You are welcome.
The NIV deletes the word inspiration from the text altogether and substitutes "God breathed". That's what "inspiration" means. Don't believe me, check the dictionary. It's from the Latin inspirare, which means "to breathe." Thus, "God-breathed" is a legitimate, literal translation.
Thats funny, my American Dictionary of the English Language has to breathe into .
Where the notion of 'God breathed' came from was the Greek, which B.B. Warfield used (theopneustos)to get away from the idea of Biblical Preservation.
Every English Reformation translation had inspired not 'God breathed'
Yet, even Warfield could not get away from the idea of inspiration totally, since he states,
In the beginning of Genesis to the Amen of the Apocalypse, breathed into by God and breathing out God to every devout reader (emphasis added) ( The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Benjamin B. Warfield, p.125)
When God breathes into something, He gives it life as He did with Adam (Gen.2:7) as He does with His Holy words (Heb.4:12).
Those who use the Authorized Version are looked down upon by the apologists for the NIV as ignoramuses... Those who use the Authorized Version are looked down upon by the apologists for the NIV as ignoramuses, who do not understand the Hebrew and the Greek and therefore are in no position to judge. Unable to answer the arguments of the defenders of the Authorized Version, they turn to pouring scorn on their scholarship or lack of scholarship. In reality their argument is blatantly false for they are really affirming that all who use the NIV have the scholarship to make the right judgment. Absolutely not true. I claim that the NIV is a serviceable translation, not the evil counterfeit y'all claim it is.
It makes Christ a sinner in Matthew 5:22 cf Mk.3:5 does it not?
And I argue that the NASB is more precise than the KJV, though some of the textual notes are screwy.
The NASB is so 'precise' that even the NIV did not follow their making Christ a liar in Jn.7:8, by leaving out 'yet', despite the fact that they both use the same Greek text!
I have no problem with people using the KJV -- it's a good translation, and the better for being 400 years old and with fewer manuscripts than the newer ones.
Amen!
What I take objection to is the arrogance of forcing everyone to use the KJV.
It is not we who are forcing anyone to 'use' anything!
What we are saying is that God has one Bible in the English language and that is the KJV!
It is the only one that is from the correct texts both Old and New Testament.
The NIV/NASB are better suited for today's audience -- the diction choice is far more comprehensible to the modern mind.
The English language has changed quite a bit in the past 400 years: imagine if I go up to my college buddies and say, "Wot thee what thou doest this eve?" How many of them are going to know what I just said?
Aw come on now!
You said that your friends were reading much harder things then the King James!
Did you think I would forget that statement!
I twot not!
The question is, when the two versions disagree, which one is the final authority, in other words, which is the Bible?
God has delivered His Book to the custody, not of the scholars, the universities, colleges or seats of learning, but only to His saints. As opposed to the state? Let's not forget who financed the KJV.
The King James was fiancied by the State because the Church of England was a state church.
The question is, who is making money off the King James and who is making money off of the endless series of 'new' translatons, all of which are copyrighted.
Can any ordinary saint know what is a proper version of God's Word? Can any ordinary saint who has no knowledge whatever of the original languages know what is a proper version of God's Word or which is absolutely reliable? The answer is "yes" or else Jude verse 3 is error. Jude verse 3 is not error but divinely revealed truth. The attempt to bamboozle the ordinary saints of God with irrelevant controversy must be demonstrated. The ploy to take from the saints their divinely appointed role of custody of the Book and place it in the hands of scholars must be exposed for what it is, a device of the devil himself. I have access to everything I need. I have self-taught myself enough Greek to work my way through the definitive works like Kittel.
Did you know that Kittel was convicted of warcrimes against the Jews?
That he denies the effacy of the blood atonement, making it 'symbolic' of Christs death?
I know enough about textual criticism to hold my own against liberal professors at a secular university.
Well, why should you hold your own with textual criticism against liberal professors when they believe the same thing that you do, that no perfect Bible exists!
I posssess no formal theological training, yet I have all the resources I need to check the rendering of any translation -- and they cost me at most $200.
In the end, how do you know except you have to use your own opinion.
Even the scholars cannot agree on readings, giving them 'grades' on wheather they should be in or out (see Metzger's textual commentary of the Greek New Testament)
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (I Corinthians 2:14). Is the article arguing that a Christian who cannot understand KJV diction is somehow deficient spiritually?
What 'diction' cannot be understood?
Any archaic words can be looked up!
That's not what 1Cor 2 is talking about -- that's explaining the paradigm difference between the Christian and the unbeliever. That assertion is not spiritual discernment, its hubris.
And many men who are behind the lexicons are either unsaved or apostate men
Thayer was a Uniterian, Briggs was defrocked for heresy, Kittle was a antisemite etc
Moreover, the NIV perpetuates the big lie that the quotations are from Isaiah the prophet even although in its additional notes it makes clear that one of them is from Malachi That's because the NIV is correct in its translation of Mk 1:2. Yes, the majority reads "in the prophets." But siginificant earlier texts and extrabiblical sources have "in Isaiah the prophet." The sources backing up this are early and geographically widespread, covering the most important Alexandrian, Western, and Casarean witnesses: aleph, B, L, delta, theta, f, 33, 205, 565, 700, 892, 1071, 1241, 1243, 2427, it (such as a, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, l, q), g sy(rp),pal, cop, geo, arm, Irenaeus (Greek), Origen Serapion, Epiphanius, Severian, Cyril-Jerusalem, Hesychius, Victorinus-Pettau, Chromatius, Ambrosiaster, Jerome (who has a variant of this reading), and Augustine. Given such an early and geographically diverse support, it is more plausible to attribute the variant to the "helpful scribe" correcting a perceived inaccuracy, rather than an introduced error -- especially when one considers that in that era, attributing it to "Isaiah the prophet" meant little more than that was what scroll it would be found in. The minor prophets were not always cited, but often referred to by the major prophet their book was placed with. Another example of this was in Matthew 27:9, which attributes a quote from Zecariah (Zec. 11:11-12) to Jeremiah. (It's that way in the KJV too.)
