Is NIV false doctrine?

[Guest]

It is odd how a question about the NIV turned into yet another KJV only debate. The reliability or lack thereof, cannot be established by comparison to another work of men (KJV) unless one can establish the reliability of that work first, which certainly has not been done, though it is often asserted.

 

I would wonder, for those who seem to think that the KJV is the very inspired, complete and accurate word of God, do you also believe that about the apocryphal writings, which were included in the 1611 KJV? When you speak of the KJV, do you mean the 1611, or the revisions that most people read? What do you think abut the revisions, are they errors, of did the 1611 have problems? If the KJV is so accurate, why does it say Easter when speaking of Passover?

 

I am not anti-KJV, I love the KJV. However, I like the KJV translators themselves, believe that the word of God is his message to us, which can be found in most if not all translations, but is not the translation itself. I beleive with them, that the translations that preceded the KJV, were good works. I believe with them, that other translations would come along, as better manuscripts were discovered, and scolarship improved. The KJV scolars, were not KJV onlyists themselves.

 

There are differences in translations to be sure. The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, certainly differed from the Hebrew scriptures themselves, yet Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Septuagint, rather than criticise it. If they quoted from it, I am inclined to think they thought it to be valuable. If they thought it valuable, who am I to disagree, yet the septuagint was not considered in the KJV like it is in many modern translations.

 

How one sees this, often has to do with you philosophy about matters of history and textual transmission. I tend to prefer some of the modern translations, because the get the benefit of using older manuscripts than were available to the KJV translators. Modern translations get you take into account, the dead sea scrolls, and the writings of the early church, which quoted the bible to frequently, that all but a handful of verses fro the bible are in their writings, giving us  a glimps into what the scriptures looked like, that they had available to them.

 

I do not give my highest recommendation to the NIV, but it is a good version for most people. The best bible, is the one you will read, none of them are that useful on a shelf. The notion that one posted made, that the NIV is the most accurate is hardly true, it was not intended to be, and I agreee that the TNIV is pretty poor, but even it, has all the gospel one needs to discover the truth God wants us to know and follow.

 

Does anyone actually think, that the NIV removes any doctrine, that is in the KJV, or adds any doctrine to the KJV. I do not theing there are doctinal differences, except maybe about handling venomous snakes and drinking poison and surviving. At least those snake handlers put their money where their mouth is, I will give them credit for that, I am not aware though that even those people, will drink a glass of rat poison. I think those verses are problematic, I doubt they were part of the original scripture, I suspect they were marginal notes scribled in by some copyist in the past, a note to himself, a sort of commentary. I do not think the KJV is perfect, nor is any translation we now possess.

 

The real danger is not bad translation, but bad teaching.

 

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

 

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

  The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

[JDavis]

 

second...Matt 6:13....looking at 5 of the major translations, only the KJV adds the extra words.

 

 

This is where you said the KJV adds words, J Davis. 

 

 

I see where you are coming from, didnt mean to imply the words did or did not belong just that only the KJV had them.

 

the translation of ancient text is an art and a science, it does not matter if the text is religious or not.  There are rules and methods to be followed.    

 

Like most things in the last 500 years,  the techniques for translation has improved and the amount of items to be used has increased.  This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Floatingaxe]

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ McGyver:  To me, we are cursed to have many translations, not blessed.  They cause confusion, and most are not from the original manuscripts, so they leave certain parts of the text out, or relegate them to footnotes.  Even so, this is always a controversial issue, and everyone is going to do what they feel is right.  As for me, I will stay KJV only.  I do believe we are blessed to have easy access to that reliable translation, and at a relatively low price. 

 

There are no original manuscripts, not a single Bible translation we have to day is from an "original" manuscript.  The TR is from 1500 years after the death of Christ.

 

The TR was an exact copy of the original manuscripts, and it was complete.  The manuscripts used for the NIV and other translations are incomplete.  They left out portions of the original text.  Of course we don't have the originals, because they decayed over time. 

 

@Floatingaxe, I am not satisfied with a translation simply because you can point to a handful of scriptures and say they are ok.  The NIV and most new translations leave out portions of the text and discredit other texts they leave in.  I mentioned one in particular with regard to fasting and prayer with regard to casting out devils. 

