the apostles etc all went around speaking English, they fail to understand the complexities of translating ancient documents in Greek, Hebrew and Latin to modern English. In reality, they should really be telling us to learn Greek and Hebrew and Latin and read the early documents. I have noticed a number of inacurate translation and use of English words in the King James over the years, looking at original Hebrew and Greek showed the true reflection and deeper meaning that a single word emphasises, which needs several sentences to convey in English.

They also fail to recognize the errors in the KJV as well.

 

[didymos]

But I don't think they're playing with them .

No, but don't you think skeletons coming to life again is a much scarier image than one sole guy 'playing' with a skull? He isn't playing with at all, by the way, he is just pondering his mortality. You would have known that had you read 'Hamlet.'

It's a sad thing that a dutch guy has to stick up for 'Shakespeare' here, hehehe...

 

[SarahM777]

Nah, That's the power of God to be able to do that. (Still kind of weird for a man to talk to a skull though)

 

[didymos]

Nah, That's the power of God to be able to do that. (Still kind of weird for a man to talk to a skull though)

Not so much if you know he used to know the fellow well the skull belonged to.

Anyway, don't let this one scene from 'Hamlet' keep you from reading 'Shakespeare.' There's so much beauty, wisdom and truth in his plays and sonnets.

 

[SarahM777]

Not so much if you know he used to know the fellow well the skull belonged to.

Anyway, don't let this one scene from 'Hamlet' keep you from reading 'Shakespeare.' There's so much beauty, wisdom and truth in his plays and sonnets.

I was more into science fiction and science fantasy. Plays and poetry,not so much. What can I say. (Poetry goes better with music anyways) Shakespeare's just not my style.

 

[tribesman]

scriptures missing from NIV matt 24:25, mark 7:16, mark 9:44,46 mark 15:38 mark11:26 luke 17:36 luke 23:17 John 5:4 acts 8:37 act 15:34 acts 24:7 acts 28:29 Romans 16:24. Please tell me your thoughts.

Just forget the NIV and stick to the KJV and you'll be better off. Take care.