Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV, Translators Will Overhaul NIV
In announcing a major revision of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society and Send The Light, or IBS-STL) CEO Keith Danby said the 2002 revision of the translation, Today's New International Version (TINV) was a mistake.
"Some of the criticism was justified," Danby said. "We fell short of the trust that was placed in us and we made some important errors on the way. ... We let down our partners."
"Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community," said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. "So as we launch this new NIV, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV."...
Getting back to the article, I believe its the 1978 version of the NIV people really liked. Somewhere in the New Testament it had Abraham instead of Sarah, I don't believe it was the other way around, and it did say something about that in the marginal note. I think that was the only complaint that those who used the NASB had.
The NIV is a very readable Bible, though its physical layout and dynamic equivalence doesn't make any where near the quality of the NASB as study Bible. One can only hope the people who do the new revisions will reverse the practices of the past, q.v., Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions,
Ah, you gentlemen talking about the Catholic Apocrypha in the New Testament? Yes, do look at the The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) or even the woman caught in adultery, Barnes Commentary
John 8:11 "... It should be added that this passage, together with the last verse of the preceding chapter, has been by many critics thought to be spurious. It is wanting in many of the ancient manuscripts and versions, and has been rejected by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Tittman, Knapp, and many others. It is not easy to decide the question whether it be a genuine part of the New Testament or not. Some have supposed that it was not written by the evangelists, but was often related by them, and that after a time it was recorded and introduced by Papias into the sacred text."
They were Christians. Metzger and Wallace certainly have better Christian credentials than the Anglicans who wrote the AV, and certainly better than, Erasmus and the Textus Receptus....
Still trying to push that anti-Christian , Anglican Bible off on us. King James Onlyism.
John UK wrote: Aha! Misrepresentation of the facts also by the disciples of Wallace and Metzger, who inevitably are also disciples of Westcott and Hort, and who inevitably are also modern version Only-ists.
Don't forget that none of these 4 people have ever given any testimony or claimed the new birth in Christ.
Thanks mlw for this interesting article, which has for its concluding paragraph:
"I hope in this short confutation of Wallace’s article that 1) More light has been shed on the evidence in favor of the Comma Johanneum and 2) Exposure has been made of the constant misrepresentation of the facts by people such as Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger."
Aha! Misrepresentation of the facts also by the disciples of Wallace and Metzger, who inevitably are also disciples of Westcott and Hort, and who inevitably are also modern version Only-ists.
What?!? You lost me on that one, Jim. What in the name of the English language are you trying to say? Please simplify your statement for me and perhaps others.
Odd. I can understand the King James Bible, but not you.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Because, Frank, you filled in the blanks, the KJV is understandable when you have read a good version of the Bible such as the NIV....
More trash from Jim. The vast majority of people since 1650 onwards have read nothing but the KJV and this was the case right through to the 19th centure, until the "Revisers" of the KJV who brought out another "version".
Scores of ignorant people were even taught to read and understand the English language using the KJV!!
You should leave your lying and get your facts right Jim, and then perhaps- just perhaps, you will come to the right conclusion.
Because, Frank, you filled in the blanks, the KJV is understandable when you have read a good version of the Bible such as the NIV, you just remember what you have read before, this is why the AV is better read, because people fill in what they don't understand with what they do, now this may not be what the translators even meant, which is why of course I put up the excellent article, The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only position.
You really shouldn't have been allowed to read the AV especially at that age, since it has bad grammar and foul words in it. As a "dirty" book children should never be allowed to read it, e.g., from the AV, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." q.v., Errors in the King James Version?, Why the NASB?
The AV belongs with your copy of Shakespeare ,"out of sight out of mind" and to be kept away from children, especially.
Guess I'm smarter than I thought I was, Jim. I mean, if I could understand in the 5th grade what the ASV committee could not.....
Actually, some of the mightiest men of God to ever fill a pulpit never had a problem understanding the KJB. That's also true of the most uneducated believers. How could it have been that the "committee" had so much trouble with it?
Herein is something very unusual. A translation (KJB) that is said to be SO DIFFICULT to understand, yet, God has abundantly blessed the preaching of it with the greatest revivals and spiritual awakenings the world has ever known (1700's, 1800's & 1900's)!!
Of course, all of this is simply cast by the wayside when $$$$$$ is involved.
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:4-12 KJV
Ah, I'll look at what Dr. Wallace said about The Johannine Comma, in that comment about, Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today. Of course good translations will have: 1 John 5 7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASB)
Frank, you make think you understood it perfectly, and even if you did, you would be perfectly wrong!