 

 

Nothing is left out of the NIV. All is included in the context---the translators were very careful about that.

 

That is not true.  One such example is where Jesus told his disciples that a certain type of devil couldn't be cast out but by prayer and fasting, and the word fasting was left out, and relegated to a footnote. 

 

 

We have to take all things into consideration...the NIV limits to certain manuscripts:

 

Matthew 17:21 (NKJV)

²¹ However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”^[a]

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 17:21 NU-Text omits this verse.

 

Matthew 17:21 (NIV)

^[21] [a]

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 17:21 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.

 

Mark 9:29 (NKJV)

²⁹ So He said to them, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.”^[a]

Footnotes:

1. Mark 9:29 NU-Text omits and fasting.

 

Mark 9:29 (NIV)

²⁹ He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.^[a]”

Footnotes:

1. Mark 9:29 Some manuscripts prayer and fasting

 

And they are wrong to do that.  They are removing an important portion of the text, and not everyone reads footnotes when they read through the Bible. 

 

 

While the NIV is a good translation, I do not claim it to be the best and while I have learned much from it, and own several, it is not my favourite, nor do I use it more than the ones I do like, today.

 

There is nothing wrong in what the translators have done. There is no removing anything. Whenever I read a passage in the NIV, the meaning is never lost, when you read it all in context. It is really a sorry thing that so many people have fallen into lock step with the many naysayers and heresy hunters out there. It is much ado about nothing.

[JDavis]

Even if I wasn't KJV only, I would still oppose the NIV. I have already shown where they removed the word fasting in an important scripture. I have shown where they relegated other scripture to footnotes. I have shown where they discredited other passages, and how the same people created the abomination known as the TNIV. It has been pointed out in the past that a lesbian was among the translators.

As to the question of the Apocrypha, I have a 1611 KJV Bible with the Apocrypha. It was placed in the middle, rather than in the logical order, because they never considered it fully inspired, so it's inclusion doesn't make the KJV flawed. I am glad they included it. But my bigger problem is over where the new translations come from. I am really Textus Receptus only, so my bigger contention is with versions that don't come from the TR. I also take issue with the NIV claiming that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..." Nobody can tell me what makes them the "most reliable." I also have a problem with the way people are attacking the reliability of scripture by saying that all translations have error, giving them wiggle room to attack doctrinal points they don't like.

Which doctrinal points have been attacked based upon the NIV or other translations?

[OneLight]

Over the years of researching this issue, I found the basics to be that some versions of the bible translated using every piece of manuscript available, while other version only used what was found in every manuscript. What I came to realize is that nothing pertaining to salvation, which is what we are to be teaching, is different, just a few passages here and there.  What is also necessary to realize it that people like to use the current language structure when they translate, as did the those who translated the first bibles.

 

The major point I came to believe is that God, through His Holy Spirit, can teach us all truth from what ever translation we read.  What I have issue is are the paraphrased bibles.  They are not translations, but the authors idea of what scripture said.

[Floatingaxe]

Even if I wasn't KJV only, I would still oppose the NIV.  I have already shown where they removed the word fasting in an important scripture.  I have shown where they relegated other scripture to footnotes.  I have shown where they discredited other passages, and how the same people created the abomination known as the TNIV.  It has been pointed out in the past that a lesbian was among the translators. 

 

As to the question of the Apocrypha, I have a 1611 KJV Bible with the Apocrypha.  It was placed in the middle, rather than in the logical order, because they never considered it fully inspired, so it's inclusion doesn't make the KJV flawed.  I am glad they included it.  But my bigger problem is over where the new translations come from.  I am really Textus Receptus only, so my bigger contention is with versions that don't come from the TR.  I also take issue with the NIV claiming that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  Nobody can tell me what makes them the "most reliable."  I also have a problem with the way people are attacking the reliability of scripture by saying that all translations have error, giving them wiggle room to attack doctrinal points they don't like. 

 

The NIV didn't remove what wasn't in the manuscripts. For instance:

 

Mark 9:29 (MOUNCE)

²⁹ And [kai] he said [legō] to them [autos], “ This [houtos · ho] kind [genos] cannot [en oudeis] come [exerchomai] out except [ei mē] by [en] prayer [proseuchē].”

