Pantera

I had the Good News Bible at school too. Suddenly it becomes clear why.

Grumpy

Proving once more that the best source of titles for porno films is The Bible.

Starbug

Even if you use any translation other than King James, I'd keep a KJV handy:

1) King James doesn't paraphase obscene comments in Old Testament scripture in an effort to censor (gotta' have all the bloody, sexy details)

2) If a newer translation (even the New King James) doesn't italicize the words it "adds for meaning," you'll overlook contradictions that occur in the original texts

3) If you can find a table of contents of the 1st KJV edition, ask those who believe it was inspired why it contains the apocrypha

Echo

It's times like this when I wish the bible contained more pictures.



[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Echo ]

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by A Disciple: Hello, You guys probably don't care but there are major differences between KJV and NIV. Things like many missing verses in NIV eg. Acts 8:37. The word Holy is taken out all over the place in NIV, the NIV actually places Lucifer in Jesus's position calling Lucifer 'morning star' When it is Jesus who is.

Have you studied textual criticism at all ? By this, I mean have you read anything on the topic. My initial guess is that you have not. I'd be happy to recommend some books on the topic.

Quote:

The KJV was translated by 47 different people over and over and over. The NIV was translated by eight or nine people from the Alexandrian texts. KJV was textus receptus.

Sheer nonsense. From which piece of propaganda did you get this tidbit?

The KJV translators used only about 6 or 7 Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which was from the 10th or 11th century. Today's translations utilize data from thousands of Greek manuscripts, some of which come from as early as the 2nd century. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one is likely to be more accurate and true to the original text.

The KJV has been revised three times since 1611, with a total of over 100,000 changes. How do you decide which KJV is the correct one and which of the 100,000 changes are the right ones?

There were far more than "eight or nine people" involved in the translation of the NIV. Again... Where did you get such faulty information?

Quote:

All versions except KJV are copyrighted and no more than 200 words can be used before an infringement is made. You can copy all of KJV. NIV is owned by (Forget his name can get it for you if you would like) He owns Fox TV, rights to Bart Simpson, and Star magazine.

This argument is a complete non-sequitir. Are you saying that if Osama bin Laden somehow acquired the copyright to the KJV, it would somehow de-inspire it as a version? Copyright laws were a little different in 1611 England than they are in 21st century America.

Peace,

Polycarp

Nomad

First, so that I am clear, you are saying you think the NIV has done something dishonest because they say that a number of days/weeks MAY have passed between two verses? Further, you think that something is afoot because they place the word "then" in the sentence?

I am curious Guy, are you familiar with the differences between "word for word" translations, and those that translate by phrase? I honestly believe you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Actually, both Luke and John have Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem see John 20). He then appears to them at Galilee in chapter 21. Mark has no appearances at all (verses 16:9-20 are considered to be later redactional additions and not a part of Mark's original Gospel), with the young man at the tomb instructing them to go to Galilee. Matthew has Jesus appearing in Galilee, and giving the Great Commission (28:19-20), but does not bother with the Assenssion (which takes place in Jerusalem) at all.

Here you appear to be drawing some kind of conclusion based on the silences of Mark/Matt on Jerusalem, and Luke on Galilee. I am unsure why you think that this is critical, but more importantly, EVERY translation has these silences. Why single out the NIV on this point?

Well, since Jesus remains for 40 days, there is time for a trip to Galilee and back. Further, it does not take weeks to make such a trip. The distances involved are just not that great. I do not see what you think is the "contradiction". At most we have silences, but in themselves these are not contradictions.

A minor point, but the Greek word is "kai", not "de", and yes, it means "and" or "then". But reading the NIV alone, without referring to the note you have offered, one need not assume that verses 43 and 44 are not linked in the NIV. Read the sentences without the note:

Luke 24:42-44a They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. He said to them...

Your quarrel appears to be with the note in your study Bible, not the translation itself. The NIV Bibles that I have do not have this note, and in reading the verses, we can easily assume that Jesus ate the fish, THEN started talking to the disciples. There is no break in the actual text, just in the notes of your particular study Bible. The translation is accurate, even if the note is speculative (and even admits as much, since it qualifies its statement by saying that some days MAY have passed between the verses). My recommendation is that if the speculation bothers you, then just ignore it. There is no reason to agree with the speculation in this case.

