Posted on 10/25/2014 9:29:35 PM PDT by do the dhue
With all due respect, this reflects the thinking of men, not of God. Variant verses are backed up in other places. Strawmen are erected here. Feel free to torch them.
The foundations of the faith are not the reasonings of men. They are the eternal Word, which is reflected in the imperfect but still adequate written word.
I feel the need to point out, since an error has been made repeatedly in using the word “versus” incorrectly: the word you intend is “verses,” which is the plural of “verse.” “Versus” is an entirely different word typically abbreviated “vs.,” meaning “as opposed to.”
I prefer the KJV for it’s sheer mastery of the English language. I don’t get bogged down by all the controversy between English translations that, to me, appear to be driven more by inter-denominational rivalries than any other concern.
There are fine translations other than the KJV that are perhaps “better” in some sense or the other, most fairly obscure and none affecting salvific matters, but to my ear the others all fall flat.
There are also political or ideologically driven translations that are highly suspect. Most anyone paying attention to the matter knows one from the other.
So, I continue in preferring the King James. If I have questions or want to understand a verse on a deeper level, there are ample resources available online to anyone now to do so. Falling into error due to translation is not a problem in this day and age for the sincere, diligent reader of any version.
People praise the poetry of the KJV and that is a kudos that its text definitely does merit.
William Shakespeare was influenced heavily by this and/or immediately preceding versions which also were done with an ear for poetry. And ideas of good poetry in English have been heavily driven by Shakespeare.
I am of the camp that says if you want poetry about the Lord, then read poets or write the poetry yourself (being sure it is theologically accurate, of course). If you want to know what the bible says, read a modern translation having good notes. Nobody else has tried to do a poetic version of the bible. It would immediately come into severe question, why did you take this or that or the other poetic license? A question that the KJV often deserves, but people have taken the poetic license as an extra dimension of detailed prophecy.
To me, the poetry isn’t in the turn of English word; it is in what God has done.
The Salzburg Glockenspiel playing Mozart
You’ve got, of course, a preservation theory that concludes rather arbitrarily with the KJV; but I could just as well float a theory that concludes with some Spanish translation as the Blessed Ultimate. The important thing in such a philosophy is Right Now We Must Have A Perfect Copy.
Well, nonsense. Christianity lived just fine with the manuscripts that have been found. The Spirit gives life; the letter kills.
And to some, the beauty of it is the mark of God.
But you needn’t even look at Judeo-Christian scripture if you want to see poetry. Pagan scriptures are sometimes poetic too. I’ve seen stuff I would never believe done in the finest poetic style.
Poetry is a capability that God gave man. Man has a choice of how to use it. I think it had a valid ministerial purpose to the original renderers of the KJV and immediate predecessor texts. The prettier this bible, the easier to take to heart. And if it helps you today as mnemonic, may God bless this use richly to you. So long as you know what is actually meant.
It would be interesting to know where you got this slant. Since neither you nor anyone alive has seen the original autographs, you cannot say that the text is not in the originals.
For sure, that passage, now rejected, was translated by the serious scholar Jerome into the Latin Vulgate about 400 AD, and it is thus presently in the Douay-Rheims Bible.
Though Desiderius Erasmus apparently did not have Greek texts with that passage, he was influenced to back-translate the verse from the Vulgate, thus to recognizing and relying on the authority of Jerome, who had better, less-hampered access to an abundance of earlier generations of copies.
Those who suppose that earlier, currently available text copies are "better" are sadly amiss in their reliance on these corrupted texts, because the reason they got older and were not recopied was because they were no good to the scholars of their time, and kept only as back-of-the-shelf out-of-spec curiosities.
Having seen them, Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus papers as useless for his project of accumulating the true body of New Testament Scriptures that became known as the Textus Receptus, that one Koine textform received by all in his time.
On the other hand, Tischendorf "rescued" the leaves of what is called the Simaticus from the St. Catherine's monks' barrel of discarded texts used for their last worthwhile function as kindling for starting their fires. That provenance is what all your modern versions are made of, actually. Isn't that sort of silly?
About 95 per cent of the Byzantine/Majority texts are in agreement with each other, and thus have the better basis for reliability, than the critical (or eclectic) pseudotexts, IMHO. and as time passes, the critical text is continually updated and republi9shed. Even it is still in transition!
