Dont know how to delete posts

zosha

Member
Just going to delete this post before it turns into something that I can see it turning into--Will edit and reword Later on Thanks for replying everyone
 

zosha

Member
Re: What do you guys have to say about the NIV, NKJV, ESV, etc?

Other good example is how the NIV says Jesus's FATHER JOSEPH but the older Bibles such as Geneva and King James say Jesus's mother AND JOSEPH, always careful to never say Joseph was his father since he had no father except God
 

livingskies

Well-Known Member
Re: What do you guys have to say about the NIV, NKJV, ESV, etc?

Lol. I was actually going to mention bible translations yesterday by PM. :lol:
I like this chart to compare:
Translation Comparison Charts

The KJV is a big favorite, but it is based off of newer scrolls found. The newer versions are actually based on more ancient scrolls that have been found more recently (possibly less scribe errors). But all English versions are at least 99% accurate (see below). The Holy Spirit is able to use these accurate versions to speak to us His living and active Word. I believe He played a part in preserving the scriptures during translations.

I personally find the KJV very difficult to understand (it is of the Shakespeare era, which I also didn`t like :hide). I used the chart above to pick ESV and I also picked up a HCSB very recently (even more easy-read but still very literal word by word translation). I love the way the ESV reads though. I steer away from thought-for-thought translations personally.

For comparing translations, verses, and strict interlinear (word by word translation) I love this free website:
Interlinear Bible: Greek, Hebrew, Transliterated, English, Strong's

Question: "How does the translation process impact the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible?"

Answer: This question deals with three very important issues: inspiration, preservation, and translation.

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible teaches that scripture is “God-breathed”; that is, God personally superintended the writing process, guiding the human authors so that His complete message was recorded for us. The Bible is truly God’s Word. During the writing process, the personality and writing style of each author was allowed expression; however, God so directed the writers that the 66 books they produced were free of error and were exactly what God wanted us to have. See 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21.

Of course, when we speak of “inspiration,” we are referring only to the process by which the original documents were composed. After that, the doctrine of the preservation of the Bible takes over. If God went to such great lengths to give us His Word, surely He would also take steps to preserve that Word unchanged. What we see in history is that God did exactly that.

The Old Testament Hebrew scriptures were painstakingly copied by Jewish scribes. Groups such as the Sopherim, the Zugoth, the Tannaim, and the Masoretes had a deep reverence for the texts they were copying. Their reverence was coupled with strict rules governing their work: the type of parchment used, the size of the columns, the kind of ink, and the spacing of words were all prescribed. Writing anything from memory was expressly forbidden, and the lines, words, and even the individual letters were methodically counted as a means of double-checking accuracy. The result of all this was that the words written by Isaiah’s pen are still available today. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls clearly confirms the precision of the Hebrew text.

The same is true for the New Testament Greek text. Thousands of Greek texts, some dating back to nearly A.D. 117, are available. The slight variations among the texts—not one of which affects an article of faith—are easily reconciled. Scholars have concluded that the New Testament we have at present is virtually unchanged from the original writings. Textual scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon said about the Bible, “It is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved. . . . This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”

This brings us to the translation of the Bible. Translation is an interpretative process, to some extent. When translating from one language to another, choices must be made. Should it be the more exact word, even if the meaning of that word is unclear to the modern reader? Or should it be a corresponding thought, at the expense of a more literal reading?

As an example, in Colossians 3:12, Paul says we are to put on “bowels of mercies” (KJV). The Greek word for “bowels,” which is literally “intestines,” comes from a root word meaning “spleen.” The KJV translators chose a literal translation of the word. The translators of the NASB chose “heart of compassion”—the “heart” being what today’s reader thinks of as the seat of emotions. The Amplified Bible has it as “tenderhearted pity and mercy.” The NIV simply puts “compassion.”

So, the KJV is the most literal in the above example, but the other translations certainly do justice to the verse. The core meaning of the command is to have compassionate feelings.

