Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Библията Тв | PentecostalTheology.com
Rick Wadholm Jr has offered an interested biblical topic on the digital vs. printed NIV versions, which touches on issues Charles Page has previously address about the NIV version(s)
John Kissinger [07/17/2015 3:05 PM]
I am re-posting my comment to Rick Wadholm Jr if interested to anyone: INDEED various digital / online NIV editions (depending on the year of copyright) differ significantly one from another and from the printed editions from the corresponding year. It has been under much debate with no avail through various Bible tech conferences in recent years. Digital NIV is turning to the modern day TR.
Rick Wadholm Jr [07/17/2015 3:09 PM]
And here is my comment reposted: I do tell my students they need to use the print versions when citing a translation because of the potential for some errors. Though the differences are owing not to the NIV, but to those who host the translation and their ability to properly encode and represent the text.
John Kissinger [07/17/2015 3:09 PM]
but at the same time if it was good for Paul and Charles Page it only makes sense its the right one to be used
John Kissinger [07/17/2015 5:38 PM]
a completely unnecessary combination
John Kissinger [07/17/2015 7:33 PM]
A reference on Codex Vaticanus (not) being available to the KJV translators. I dont think under the circumstances, King James could freely send his translations to the Vatican to consult MSS. Codex V was there but it was hardly accessible to them. The Genesis omission is largely viewed as due to paper deterioration as is the lack of Revelation at the end… Luckily there’s no paper deterioration in the digital variants of NIV 🙂
John Ruffle [07/18/2015 3:01 AM]
Interesting conversation and as for the “Message” it wouldn’t bother me if they all were pulped. I think what this says more than anything else is that those who hold to KJV only hold an unsustainable viewpoint.
John Kissinger [07/18/2015 7:06 AM]
for most part KJV is much better understood than the “Message”
John Kissinger [12/08/2015 6:52 AM]
my short answer is NONE – I dont always preach from the NIV but when I do I preach the fire out of it. Marc Bowers knows 🙂
Marc Bowers [12/08/2015 7:14 AM]
Amen he is a preaching machine
John Kissinger [12/08/2015 7:15 AM]
was gonna post the conclusion of the Rapture video Timothy Carter claims to have watched, but not sure if Ricky Grimsley can take it 🙂
John Kissinger [12/08/2015 3:56 PM]
Timothy Carter I am holding off with the video b/c Ricky Grimsley has neither confirmed nor denied his ability to handle it hereafter 🙂
Ricky Grimsley [12/08/2015 6:27 PM]
Lol i can take anything.
Charles Page [12/08/2015 6:30 PM]
Posting this from heaven rapture was. Great!
Ricky Grimsley [12/08/2015 6:33 PM]
Lololol
John Kissinger [12/08/2015 6:35 PM]
Some do hold theory that Revelation occurs over and over and over again Rick Wadholm Jr
Ricky Grimsley [12/08/2015 6:57 PM]
There is definitely a diversity of opinions in this group.
John Kissinger [12/08/2015 7:01 PM]
more like every train has a stop every now and then 🙂
Charles Page [12/08/2015 7:15 PM]
Rapture went off as expected we came close to two black holes and then a new galaxy formed making for a lot of turbulence.
Timothy Carter [12/09/2015 11:01 AM]
Charles Page what are saying please elaborate. I don’t understand
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce I;ve discussed this issue before with Ricky Grimsley and Link may be to a video somewhere on the internet by someone but at first read what is your take? Have you noticed any differences in your studies or preaching? Pls share – I have a recent story to share on that issue with NIV
Then I Would like to take you on your % presentation version by version b/c I believe it was wrong Finaly IF you post your recent group of links on NIV 1 by 1 with giving enough time to read them I will be happy to comment on each of them JUST no grief when we dig into the Greek because some ppl easily get angry for not knowing the Greek
Remember when we dug into your Mt 24 exegesis which I think was great and very helpful? Remember the example I gave from the Greek on the RAPTURE 1+2 Thes coming vs return and so on in the Greek Some ppl took what served them and are still posting in other groups and forums my exegesis saying it proves post-Trib rapture which it dont 🙂 but oh well what do you do with unlearned folk? 2 Peter 3:16 His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Link Hudson
Troy Day I do not follow your post. It does not seem to follow from the OP and you tagged me out of the blue.
I do not mind your writing in Greek. You have studied that. Good for you. I do recall your posting links to lengthy discussions on Greek that made use of a transliteration method that used capital English letters. The discussion contained multiple opinions and I tried to get you to write which opinion you agreed with and how you thought posting a lengthy discussion proved pretrib.
One poster tried to create the possibility for pretrib…in II These. 2 if I recall correctly by suggesting the parousia could last a really long time. I assumed he meant the second coming lasting seven years. That seems to be more s semantic argument than a Greek one, and a difficult position to hold of Christ returned to heaven during that time.
