Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Polycarp · 10-25-2001, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:
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?

LOL... No, I don't think my grade will be helped any by promoting his work, but I was serious about my professor being one of the ESV translators. From what I've seen of the version, I'll hype it whether or not my grades are improved by doing so.

I'm just not looking forward to the next wave of slander against this version which is sure to come soon from the KJV-Only crowd. That sort of stuff makes me ill...

Peace,

Polycarp

HelenM · 10-25-2001, 10:24 AM

Oh, I kinda like the KJV-Only folks...the ones I've met study the Bible seriously and take their Christian lives seriously. I think if they are wrong they are less harmfully wrong than people who think that 'eternally condemned' is synonymous with 'accursed' (Galatians 1) and don't see they just inserted a doctrine into there that was not there in the original.

What makes me ill is Christians who claim to believe the Bible is the Word of God and tell me to be in authority under it when they aren't. No that makes me ill. But I can see where the KJV-Only people are coming from...I mean, at least their position is one of faith...that that text was preserved by God.

And the NIV that makes me feel ill at times, thinking of all those committees...and look what they came up with.

I don't think atheism is half the threat to the true Church that worldly, apathetic, self-centered, arrogant, unteachable, hard-hearted Christians are.

love
Helen

Nomad · 10-25-2001, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Guy:

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?

Are you saying that all of the events from Erasmus to Jesus appearing to the disciples to His request that they stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost took place in a single day? Why do you think that this is the case? In my own view, when Jesus opens the disciples minds to the true meaning of the Scriptures (v. 46) this is something that would take quite a bit of time. I seriously doubt that Luke was thinking that this all happened in a nanosecond. Remember, it is Luke that has already said that Jesus was with the disciples for forty days (Acts 1:3b).

In any event, the basic chain of events remains exactly the same regardless of which translation you are talking about, so why have you singled out the NIV as being especially bad?

Quote:

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.

Actually, Luke simply skips Galilee, preferring to keep the story focus in Jerusalem. In Acts 1:4 he tells us that "on one occassion" while eating with the disciples, they are not leave Jerusalem, but from this we cannot say with certainty that Jesus did not journey with them to Galilee as well.

Quote:

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.

Translation is always a problematic activity in any language, even when we are talking about two reasonably similar ones recorded in the same era. In this case the translation is from an ancient language to a modern one, and the choices are much more difficult to make. Mistakes will be made, and judgement calls will be questioned, but in this particular case I think you are being excessively nit picking. As we can see, simply by reading the text of verses 42 to 44, even without the word "and" or "then" insterted, it is implied. There is no break in the action, and right after eating, Jesus begins talking. Based on Acts 1:4 we should probably assume that all of this took place at the same time.

As I stated previously, your quarrel appears to be with the note in your study Bible, not the translation itself. In my own view, the note is wrong, and is perhaps an attempt to reconcile the story with John's account of Jesus' eating of the fish in John 21. Whatever their reasons, it is only their speculation, and I would not make that big of an issue of it. The "contradiction" you find troubling (Luke's neglect of Jesus' appearances in Galilee) is found in all translations. This was why I wondered why you had singled out the NIV as being a bad translation here.

In my own view, we should be cautious about being excessively dependent upon any single translation. All of them are going to have their difficulties. When in doubt, consult more than one source.

Nomad

P.S. An apology is in order. I have checked a few Greek sources, and I made an error in saying that the conjunction being used was "kai" instead of "de". According to Biblon.com and The Online Greek Bible the word used by Luke was "de". This word is usually translated as "then" or "now" or "but", but is also sometimes translated as "and" (see especially Matthew's begats in the genaeology of Jesus in Matt 1). I had been relying upon a note made in the NET Bible note 107 of Luke 24:44. The NET appears to have made a mistake, and so have I. I apologize for my error.

The Guy · 10-26-2001, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:
Are you saying that all of the events from Erasmus to Jesus appearing to the disciples to His request that they stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost took place in a single day? Why do you think that this is the case? In my own view, when Jesus opens the disciples minds to the true meaning of the Scriptures (v. 46) this is something that would take quite a bit of time.

Yes, the events of chap 24 did take place during a single day, why wouldn’t they? Luke was very clear throughout his gospel when he changes scenes. If he didn’t do it here, then he did a terrible job conveying that thought. Verse 46 looks to be a supernatural event to me, not some sort of 5-week class in exegesis (<--joke). I really believe the writer intended for the reader to think the events of chap 24 took place in one day, and v36-51 was intended to be a continuous sequence of events.