[OneLight]

Even if I wasn't KJV only, I would still oppose the NIV.  I have already shown where they removed the word fasting in an important scripture.  I have shown where they relegated other scripture to footnotes.  I have shown where they discredited other passages, and how the same people created the abomination known as the TNIV.  It has been pointed out in the past that a lesbian was among the translators. 

 

As to the question of the Apocrypha, I have a 1611 KJV Bible with the Apocrypha.  It was placed in the middle, rather than in the logical order, because they never considered it fully inspired, so it's inclusion doesn't make the KJV flawed.  I am glad they included it.  But my bigger problem is over where the new translations come from.  I am really Textus Receptus only, so my bigger contention is with versions that don't come from the TR.  I also take issue with the NIV claiming that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  Nobody can tell me what makes them the "most reliable."  I also have a problem with the way people are attacking the reliability of scripture by saying that all translations have error, giving them wiggle room to attack doctrinal points they don't like.

 

The NIV didn't remove what wasn't in the manuscripts. For instance:

 

Mark 9:29 (MOUNCE)

²⁹ And [kai] he said [legō] to them [autos], “ This [houtos · ho] kind [genos] cannot [en oudeis] come [exerchomai] out except [ei mē] by [en] prayer [proseuchē].”

This is the difference between the Received Text and the Critical Text. What is presented above is the Critical Text, which means that this is wat is common in all the found manuscripts. The Received Text includes what is not common. The Textus Receptus, (Received Text) is below.

And (kai) He said (eipen) to them (aitois) this (touto) the (to) breed (genos) in (en) to not yet one (oudeni) is able (dunatai) to be out coming (exelthein) if (ei) no (me) in (en) prayer (proseuche) and (kai) fast (nesteia)

The main difference I see between the two is the former is translating English to Greek and the latter, Greek to English.

[Floatingaxe]

 

 

Even if I wasn't KJV only, I would still oppose the NIV.  I have already shown where they removed the word fasting in an important scripture.  I have shown where they relegated other scripture to footnotes.  I have shown where they discredited other passages, and how the same people created the abomination known as the TNIV.  It has been pointed out in the past that a lesbian was among the translators. 

 

As to the question of the Apocrypha, I have a 1611 KJV Bible with the Apocrypha.  It was placed in the middle, rather than in the logical order, because they never considered it fully inspired, so it's inclusion doesn't make the KJV flawed.  I am glad they included it.  But my bigger problem is over where the new translations come from.  I am really Textus Receptus only, so my bigger contention is with versions that don't come from the TR.  I also take issue with the NIV claiming that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  Nobody can tell me what makes them the "most reliable."  I also have a problem with the way people are attacking the reliability of scripture by saying that all translations have error, giving them wiggle room to attack doctrinal points they don't like. 

 

The NIV didn't remove what wasn't in the manuscripts. For instance:

 

Mark 9:29 (MOUNCE)

²⁹ And [kai] he said [legō] to them [autos], “ This [houtos · ho] kind [genos] cannot [en oudeis] come [exerchomai] out except [ei mē] by [en] prayer [proseuchē].”

 

They translated from incomplete manuscripts.  The Textus Receptus did include the word fasting, therefore it is included in the KJV of the Bible.  I hope nobody is faced with a similar issue of demon possession that reads only from the NIV?

 

 

The NIV is being true to the manuscripts they used, which is why they used footnotes for accuracy:

 

Mark 9:29 (NIV)

²⁹ He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.^[a]”

Footnotes:

1. Mark 9:29 Some manuscripts prayer and fasting

 

 

 

There is no evil conspiracy.

[Mcgyver]

Just think...

 

All this from a simple question regarding the translation of the word "hagios" as "saint"....

 

I've studied the TR, CT, MT...the NA/UBS editions....and what I have found is that though there are indeed variations and even variants in the variations...there is nothing added or omitted in any of the texts that affects any established Christian doctrine one teensy/tiny little bit.

 

It might be surprising to some to find out that with some of the books (1 John for example) we have Latin, Coptic, and Syriac manuscripts that actually pre-date the earliest Greek manuscripts extant.

 

As the translators said in the preface to the AV 1611:  Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

[OakWood]

here is an interesting comparison to the Authorized Version:

 

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html

 

That's a very interesting read.