Most translations of the Bible are done by committee. This helps to guarantee that no individual prejudice or theology will affect the decisions of word choice, etc. Of course, the committee itself may have a particular agenda or bias (such as those producing the current “gender-neutral” mistranslations). But there is still plenty of good scholarship being done, and many good translations are available.

Having a good, honest translation of the Bible is important. A good translating team will have done its homework and will let the Bible speak for itself.

As a general rule, the more literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, ASB and NASB, have less “interpretative” work. The “freer” translations, such as the NIV, NLT, and CEV, by necessity do more “interpretation” of the text, but are generally more readable. Then there are the paraphrases, such as The Message and The Living Bible, which are not really translations at all but one person’s retelling of the Bible.

So, with all that in view, are translations of the Bible inspired and inerrant? The answer is no, they are not. God nowhere extends the promise of inspiration to translations of His Word. While many of the translations available today are superb in quality, they are not inspired by God, and are not perfect. Does this mean we cannot trust a translation? Again, the answer is no. Through careful study of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, we can properly understand, interpret, and apply Scripture. Again, due to the faithful efforts of dedicated Christian translators (and of course the oversight of the Holy Spirit), the translations available today are superb and trustworthy. The fact that we cannot ascribe inerrancy to a translation should motivate us towards even closer study, and away from blind devotion towards any particular translation.

Read more: How does the translation process impact the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible?
 

zosha

Member
Re: What do you guys have to say about the NIV, NKJV, ESV, etc?

But don't you believe God preserved his word?

Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

I dont really believe that the best translations of the Bible were buried for thousand+ years and now only in the last, most wicked days does the truth come out? I dont know...I happen to prefer Geneva Bible and King James. The language is so magical, really moving you, really able to hold the depth of the language and ideas. But I totally respect your choices! And im not professing to know which ones better :) Just so nobody thinks im doing that lol
 

iSong6:3

Well-Known Member
Re: What do you guys have to say about the NIV, NKJV, ESV, etc?

:lol: Poor Mary is suffering heat stroke in that boiling desert? :idunno:

:hug
 

zosha

Member
Re: What do you guys have to say about the NIV, NKJV, ESV, etc?

But I made this post to really just ask what everyone thinks about these Bibles removing full verses
 

iSong6:3

Well-Known Member
Mattfivefour has posted great information on the topics of different Bible translations. Since he's traveling and unable to be here much at the moment, you can do a search on what he's written. :thumbup

For all reading, btw, we're not King James Only (rule #4.) Not saying you're saying that, zosha, but for the lurkers, I can offer that as a basis.
 

mbrown1219

Heaven's Stables
Re: What do you guys have to say about the NIV, NKJV, ESV, etc?

But don't you believe God preserved his word?

Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

I dont really believe that the best translations of the Bible were buried for thousand+ years and now only in the last, most wicked days does the truth come out? I dont know...I happen to prefer Geneva Bible and King James. The language is so magical, really moving you, really able to hold the depth of the language and ideas. But I totally respect your choices! And im not professing to know which ones better :) Just so nobody thinks im doing that lol

Just wondering if you perused the posting rules before you began posting? See Rule #4. We don't debate too much, except in the case of purely heretical translations.

[04] Defend the Faith and God's infallible Word, not the ways of the world, homosexuality, liberalism, socialism, false translations, false theologies such as Mysticism, Liturgical sacraments, deceptive cults, or other heresies. We believe in only one true gospel of saving grace through faith in one Jesus Christ alone in His shed blood for our atonement, Old Testament looked forward to God's provision of the sacrifice, New Testament looks back to God's provision of the sacrifice. Do not promote, two gospels, hyper Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism, adding good works of Lordship Salvation, Ecumenical Interfaith, KJV Onlyism, nor other ideologies of religious legalism. Do not play 'devil's advocate' for the sake of argument.
 

zosha

Member
Re: What do you guys have to say about the NIV, NKJV, ESV, etc?

Just wondering if you perused the posting rules before you began posting? See Rule #4. We don't debate too much, except in the case of purely heretical translations.