I don’t mind your posting Greek. I do find it annoying that you are on a forum probably non Greek reading Pentecostal folks and instead of carefully explaining your argument where an English speaker could follow it explaining the Greek you post a link to a discussion and gloat like you proved something. It seemed more focused on your displaying your superior knowledge of Grekk was more important than teaching others what you thought was truth.
When I was newer to the forum you had a post along the lines that the Greek proved Biblical wine was not alcoholic..if I recall correctly. It was something along those lines. That was a position that was so silly I did not bother reading the article. Too bad those Greek Bible readers and all the Christians before and including Wesley did not know Greek as well as you. Too bad the Greek readers before Darby could not see pretrib in the Greek too.
You might have posted a link to a link to some lengthy pretrib exe/eisegesis that I have not read before. I cannot keep up with the posts in the forum since I am busy. I don’t care for reading posts linking to old conversationsbor links to pages where we have to find and follow another link to the topic of interest.
Varnel Watson
Link Hudson now sure what you are referring to either Why would you need Greek to be alcoholic ?
Link Hudson
Troy Day I wouldn’t know about being an alcoholic. What is it you wish to tell us?
RichardAnna Boyce
Troy Day, the only Greek i know is the owner of my local kebab shop. But i am aware of NIV problems with ‘flesh’ and ‘sinful nature’ and have googled this article by Paul Ellis a Grace scholar who i respect. https://escapetoreality.org/2011/09/04/do-niv-readers-have-a-sinful-nature/
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce kebab is Turkish – you should know that well You should ask your shop for suvla or suvlaki – a very Biblical meal indeed To answer your question the NIV readers are NOT sinful I just did a double header chaplaincy – great outcome During the indepth Bible study series I did a segment on Jn 5. The explanatory v4
[4] [b] 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.
NIV carries a nice explanation from NA 26ff – – John 5:4 Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part, paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had.
However some of my Bible study participants did not have it marked as variant OR present in the printed text. None of the phone app, PC Mac etc NIV users had it even as a note Some of the NKJV ppl had the explanatory note we are used to read placed by a later scribe who felt needed to tell the whole story as he knew it All the spoken Bibles bunch NLT LBT etc were just lost in translation Lets just say the John 5 talk went into an ancient MSS discussion – more to this story later
Link Hudson what can I tell you about Greek that you dont already know? I see you cross posting my brief word studies on the rapture on various web venues but only partially – what serves you If you post the whole thing I taught you it will disprove your apostasy interpretation
Link Hudson
Troy Day I do not know what you are talking about in regard to me posting your word studies. I do not remember ever quoting you off of this forum.
Varnel Watson
You are not quoting – you are copy pasting partially without reference to the source Hence the problem Some of these comments are not easy to understand, and there are people who are deliberately stupid, and always demand some unusual interpretation—they have twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of the Scripture—and the result is disaster for them. 2 Peter 3:15-16
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce to your last posted NOT so scholarly resource There maybe a point of being sinful as most NIV readers are not entirely sanctified hence sinful in nature https://escapetoreality.org/2011/09/04/do-niv-readers-have-a-sinful-nature/?fbclid=IwAR0bpd-8D5RfRtGTtJFZITZB3UJo00fFuJk3G7q7Lei-wWH0_SN_YmVGQBY
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce So I am gonna tag Melvin Harter and Joe Absher on this one maybe even Jesse Morrell b/c they mention stuff on sanctification from time to time and you also posted your NIV readers not being sanctified fully post
SO after my doubleheader few weeks ago I hear this guy condemning loud preaching and HOW the church has done it wrong for 100yrs and got in the face of ppl with loud preaching and thats why now ppl dont wanna come to church but we are gonna change this mistake of the century and not do loud evangelistic preaching no more in the face of the people So I am thinking – how about scripture for that AND 1pet 3 15 is mentioned from some odd version that has it wrongly translated as Quietly trust yourself to Christ and so on
and I am thinking WAIT a minute I’ve red this before It dont say that at all It says sanctify thyself
SO I go to my pocket Greek and sure enough says ἁγιάσατε clearly – nothing about quite or trusting 🙂 or any of that sort Sanctify plane and simple
So later on I gather some contemp. versions to see which one had anything about quite b/c as far as I know sanctification could be loud
NIV – revere not close but still OK
NLT – worship
some others regard, reverence, honor, exalt and so on
NET Bible
But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts – misses the point by using ENglish contextual translation I know the translators and set apart is NOT sanctify
Aramaic Bible in Plain English has it bEST
But hallow THE LORD JEHOVAH The Messiah in your hearts
hallow it is again nothing quite and completely misses the point and NOT to mention changes the BIBLE to prove someones point but not GODs – the very problem of these so called BIBLES
Varnel Watson
SO RichardAnna Boyce I tried to find the source of your % comparison and since it did NOT seem very scholarly I will wait until you post the source so we can examine it fully Next to the first of few Link you posted on NIV translation https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/the-niv-reconsidered-a-fresh-look-at-a-popular-translation/
Varnel Watson
oh wait RichardAnna Boyce This site can’t be reached
The webpage at https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/the-niv-reconsidered-a-fresh-look-at-a-popular-translation/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
Dont sound too scholarly to me What now?