Quote:

Actually, Luke simply skips Galilee, preferring to keep the story focus in Jerusalem. In Acts 1:4 he tells us that "on one occassion" while eating with the disciples, they are not leave Jerusalem, but from this we cannot say with certainty that Jesus did not journey with them to Galilee as well.

Yes, when reading Acts, the phrasing is much more ambiguous, he could have gone with them to Galilee. However, I am not referring to Acts, but the gospel of Luke. I would imagine that since the same author wrote them, that you would assume he had a singular idea in mind when writing the two books. But it is perfectly reasonable that as Luke wrote Acts, that he tried to clarify a few points from his last book, attempting to harmonize his account with the other legends regarding the resurrection (including his own). But that is just conjecture on my part, what is clear to me is that when examining Luke on its own, that it contradicts the other gospels in regards to the events after the resurrection.

But my contention with the NIV is based on much more than that scripture alone, that incidental choice in translation was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak.

Nomad · 10-26-2001, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Guy:

Yes, the events of chap 24 did take place during a single day, why wouldn�t they? Luke was very clear throughout his gospel when he changes scenes.

If we look only at chapter 24 of Luke, then we would have no idea that the time line between Jesus' Resurrection and Assension is 40 days. We only know this by reading Acts 1. There is no break between verses 46 and 50 to indicate how much time had passed, yet in continuing on to Acts 1 we see that a total of 40 days had passed between these two events.

This is why arguing from silence is generally weak.

Quote:

If he didn�t do it here, then he did a terrible job conveying that thought. Verse 46 looks to be a supernatural event to me, not some sort of 5-week class in exegesis (<--joke). I really believe the writer intended for the reader to think the events of chap 24 took place in one day, and v36-51 was intended to be a continuous sequence of events.

Given that Luke wrote both Luke and Acts, it is clear that he did not intend for the reader to think that all of the events in chapter 24 took place in a single day. They took place over a period of 40 days.

Quote:

Nomad: Actually, Luke simply skips Galilee, preferring to keep the story focus in Jerusalem. In Acts 1:4 he tells us that "on one occassion" while eating with the disciples, they are not leave Jerusalem, but from this we cannot say with certainty that Jesus did not journey with them to Galilee as well.

Guy: Yes, when reading Acts, the phrasing is much more ambiguous, he could have gone with them to Galilee. However, I am not referring to Acts, but the gospel of Luke.

On what basis do you think it is reasonable to ignore one chapter if it is talking about the same events as is another chapter? Reading Luke 24 alone gives us no more of an idea of how much time has transpired than does reading Matthew 28 alone, or John 20-21. But Luke 24 was not written alone. It was written together with a second book, Acts. It makes no sense to me to insist that the silence of one chapter is meaningful because the author waits until another chapter to elaborate on the story being told.

Quote:

I would imagine that since the same author wrote them, that you would assume he had a singular idea in mind when writing the two books. But it is perfectly reasonable that as Luke wrote Acts, that he tried to clarify a few points from his last book, attempting to harmonize his account with the other legends regarding the resurrection (including his own).

Actually, there is no indication that Luke knows of any other Gospel except Mark, and Mark did not have any resurrection appearances at all. On this basis Luke does not need to reconcile anything. Quite simply, he wrote two books, the first was about the life, death, resurrection, and assension of Jesus. The second was about the assension, and all of the events that followed, from Pentecost onward, leading to the spreading of Christianity throughout the Roman world. The stories are connected of course, but Luke had different purposes and focus for each book.

Quote:

But that is just conjecture on my part, what is clear to me is that when examining Luke on its own, that it contradicts the other gospels in regards to the events after the resurrection.

When you encounter a book by the same author, that talks about the same events, do you typically refuse to read both accounts, and see how they may compliment one another? If you do, that is a very odd way of reading what an author writes.

Quote:

But my contention with the NIV is based on much more than that scripture alone, that incidental choice in translation was simply the straw that broke the camel�s back, so to speak.