[04] Defend the Faith and God's infallible Word, not the ways of the world, homosexuality, liberalism, socialism, false translations, false theologies such as Mysticism, Liturgical sacraments, deceptive cults, or other heresies. We believe in only one true gospel of saving grace through faith in one Jesus Christ alone in His shed blood for our atonement, Old Testament looked forward to God's provision of the sacrifice, New Testament looks back to God's provision of the sacrifice. Do not promote, two gospels, hyper Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism, adding good works of Lordship Salvation, Ecumenical Interfaith, KJV Onlyism, nor other ideologies of religious legalism. Do not play 'devil's advocate' for the sake of argument.

I tried to delete this post because I could see it turning into a debate and I can see myself falling into a habit so far with my last 3 posts of accidentally breaking some rules so Im not posting anymore until Ive read the entire list of rules thoroughly. Sorry about that.
 

livingskies

Well-Known Member
No worries, I don't think you broke it. If I you did then I did too because I said I personally like the ESV and you said you like the KJV. We are not legalistic on versions here but many like the KJV and that is what is usually quoted.

I would have to look up the specific verses you mentioned. I know my version study bible has some verses bracketed because they appear in some scrolls but not others. The whole section in Mark? About the woman caught in adultery does not appear in all scrolls that have been found. Although I find that passage very meaningful and I am glad it is included if even in parentheses so I know it may not be as inerrant. I am assuming that is true of the verses you mentioned, you could look up those versions in one of those study tools.

Scripture can be infallible, and sufficient but still have the nuances of the versions. The originals are inerrant. The potential scribe errors are minimal and do not affect the meanings. In translations some are closer to inerrant than others, but convey the meanings and doctrine. The Holy Spirit can speak through all versions. This is why the word is living and active and the Holy Spirit can guide us into correct understand. The original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic are most literal but most of us can't read that. Many pastors train in those though, especially Greek (most of NT).
 

livingskies

Well-Known Member
Here ya go, I think this is what you were asking and I kind of beat around the bush to get there.
No worries, I've stepped over the line a few times myself by accident as a newbie. :hug: The rules are there to keep everything focused on sound doctrine, not only for us but for all the lurkers. You'll get the hang of it!

Question: "Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?"

Answer: If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g. the New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, etc.) - you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20 is another example, although it is always placed in the text or in footnotes. Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible?

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations.


Read more: Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?
 

livin_in_the_Son

Well-Known Member
Here ya go, I think this is what you were asking and I kind of beat around the bush to get there.
No worries, I've stepped over the line a few times myself by accident as a newbie. :hug: The rules are there to keep everything focused on sound doctrine, not only for us but for all the lurkers. You'll get the hang of it!

Question: "Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?"

Answer: If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g. the New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, etc.) - you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20 is another example, although it is always placed in the text or in footnotes. Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible?

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations.


Read more: Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

Oh this is excellent!! I attend a KJV only church, because it fits my family, and other than that one quirk, I agree with the teaching. I'm laughingly considered a heretic because my personal bible is NIV, and I use different translations when I'm studying. They claim it means that I'm taking the place of God, determining which scriptures to read. I don't agree. I'm gonna use this argument the next time someone chastises me.

Funny enough, they always say that the Holy Spirit can utilize any bible translation in order to convict a person who is unsaved...but not once they are?? :scratch:

I agree with staying away from paraphrased versions because they truly distort the word of God. After that...if it's easier to read one version verses another...than read that version. A missionary isn't going to insist that a non-English speaking person must learn 17th century English in order to be saved...they are gonna provide a bible in that person's language...and because of language differences, it won't be exactly the same as a KJV.
 

livingskies

Well-Known Member
I did find that interesting.

We also have to keep in mind that we are extremely fortunate to have the Bible in our language. Much less having versions of it to choose from. Sometimes I think we forget that many peoples don't have the Bible in their language, and that most that do, would only have one version - based off whatever source version it was, whenever it was written. People doing the absolute best they can for God with what resources they had at the time. As with everything in our society, we have excess. :cool2:

I put my faith that God is watching over the translations of his word into all languages that he created. Not meaning to make light of it. The Bible has been incredibly preserved and I think we know why :thumbup
 
Back
Top