What are you talking about here? This sounds very conspiratorial, yet I have seen many respected scholars that had nothing to do with the production of the NIV recommend it very highly. Why would all of these people be in on such a plot (or at least duped by it)?

Obviously you may use any translation you wish, but I think you have confused the speculations of the editor of your student's Bible with what the translators actually DID with this particular text. From my own point of view, I check various translations, and do the best I can to see which offers the best possible translation for a given text. Sometimes it it NIV, sometimes RSV, sometimes the NEB. But none of them are corrupted or involved in any kind of conspiracy to change or cover something significant up.

Nomad

The Guy

Nomad, I will address the contradiction first.

According to the gospel of Luke, the day of the resurrection, Jesus appears before the men on the road to Emmaus. If you follow the narrative throughout the 24th chapter, it is evident in v49 that Jesus instructed the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until Pentecost. You can see that all this happened the Sunday of the resurrection. So at what point did Jesus meet with the disciples in Galilee?

Mark 14:28 says “But after I am brought back to life, I will go to Galilee ahead of you.” And again in Mark 16:7 “Go and tell his disciples and Peter that he’s going ahead of them to Galilee. There they will see him, just as he told them”. I already see a problem between Luke and Mark. Luke has the disciples meeting with him in Jerusalem (as well as John), and Mark says Jesus will meet the Disciples in Galilee.

But Matt is similar to Mark, Matt 28:7 “Then go quickly, and tell his disciples that he has been brought back to life. He’s going ahead of them into Galilee.” And Matt ends with Jesus giving the great commission on the mountain in Galilee where he told them to go.

Now, Luke makes it plain that immediately after the resurrection, Jesus instructed his disciples to remain in Jerusalem until Pentecost, so what happened? Luke isn’t silent about Galilee, he states that the disciples aren’t to leave Jerusalem.

How long would a round trip from Jerusalem to Galilee take then? If they were by the sea of Tiberias (as in John 21) then it would be around a hundred miles over hilly terrain one way. I cannot see a round trip realistically taking less than a few weeks.
I hope I have demonstrated the contradiction, if you don’t think I have, I will try to explain it again.

For my problem with the NIV.

My contention here is that the dropping of the ‘Then’ or ‘And’ in Luke 24:44 gave the contributors to my study bible the justification they needed to insert that break in the passage. I do not think it was conspiratorial between the two groups, but I want to know if there is a legitimate reason for dropping the ‘kai’(so what is a ‘de?) from the text.

I think the implications of the contradiction is clear, if the writers can be in that much disagreement between where the disciples were after the resurrection, then that calls into question the whole validity of the accounts. So when I look in the preface and read this:

I don’t think something as minor as dropping a single word from a verse is out of the question. It was at least convenient for those who prepared the study bible I now own.
I am not advocating a full-fledged lets-fix-all-the-problems-in-the-text conspiracy, just a translation that attempts to be scholarly, but with a few questionable decisions on word usage, which inadvertently muddy the waters where a few contradictions would be apparent with another translation.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: The Guy ]

HelenM

Someone unexpectedly gave me a free CD copy of the English Standard Version (just published) last night. (I was very pleased about that!! )

So far I like it...it's in the ASV/NASB tradition of staying quite close to the original languages.

Unlike the NIV

Helen

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL: Someone unexpectedly gave me a free CD copy of the English Standard Version (just published) last night. (I was very pleased about that!! ) So far I like it...it's in the ASV/NASB tradition of staying quite close to the original languages.

That's cool. I'll be buying my copy in the near future. I'm really looking forward to this translation because of its literal-ness. Not to mention the fact that I know a couple of the translators and one of them is currently a professor of mine. I'm sure he'll give me a better grade if I hype his work.

Before the KJV-Only crowd starts ranting about some conspiracy behind this new translation, I'd recommend getting the facts on it from the ESV website. It has sample excerpts, a complete list of the translators, and some other good info on the making of this translation.

Check it out at http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/Go...2/Catalog/1394


Peace,

Polycarp

HelenM

Polycarp

So far every verse that I've looked up, which I thought was not well-translated in the NIV, is fine, in the ESV...

You weren't serious about hyping someone's work to get a better grade though were you?

love
Helen