Posted on 10/25/2014 9:29:35 PM PDT by do the dhue
Oh wow how noble you are demonstrating yourself to be.
Please show that you care about accuracy of language then we can talk about accuracy of language in a sensible manner!
This is one:
1 John 5:7-8
KJV:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
NIV:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
One certainly does not take seriously the notion that because the Sacred KJV was absent from earlier Christian generations, they can’t be Christian!
That would mean Christ’s declaration that the church would not perish, was a lie.
The bottom line: the NIV translators (who were *not* a bunch of liberals) based their translation on the manuscripts they judged to be the most reliable. In their judgment, fragments "left out" did not belong in the first place and were added by later transcribers. The NIV translators generally worked from earlier (and therefore, according to most schools of thought, "better") manuscripts than were available at the time the KJV was translated.
that’s possible and thank you
sorry, misread your reason for the post.
reading notes on the NIV, it seems they left things out because they weren’t in the source manuscripts they were using to develop the NIV.
Biblegateway.com has some great notes on this kind of thing.
And generally where the KJV (Textus Receptus, a term actually applied by the Roman Catholic Church) supplied more text, the NIV will present that variant rendering in footnotes, unless your version is so basic it lacks the footnotes.
If there is one thing that we can’t get hung up about it is bible renditions. If the variations make you give up Christ then you never knew Christ, period.
Sometimes I think too, that in trying to be a kinder, gentler, religion, we soften the cold hard truth. I will never forget one Christmas someone reading the Christmas story from one of these new “translations” that so butchered the story the person reading it was left quite shaken.
I am very sorry. I care about matters of the heart first.
Again, I apologize and will let you handle this then.
To some extent, translations are a subjective activity. When they translate from the original languages, it is not a transliteration, meaning a word-for-word translation. The scholar has to decide how to best make the work understandable to the readers and that that is one reason as to why some translations will have words added and other translations taken away.
Yes, that would be a serious extreme position.
Who says The KJV interpretation of John 3:3 is wrong, and why? What should the interpreter say to the English speaker today so that he/she will understand precisely what the Koine speaker of 80 A. D. would have clearly understood it to say, literally? What did Nicodemus think Jesus said to him?
If you care about matters of the heart you would have long ago been moved to research such matters instead of putting out what sounds like a disingenuous broadside.
KJV-exclusivism is a big enough problem in the church that I don’t show it a whole lot of mercy any more. Because in the long term it is more merciful to keep people’s eyes from being fixed on that distraction. It actually blocks people’s hearts from many opportunities of communion with Christians because, oh, the bible they just quoted doesn’t match up letter for letter with Textus Receptus!
If you back up and look at the bigger picture the bible presents, these manuscript differences are not a problem. If you want to try to do calculus on the Lord from the letter, you will have big big problems.
Chuck Missler does an excellent in-depth video on the history of the bible translations here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZsZLDWWZMs
In a nutshell, the KJV uses a Greek translation that took 7 years to complete. All of the others use something else.
The world was blessed to get a KJV, but so was it blessed to get earlier renditions (and later ones) of the bible, done by serious believing scholars.
We are faced with the difficult fact that our faith doesn’t have a single completely authoritative manuscript. What to do, what to do? Well this is where we are faced with stark dichotomy. Is it really based on God, or is it based on man’s reasoning. The latter would REQUIRE a precise bible. The former doesn’t. Every single solitary version we do have, tells about the same God. In a way it is a Christian “koan,” like what is the sound of one hand clapping. What is the exact bible? Well, you read it in Christ. It is the spirit, and not the paper, that moves us to love. Love can only be a dull duty if it is based on paper. It is a living privilege if it is based on Christ.
I have zero tolerance for KJV only types. In short they were NOT removed, they used different (older) MSS.
In court, your answer would be called irresponsive, and the judge would correct you.
My question is, "Why do you ask?"
Well said
My answer to this would still be. "Yes."
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.