And here I do not really have a problem. Not all translations are for all people, and each of us should find a translation with which we are comfortable. Personally, I own the NIV, KJV/NKJV, and NEB Bibles. I also consult the RSV. Sometimes one or the other does not do a very good job of translating a particular text, but by and large, each does a reasonably good job over all. If you do not like the NIV, fair enough. But I do think it is worth questioning why one does not like a particular translation, especially if one believes that it differs radically from what other translations have to say about the same passage. In my own experience, I have found that in the great majority of cases this does not happen.

If you are interested, there is a good discussion about the types of translations available in English, as well as the methodologies involved in their production. It is quite informative, and you can find it here:

Why So Many Translations?

Peace,

Nomad

The Guy · 10-26-2001, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:
When you encounter a book by the same author, that talks about the same events, do you typically refuse to read both accounts, and see how they may compliment one another? If you do, that is a very odd way of reading what an author writes.

When you read a sequel to a book, have you never encountered one where the author has used details from a previous book, but changed them in order to make the latter book better? Do you see a problem then, or do you assume that the writer intended that when writing the first book?

In a novel I can suspend my disbelief and enjoy the book. But when I see the same thing happening in Luke/Acts, I wouldn't try to think up a scenario of how it could have been, and then accept that as an actual answer.

On a personal note, I am interested in knowing the truth (moreso than debating for academic reasons, which is why I won't do a point by point rebuttal over most of your assertions in your last post), and when that isn’t possible, then I want to determine what is most likely to be true. I am of the opinion that my scenario is much more likely to be accurate than the alternative that you presented.

I'll check that link you provided.

btw, I am not making an argument from silence, the text in Luke 24 simply leaves no room for the events of the other gospels to take place, to think otherwise is to insert your own ideas into the text.

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: The Guy ]

Nomad · 10-27-2001, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Guy:

When you read a sequel to a book, have you never encountered one where the author has used details from a previous book, but changed them in order to make the latter book better? Do you see a problem then, or do you assume that the writer intended that when writing the first book?

Given the close links between the two books on a good number of points, it is generally accepted that Luke wrote both books at the same time, intentially leaving some details for Acts, so as not to distract from his central message and themes in GLuke.

Out of curiosity, have you read any commentaries on Luke or Acts, or the Gospels in general? My views are not really all that controversial, at least based on what I have read on the subject. I have not met a person that refused to read Luke and Acts as a set before, so I am interested in why you have done this.

As to your question of an author writing a sequel to clarify past points, I have read them, but did not know that this was a bad thing. Why do you think that it is wrong for an author to do this? After all, your theory that he was trying to reconcile his story with the accounts of the other Gospels would require him to have knowledge of those Gospels (especially John). Do you have evidence that he did know John's Gospel when he wrote Acts? If so, I would like to see it.

In any event, if you do not wish to see Luke/Acts as a unit, then so be it. But I would like to see evidence as to why they should be broken up.

Nomad

The Guy · 10-27-2001, 12:11 PM

Nomad, why do you keep insisting that ‘my theory’ is that Luke is reconciling his previous accounts or the resurrection in his gospel with John? You are exaggerating and misinterpreting my assertions and then trying to make them look foolish, a good debating tactic, but useless when actually trying to determine the truth.

If you must know, I don’t think Luke was aware of John, I believe it was written after Luke/Acts. I do think that he was aware of Matt. But that’s debatable, and it isn’t necessary in order to establish a discrepancy; Luke contradicts both Mark and Acts.

Have I read any commentaries on Luke or Acts? Yes. Do I think they were written relatively close to one another? Yes. Do I still think they contradict? Yes.
If you think citing a commentary legitimizes my claim, then here:

Quote:

Note on Luke 24:50 from The Interpreters Bible:
One difficulty is created by the statement in Acts 1:3 that Christ’s resurrection appearances continued for a period of forty days, whereas the implication of the gospel story is that the risen Lord parted once and for all from his disciples on Easter Sunday. Probably Luke was not interested in matters of chronology when he wrote his first version of the incident.

Quote:

Note on Acts 1:3 from The Interpreters Bible:
In Luke’s gospel there is nothing to indicate that the ascension did not take place on the same day as the resurrection - a view perhaps shared by Paul who seems to regard the two as synonymous. The acceptance of the longer period by church tradition was probably due to the desire to make room for the imparting of secret instruction to the inner circle of his disciples by the risen Jesus…

Rewriting history is fine, as long as you pass it off as fiction, but when it is presented as historical, I do have a problem with it.

