Posted on 01/28/2005 3:15:12 AM PST by paudio
I have always had a problem with the NIV. I was reading it and the King James(cross-referencing) the story of Philip and the Eunuch. In the NIV text, they left out a whole verse, the one about the Eunuch being baptized. I checked other NIV editions and found that these editions also left out the verse...so it was not just my bible. In Revelations we are instructed not to add to or take away from the good book.
So, your point is, R. Scott?
Which makes sense because the KJV (byzantine text) and the NAS (alexandrian) were translated for accuracy first, readability second. The other (per)versions were written to accomodate illiterate people who can only understand conversational English.
The Living Bible went further, and rewrote doctrine to fit Ken Taylor's personal feelings. This "new" translation was not written for good motives, it wasn't written for accuracy or readability, but simply to syncretize the vain feelings of God Haters into a faith they obviously despise.
The TNIV has been in the pot for over ten years. When the NIV was being adopted by many churches over the strenuous objections of the pro-KJV/RSV/etc. lovers the existence of the long-term plan to put out the TNIV was leaked, and Zondervan pooh-poohed the thought (basically pulled a Clinton on people about it). Now, here it is, and it is as bad as we thought.
But I don't imagine those with any intelligence could ever believe that anything is ever 100% accurate when it comes to a translation of languages.
The problem here is that Zondervan intentionally changed text and is, therefore, even less accurate with the translation. Why would they intentionally do this when they know that God has clearly stated "do not add to or take away from" His Word.
actually don't blame them for this.
Removing mother and father for "parent" is also part of the the pro-homo movement.
It is actually very orwelian to remove words to control the debate.
Why not just include the word "crimethink" printed over and over?
No, in Revelation, we're told there's a curse on anyone who adds or takes away from *the Book of Revelations*. Martin Luther, by the way, tried to leave the Book of Revelations out of his translation entirely.
I understand that Zondervan is no longer owned and managed by Christians. I could be wrong about that, and I hope I am, but I heard that about 10 years ago it was sold to a consortium made of businessmen who were not necessarily Christian. That would make a world of difference in the way they look at the publishing of a Bible. "If other literature can be updated and made modern, why not the Bible." Big mistake, IMO.
That's not even close to what they did.
In cases where a modern writer would not use a gender-specific term, a gender-neutral term is substituted. E.g. "my brothers" is now rendered "my brothers and sisters," that sort of thing.
This did not do any of the oddities like call God "Father/Mother" or any other B/S. Just change make generic references no longer masculine.
Now, the tNIV isn't my translation preference (I like the NASB, ESV, and NET), but I want to be informed about other translations out there.
That one is pretty gender specific.
Ping!
God is neither man nor woman.
Gender neutral? Perhaps the writers of this version, should read the alst few verses of Revelation.
bible bump for later
Money for one thing. And politically correct theology is led by people who really don't believe in God. So if they can inject their ideology into the Bible so that the hicks who still believe in God will absorb politically correct ideology, they think so much the better. They see the Scriptures as some meaningless old thing people scribbled a long time ago, so they think they are bringing "meaning" into an otherwise meaningless text whenever they can rewrite it to be politically correct.
http://www.zondervan.com/zHomeInt/images/RollingStone.pdf
This is the ad that will appear in Rolling Stone
That's true. But given that absolute knowledge of God is beyond our capacity, I believe the words used by Christ should be our standard.
– and it is actually a rather poor translation.
Actually it is the very best translation. And it translates from the most conservative manuscript family.
As a pastor, the more I have checked the Authorized Version against definitive language tools like Vincent's and Keil and Delitsch, the better it has fared as opposed to so-called, "modern translations."
To varying degrees, modern versions corrupt the word of God.
And I've noticed over the years that most people who use modern versions either don't memorize Scripture or quit memorizing Scripture---not all, but most.
Well tittle my interest. On a less sarcastic note-- I do
thank you for your response might enlighten some.Hope it do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.