The modern English versions based on the pioneering work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, betrayers of their commission to provide a better English translation for their times, tossed out the textual basis for the AV (which had all the verses spoken of in this thread) in favor of a synthetic text not ever having previously existed, out of a narrow selection of the corrupted Vaticanus, Sinaitic, and Alexandrian codices, and foisted in on the academic world of the 1880s, who then produced the English Revised edition, foreshadowing many other corrupted translations.
Many people became famous by supporting, translating, and selling revisions based on this left-field approach, which versions then became the center of attention for our times, and wrongly, I think.
Grasping the Old Trusty Sword, the AV--as did the Irishman Ian Paisley of the Free Presbyterian Church--will likely otherwise end the career of most denominational would-be ministerial students, who trust their seminary professors and their bishops more than they trust God for the ability to preserve the genuine Scriptures for the doctrinal basis of our churches, ministers, and "Christians" of today.
OK, so which imperfect part of the imperfectly transcribed word (no capital W) are you going to trust for your salvation and sanctification, especially if some co-laborer has a different version than yours? especially if backing a dymamic-equivalency-rendered version which cannot be anything but a humanly uninspired rendering of an uninspired base?
Have you examined what Salliby and Sorenson (and hundreds of other accredited senior saints in agreement with them) have to say about their analyses? Or do you just make such a quick dismissal based on their grounds?
You’re dealing with a Rood-ite, there, for your information.
Scriptural integrity is not on Rood’s radar.
There are other issues with the NIV than verses which are *missing*.
There’s a book I read that deals with what it considers translation issues of other verses.
I prefer the ESV. It’s written at an adult level, in good English. I use that with a concordance to see what the meanings of words are should I have a question about them.
No matter what version one uses, getting back to the Greek or Hebrew is very worthwhile.
The text of Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Alnd, etc cannot, as a synthetic compromise, lay claim to a reputation of infallible, plenarily and verbally inspired authority upon which expository preaching can be solidly founded.
It is enough for me to hear an exhorter preaching from, say, even the NASB with its United Bible Society's continually changing text, to immediately mistrust both his motive and methods, as well as his (her?) meanings their disciples are to accept and apply.
In court or not, the point was that you did not answer my question. If one want to have a two-sided exchange, one has to do one'sr part. If you one to learn, one has to be teachable. And the student doesn't make the demands. That is witin the purview of the instructor.
Unles you're just tossing a stone in the pool, and wondering what the waves will reflect from --
So, I have listed some of my own queries. What's your response?
If it bugs you, just make up a myth about some anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Jewish Pharisees having a goat roast where they decided those verses had to go.
The quick answer is that some earlier manuscripts do not have these verses. As these were also transcribed by early Christians, it is also possible that some verses were added in a well-meaning attempt of clarification.
Deleting verses is not necessarily an attempt to hide important details but may be an attempt to purify Scripture to what is left for which there is no dispute.
I’m not a scholar on the issue so I can’t argue which version is more correct than what other version but I was raised on NASB as the best literal translation that takes Greek and Hebrew and puts it in a language that is familiar to those of American English from now 60-70 years ago (as the language constantly evolves).
The NIV was an attempt to modernize the text yet again so it would sound less stilted but they did compromise some translational purity to accomplish this.
I do have an NASB/NIV/Greek New Testament that presents both versions in the margins and the Greek text in the middle with the word-by-word translations so you can see the actual Greek words and look up their meanings. If I get hung up on the wordings I find in the New Testament, I can check this reference which can add clarity to what the authors meant.
Do some research and you too can know why some verses were either deleted/modified/footnoted. There is/was no conspiracy with the creation of the NIV, but some folks just can’t find something useful to do; like actually carrying the Word vs. slamming that which they don’t like.
New King James is wonderful reading for more contemporary language (as opposed to NIV).
I also found that the original Living Bible circa 1970 is vastly different from the New Living Translation, which appears carefully worded to support false doctrine.
Always pray for discernment.
This book takes an exhaustive look at the whole manuscript issue:
http://www.amazon.com/Which-Version-Is-The-Bible/dp/0970032803
Read it, and you’ll have a much clearer picture of what is going on.
By the way, I have a friend who calls the NIV the “Nearly Inspired Version,” but he still likes the NASB (which is based on the same manuscripts).
Yours is the best explanation I’ve seen posted here. Bravo!
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.