A Disciple · 10-28-2001, 12:18 AM

Hey polycarp!

Thanks for responding, I apologize for the delay! I did a boo-boo and crashed my computer!! I will have to make this brief.
First of all... I know Jesus is the way, I know Jesus is the Truth, I know Jesus is the Life and I know Jesus is my GOD!!! And truly, this, is all that matters!!! I am now studying all the different versions, I first used niv, then nkjv and now kjv. My reason for studying these versions is because in one Lucifer is called morning star, and in the other Jesus is bright and morning star! I HAVE to know which one is the 100% Truth otherwise I may be exalting someone who DOES NOT DESERVE IT!!
I sthe cheif editor of niv Edwin Palmer?
I would like to see you get rights for KJV poly!
Is Rupert Murdoc the owner of the exclusive print rights? The one that states that I can't use more than 200 words in evangelism without making a copyright infringement!!! How can someone copyright GOD'S Word??? Why would someone?? Money? Contact Athea Disney for copyright info.
What else does Mr. Murdoc own?
(Forgive me if name spelling is off)

Anyway, Can you please explain why 17 verses are missing out of the niv? Eg. Matt 17-21 Mark 9-44
Matt18-11 Mark11-26
Matt 23-14 Mark15-28
Mark 7-16 Luke17-36
Acts 8-37 1John5-7
Some very important verses here, check your bible...they're missing.

So how is that nonsense about that?
Could you also please tell me what some of the 100,000changes to the kjv are?

Why is Rev.1:11 Omitted in niv, nasb? "I am the Alpha and Omega" Is He not?

How about Josh. 22:22 kjv says, "The LORD God." But the niv,nasb say, "The Mighty One." I believe God is mighty however isn't it a little better to address him as LORD...Whosoever shall say, LORD...Wosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD...etc. He deserves it...let's give it to Him.

1Corinth.16:22 kjv= "LORD Jesus Christ"
niv nasb= "the LORD" Why omit the name Jesus Christ. "the LORD" could mean a guy in Britan! Let's give Him the GLORY!!!

Acts 14:15 kjv- "God"
niv nasb "a God" Well, which is it?? Only one God!

1John5:7 One of the most powerful verses identifying the Trinity.
niv, nasb OMIT IT!!!!! WHY!!! That's important stuff.

How about Phil 4:13 kjv says... "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."
andniv nasb..." I can do everything through him who gives me strength."
As a mature Christian I guess your brain would slip Jesus in here but as a new Christian, who strengthens me? Dad, mom, I say if Christ strengthen...then Christ strengthen.
Acts 4:24 GONE!!! It should state..."Thou art God." More praise taken away from our Heavenly Father...

And this is strange...
2Tim 3:17 kjv reads... "perfect"
niv,nasb read "adequate"
Jer 29:11 kjv "peace"
niv "prosper"
2Corinth 1:14 kjv .."your rejoicing"
niv nasb "be proud" ??????????????

1Tim 1:4 kjv "godly edifying"
niv nasb "furthering the administration"

Luke 4:4 kjv "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God
niv nasb omits the bold print above!!! Man I would sure like to know something like that!!!!

Rom 1:16 kjv the gospel of Christ"
niv nasb "the gospel" Why take His name out again??

Col 1 :14 Here's an important one boy oh boy!! kjv In whom we have redemption through his blood"
Guess what's omitted?? "Through His blood"!!
Are we NOT redemed by his blood??
\
Mark 9:42 "believe in me"
"who believes."

2John1:9 "doctrine of Christ"
"teaching"

Gal 4:7 "an heir of God through Christ"
"an heir of God"
Does it not have to be through Christ Jesus??

1John4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God."

"every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God"

Remember: all editions of niv and nasb are
not the same...but I think you could see my point...check out your edition.

Anyway, there's lots more and we will discuss this further, however I need SLEEP! Thanks for reading and lemme know what you havbe to say. And I will get you the info you requested, and we will talk about manuscripts. My view is, I want to give God ALL the Glory and Honor! Niv has removed many, many praises!
Thanks again,
forever in HIS grip...THROUGH Christ Jesus,
Jay

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: A Disciple ]

Polycarp · 10-28-2001, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A Disciple:

Thanks for responding, I apologize for the delay! I did a boo-boo and crashed my computer!! I will have to make this brief.
First of all... I know Jesus is the way, I know Jesus is the Truth, I know Jesus is the Life and I know Jesus is my GOD!!! And truly, this, is all that matters!!! I am now studying all the different versions, I first used niv, then nkjv and now kjv. My reason for studying these versions is because in one Lucifer is called morning star, and in the other Jesus is bright and morning star! I HAVE to know which one is the 100% Truth otherwise I may be exalting someone who DOES NOT DESERVE IT!!