The ASV Old Testament Committee wrote: ....But we desire to retain do not consist in sporadic instances of uncouth, unidiomatic, or obscure phraseology.... we can see no sound reason for retaining such expressions as "smell thereto" (Ex. xxx. 38), "forth of" (instead of "forth from"), "inquire at "(1 K. xxii. 5), "a fool's vexation is heavier than them both" (Prov. xxvii. 3), or "when... he be jealous over his wife" (Num. v.30). These are only a few of the many instances of phraseology which there is the best reason for amending.
Excerpt taken from the article by Daniel Wallace - Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today: “Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text”
Daniel Wallace is wrong and so was Metzger.
“In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: "What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion" (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2).”
"Antiquated language", Jim? That seems to be the main reason the Bible publishers tell us to buy their modern ver$ion$. I've read the KJB since the 5th grade, as did most other kids at that time. Does that make me a smart person? No, I was a C-D student in high school. The "antiquated language" argument didn't work then and it won't work now.
As for the so-called "many mistakes" in the KJB--well, skeptics (some actually quite smart) for centuries have claimed that. They are dead. Their "mistakes" died with them. The KJB is still here.
John UK wrote: Quite right, Frank. The words FILTHY LUCRE come to mind. No-one has yet answered the obvious question: "Why, if the only problem is antiquated words in the KJV, has not one publisher even attempted to simply modernise the language of the KJV and put out a Bible needing no revision for the next fifty years?
In relation to those so called Christian "College Professors" and "Academics" who promote the corrupt versions, the words "Jobs Worth" also come to mind!
Frank Dombrosky wrote: Gentlemen, let's settle this issue in a very simple, logical manner. It is known to all that the text of the King James Bible can be copied with no fear of penalty. All of the major Bible publishers print it. Now, lets all do our best to contact these very same publishers and ask them to share the texts of their own particular modern versions of the Bible. In other words, forget the copyrights. AFTER ALL, THIS SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM IF THEIR TRUE OBJECTIVE IS TO GET THE WORD OF GOD TO THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING MASSES OF THE WORLD--RIGHT??? Would they agree? Or, would they REFUSE because that would most likely mean the end of the endless flow of $$$money$$$ that they have enjoyed for so long? It isn't very hard to figure this out. MORE NEW BIBLE VERSIONS plus SLICK, DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING plus POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS WANTING "SOME NEW THING" equals LOTS AND LOTS OF $$$$$$! That's what its all about.
Quite right, Frank.
The words FILTHY LUCRE come to mind.
No-one has yet answered the obvious question: "Why, if the only problem is antiquated words in the KJV, has not one publisher even attempted to simply modernise the language of the KJV and put out a Bible needing no revision for the next fifty years?
John Calvin in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians wrote: "It is highly disgraceful and base that the testimony of God should have less weight with us than that of a mortal man."
Michael Hranek wrote: Alan H Wow! What an interesting comment!
Mention John Calvin in the same breath as men should give more heed to what God says than men. Hasn't it been repeatedly demonstrated on this site some pay John Calvin much more heed than the word of God even if they use the KJV.
Tell me something Michael, why is it that when someone states "something which is true" you always try to skirt the truth by introducing unrelated faults which intentionally undermine the integrity of the person who speaks, thereby making their opinion suspect. Is what John Calvin said true or not? Would it be any more true if someone else said it besides Calvin?
Michael, some time ago, when I first started posting on Sermon Audio, you were a little more humble and sincere, and I don't remember you resorting to such tactics. There is a bitter tone in your arguments and you're running a close second, behind Jim Lincoln. He is plain spiteful; please don't go there Michael...
I have no sympathy for Jim, but honestly, you sadden me.
Gentlemen, let's settle this issue in a very simple, logical manner. It is known to all that the text of the King James Bible can be copied with no fear of penalty. All of the major Bible publishers print it. Now, lets all do our best to contact these very same publishers and ask them to share the texts of their own particular modern versions of the Bible. In other words, forget the copyrights. AFTER ALL, THIS SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM IF THEIR TRUE OBJECTIVE IS TO GET THE WORD OF GOD TO THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING MASSES OF THE WORLD--RIGHT??? Would they agree? Or, would they REFUSE because that would most likely mean the end of the endless flow of $$$money$$$ that they have enjoyed for so long? It isn't very hard to figure this out. MORE NEW BIBLE VERSIONS plus SLICK, DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING plus POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS WANTING "SOME NEW THING" equals LOTS AND LOTS OF $$$$$$! That's what its all about.
104
There are a total of 123 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Steven J. Lawson | 6/6/2010
COMMENTS | 