Oh, my friend so many errors!
Starting with the last first, the King James in Matthew 27:9 is stating something that Jermmiah said and which Zecariah wrote down later.
It states Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy .
Jermiah never wrote that down, but did speak it, as it was revealed to Matthew.
As for the first issue, clearly, the witnesses given (Alexandrian) indicate that it was a mistake (for evidence of this, see the comments on the mess the scribes made of Aleph by Burgon)
What was said in Mal.3:1 was not said in Isa.40:3, the correct way of stating it is prophets.
The thing is, it takes work to check this stuff out. The Isaiah thing sent me all over the web, spending about 20 minutes on it (and I knew where to look.) It's easier to just reject the translation out of hand and revert to KJV-onlyism. But that's just intellectual laziness.
No, that is good sense, since you are wasting a lot of time reading the wrong readings when you could be reading the Bible instead!
Not trying to pick an argument, just an observation: It seems to me that we owe a lot of our English language to two sources: Chaucer, and the King James Bible. I use the KJV a lot as that is what I grew up with, and I like the flow of the language. But, I also consult other translations when I want to delve into meanings, shades of meaning, and even into the Greek and Hebrew (with aids to help me understand), in order to be absolutely sure in places where the KJV language usage is not clear. I think the KJV is a perfectly good translation, but there are others that also stand up well, some better than others.
The only thing I would say to the KJV-only crowd is that, while I understand your zeal for the KJV, too often other translations are characterized as "deliberate distortions", with no real proof. Your attitude is similar to the conspiracy theorists who are sure that some vast conspiracy is behind everything, running everything, and that only a chosen few are privileged to see the "real truth". Anyone who disagrees is either blind, or a part of the conspiracy. And with you anyone who disagrees is either blind, or an agent of Satan attempting to water down the Word. There is no room in the KJV-only world for a scholarly difference of opinion over precise translation. I think that is sad, and it gives the KJV-only crowd a certain "bug-eyed, sweaty, ranting quality" that turns most people off. Rather than engage in scholarly debate and really work on translation, they attempt to put everyone else on the defensive, all in the name of defending the truth. A noble cause, but very poor execution.
Is Merriam-Webster good enough for you? Check out the etymology.
Every English Reformation translation had inspired not 'God breathed'
So? Antiquity is not necessarily proof of accuracy.
[The NIV/NASB make] Christ a sinner in Matthew 5:22 cf Mk.3:5 does it not?
I think that should have been left in, perhaps in italics. The NET Bible translators say,
23tc The majority of mss insert the word eijkh'/ (eikh, “without cause”). This insertion has support from D L W theta 0233 f1 f13 Byz it syr cop Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Cyril. Thus, the Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine texttypes all include the word, while the best Alexandrian and some other witnesses (B64 aleph B 1424 et aur vg Jerome) omit it. The ms evidence favors its exclusion, though there is a remote possibility that eijkh'/ could have been accidentally omitted from these witnesses by way of homoioarcton (the next word, e[noco" [enoco" “guilty”], begins with the same letter). An intentional change would likely arise from the desire to qualify “angry,” especially in light of the absolute tone of Jesus’ words. While “without cause” makes good practical sense in this context, and must surely be a true interpretation of Jesus' meaning (cf. Mark 3:5), it does not commend itself as original.
"Without cause" certainly is within the sense of the passage (witness Eph. 4:26). Adding it takes nothing away from the passage, and taking it away subtracts little. A good expositor would know Eph. 4:26 anyway and take that into account.
The NASB is so 'precise' that even the NIV did not follow their making Christ a liar in Jn.7:8, by leaving out 'yet', despite the fact that they both use the same Greek text!
I'll stipulate it was a bad translation; the evidence is quite weighty for its inclusion (B66, B75, B, L, T, W, theta, phi, 0105, 0180, 0250, f1, f13, Byz, etc.). Still, the common-sense reading of the passage in the NASB leads someone to that conclusion anyway.
What we are saying is that God has one Bible in the English language and that is the KJV!
I take no small issue with this stance. There is no Biblical basis for this stance. It goes contrary to Biblical precedent (they used the LXX, which was something like the NIV of Greek translations of the OT -- a little bit free.)
You said that your friends were reading much harder things then the King James! Did you think I would forget that statement!
I don't recall saying that, though some definately do. (How some can get though Beowulf is beyond me.
What 'diction' cannot be understood? Any archaic words can be looked up!
Why should Webster's be a necessary companion to the Bible? I guarantee you the churches didn't have to break out their dictionaries when Paul's epistles arrived in the mail.
This brings me to a challange: if I were to make a new translation, which preserved the readings that you dispute over, but updated the language, would you accept that? I'm guessing you still wouldn't. (Isn't that mostly what the NKJV is?)
Starting with the last first, the King James in Matthew 27:9 is stating something that Jermmiah said and which Zecariah wrote down later. It states Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy . Jermiah never wrote that down, but did speak it, as it was revealed to Matthew.
Can you prove this?