Hey Disciple,

Let me start off by saying that I�m a fan of the band Disciple. Judging by your moniker and quotation of one of their songs, I�m assuming you are also a fan of theirs. Do you like �This Might Sting A Little� or �By God� better? Having said that, I must tell you that we�re miles apart on the issue of Bible versions.

Your main gripe against the newer versions seems to be the claim that the newer versions omit important words or verses from them. Other than this claim and the copyright issue, which I addressed and you failed to respond to my point, you didn�t bring up any reason for believing the KJV to be superior to the newer versions.

Let�s start from square one. Do you believe a Bible translation should attempt to be as close as possible in meaning and terminology to that of the original writing? In other words, our gospel of Mark should be as close as possible to the one that was actually written by Mark in the first century. Hopefully, you�ll agree with me on this point. If not, then I�m afraid any further discussion will be fruitless. If we�re in agreement, then I�ll move on�

There are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Within these thousands of manuscripts, there are thousands of variants. Variants are differences between manuscripts. No two manuscripts are absolutely identical. Because of this, the people who translate our versions (including the KJV in the 17th century) into English are required to make a determination between the variants in order to ascertain which variant reflects the original writing.

You gave many examples of differences between the KJV and modern translations, but I�ll focus on 1 John 5:7 to demonstrate my point. The original KJV translators primarily used the Greek text of Erasmus. Erasmus� work is what is now generally known as the Textus Receptus. In the first edition of Erasmus� Greek New Testament, this verse (1 John 5:7) was not included. Why? Because the verse was not in ANY Greek manuscript that Erasmus had EVER seen. That�s right. None. The only place where Erasmus had seen the verse was in some Latin manuscripts. This verse was added later by scribes. It was obviously not in the original version of 1 John, or else it would have appeared in the earlier manuscripts. All of the earlier manuscripts of 1 John are missing 1 John 5:7.

So� your claim that the newer versions remove verses from God�s word is actually false. In most of the examples you gave, it is the KJV that has added words or verses to God�s word. You�ve assumed that the KJV is God�s word and then worked from that false assumption. No translation can be absolutely perfect. Some of the textual variants are too difficult to decide which is the original.

As I said earlier, the goal of a translation should be to most accurately reflect the original writing. Why do you think 1 John 5:7 was in the original version of John�s letter when it can�t be found in any of the early Greek manuscripts? This type of thing is the case with almost every example you gave. The parts omitted by the newer versions simply were not in the original writings. If you studied the manuscript evidence instead of relying on one English version of the Bible translated by people using manuscripts from 1000 years after the original, this would become quite obvious to you.

As for me proving there have been 100,000 changes to the KJV, I don�t have the time to list all of them. Feel free to do it yourself. Get a copy of each of the revisions and start comparing. You�ll find changes, spelling corrections, etc. If the original 1611 KJV was inerrant, then why has it been revised more than once? Have you ever thought about this? The KJV Bible you read is not identical to the one translated in 1611. The 1611 version had the following:

Deut. 26:1 � �the LORD� changed to �the LORD thy God� in your KJV
Psalm 69:32 � �seek good� changed to �seek God� in your KJV
Jeremiah 49:1 � �inherit God� changed to �inherit Gad� in your version

Many more examples could be given, but my point is clear. No translation is inerrant. Any belief in inerrancy must be based on the original manuscripts.

And please answer this question: If Osama bin Laden obtains the publishing rights to the KJV Bible will you still use it?

Peace,

Polycarp

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2001, 10:24 AM	#32
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Oh, I kinda like the KJV-Only folks...the ones I've met study the Bible seriously and take their Christian lives seriously. I think if they are wrong they are less harmfully wrong than people who think that 'eternally condemned' is synonymous with 'accursed' (Galatians 1) and don't see they just inserted a doctrine into there that was not there in the original. What makes me ill is Christians who claim to believe the Bible is the Word of God and tell me to be in authority under it when they aren't. No that makes me ill. But I can see where the KJV-Only people are coming from...I mean, at least their position is one of faith...that that text was preserved by God. And the NIV that makes me feel ill at times, thinking of all those committees...and look what they came up with. I don't think atheism is half the threat to the true Church that worldly, apathetic, self-centered, arrogant, unteachable, hard-hearted Christians are. love Helen

10-28-2001, 12:18 AM	#39
A Disciple Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 30	Hey polycarp! Thanks for responding, I apologize for the delay! I did a boo-boo and crashed my computer!! I will have to make this brief. First of all... I know Jesus is the way, I know Jesus is the Truth, I know Jesus is the Life and I know Jesus is my GOD!!! And truly, this, is all that matters!!! I am now studying all the different versions, I first used niv, then nkjv and now kjv. My reason for studying these versions is because in one Lucifer is called morning star, and in the other Jesus is bright and morning star! I HAVE to know which one is the 100% Truth otherwise I may be exalting someone who DOES NOT DESERVE IT!! I sthe cheif editor of niv Edwin Palmer? I would like to see you get rights for KJV poly! Is Rupert Murdoc the owner of the exclusive print rights? The one that states that I can't use more than 200 words in evangelism without making a copyright infringement!!! How can someone copyright GOD'S Word??? Why would someone?? Money? Contact Athea Disney for copyright info. What else does Mr. Murdoc own? (Forgive me if name spelling is off) Anyway, Can you please explain why 17 verses are missing out of the niv? Eg. Matt 17-21 Mark 9-44 Matt18-11 Mark11-26 Matt 23-14 Mark15-28 Mark 7-16 Luke17-36 Acts 8-37 1John5-7 Some very important verses here, check your bible...they're missing. So how is that nonsense about that? Could you also please tell me what some of the 100,000changes to the kjv are? Why is Rev.1:11 Omitted in niv, nasb? "I am the Alpha and Omega" Is He not? How about Josh. 22:22 kjv says, "The LORD God." But the niv,nasb say, "The Mighty One." I believe God is mighty however isn't it a little better to address him as LORD...Whosoever shall say, LORD...Wosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD...etc. He deserves it...let's give it to Him. 1Corinth.16:22 kjv= "LORD Jesus Christ" niv nasb= "the LORD" Why omit the name Jesus Christ. "the LORD" could mean a guy in Britan! Let's give Him the GLORY!!! Acts 14:15 kjv- "God" niv nasb "a God" Well, which is it?? Only one God! 1John5:7 One of the most powerful verses identifying the Trinity. niv, nasb OMIT IT!!!!! WHY!!! That's important stuff. How about Phil 4:13 kjv says... "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." andniv nasb..." I can do everything through him who gives me strength." As a mature Christian I guess your brain would slip Jesus in here but as a new Christian, who strengthens me? Dad, mom, I say if Christ strengthen...then Christ strengthen. Acts 4:24 GONE!!! It should state..."Thou art God." More praise taken away from our Heavenly Father... And this is strange... 2Tim 3:17 kjv reads... "perfect" niv,nasb read "adequate" Jer 29:11 kjv "peace" niv "prosper" 2Corinth 1:14 kjv .."your rejoicing" niv nasb "be proud" ?????????????? 1Tim 1:4 kjv "godly edifying" niv nasb "furthering the administration" Luke 4:4 kjv "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God niv nasb omits the bold print above!!! Man I would sure like to know something like that!!!! Rom 1:16 kjv the gospel of Christ" niv nasb "the gospel" Why take His name out again?? Col 1 :14 Here's an important one boy oh boy!! kjv In whom we have redemption through his blood" Guess what's omitted?? "Through His blood"!! Are we NOT redemed by his blood?? \ Mark 9:42 "believe in me" "who believes." 2John1:9 "doctrine of Christ" "teaching" Gal 4:7 "an heir of God through Christ" "an heir of God" Does it not have to be through Christ Jesus?? 1John4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." "every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God" Remember: all editions of niv and nasb are not the same...but I think you could see my point...check out your edition. Anyway, there's lots more and we will discuss this further, however I need SLEEP! Thanks for reading and lemme know what you havbe to say. And I will get you the info you requested, and we will talk about manuscripts. My view is, I want to give God ALL the Glory and Honor! Niv has removed many, many praises! Thanks again, forever in HIS grip...THROUGH Christ Jesus, Jay [ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: A Disciple ]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.