Varnel Watson
This title seems to be taken from a book
Radmacher, Earl; Hodges, Zane C.
Published by Redencion Viva, U.S.A. (1990)
Among evangelicals the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible has become increasingly popular. In this book Radmacher and Hodges focus on the key issue of whether the NIV is an accurate translation. Beyond this key issue, the authors also examine the NIV in terms of its principles of translation, its English style, consistency and effectiveness in communication.
The authors seek to be fair and objective in their analysis while refraining from much of the charged emotionalism that have characterized much of the literature on various Bible translations. Should the NIV become the new standard Bible for evangelicals? Read this book and find out!
THE PRESENT volume, by Earl D. Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges, is an in-depth review of the New International Version of the Bible (NIV). In it the authors have given a detailed assessment of the quality of the translation. Throughout the book they ask such question as “Is it accurate?” “Is it reliable?” “Does it exhibit good English style?” “Have the translators achieved the goals they set for themselves?” Answering all these questions largely in the negative, Hodges and Radmacher focus attention on the questions of accuracy and English style. With reference to the former these authors feel that there is “a bewildering array of highly questionable-if not actually mistaken-translations in the NIV.” To test the NIV’s accuracy they devote several chapters to an examination of selected passages (Old and New Testaments). Their conclusion is that the NIV fails to exhibit “a coherent philosophy of translation,” that it tends toward “loose, interpretative paraphrase,” that it misrepresents the thought of the original at various critical points, and that it lacks consistency. As for English style they acknowledge that the NIV is often extremely readable but argue that the style exhibits many weaknesses. To them it is a “collage of traditional, semi-traditional, and non-traditional renderings.” It is not a “style-conscious” translation.
Earl Radmacher clearly explains why and how many passages in the NIV do not reflect the underlying Greek text. There are any number of real problems in the NIV and if you are interested, this is a good place to begin. The overall Gospel message is still in the NIV, but people can point to specific passages that have been distorted by the NIV translators to try to prove their misunderstanding of the Gospel message.
Are you aware of the difference between literal equivalent and dynamic equivalent as it relates to a Bible translation? Do you know when a Bible translation steps over the line between translation and interpretation? Are the personal theological convictions of translators ever reflected in their translational work? If you feel less than confident in your ability to answer these questions, then you need to read this book! As a pastor I have used the NIV with beginning bible students for some time. If you do the same (or if you use it in a primary way) then you need to be aware of the very real problems resident in this translation. Radmacher and Hodges are two of the most capable Bible scholars of our day and have provided us with a work of great practical worth!
I attempt here to make no review of the contents of this book or weigh in on the translation debate. What sincerely troubles me is the fact that both the authors of this books were intimately involved in the translation of the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible which appeared for sale around the time of the publishing of this book. This fact is not mentioned anywhere in this book and is conspicuously missing from the biographies of the authors on the back cover.
Prof. Zane Hodges was a consultant to the New Testament translators as well as a translator in later stages of the project. He was also a member of the New King James Translation Committee. Dr. Earl Radmacher was a member of the Bible Review Committee, and the North American Overview Committee which prepared guidelines for the NKJV.
In describing this book, the statement is made that “The authors seek to be fair and objective in their analysis…” The statement may be true, but I would tend to question the objectiveness in critiquing one work when they were intimately involved in the creation of a competing work.
Varnel Watson
OK RichardAnna Boyce now to your NEXT so called scholarly source https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/the-zondervan-niv-bible-commentary-volume-2-new-testament/ oops NOT working again Dont look neither scholarly nor actual resource more like broken Link Same seems to be the next Link
https://faithalone.org/…/the-niv-application-commentary-galatians/
BUT what do zondervan-niv-bible-commentary-volume-2-new-testament and the-niv-application-commentary-galatians/ have to do with our discussion on actual TRANSLATIONS – NIV and not their further application ???
Varnel Watson
Try and find these scriptures in NIV or ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37
…you will not believe your eyes.
Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (King James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV or ESV
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc. Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE THEM.
Varnel Watson
earth calling RichardAnna Boyce #hello
RichardAnna Boyce
Troy Day remember Australia is 12 hours ahead of you. Maybe we will be raptured first? Or maybe the dead in Christ first? I use NKJV in my teaching/ preaching, or sometimes the Amplified. But i have been to interactive Bible school using NIV, and have had interesting discussions that were new to the teachers.
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce what about my comments above on each of your stances Please follow up promptly
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce as you see I took your arguments at heart Read above ALL my comments I wanted to discuss but your scholarly proof is just NOT there Now, where was your % paste on NIV?
RichardAnna Boyce
https://faithalone.org/…/a-critical-examination-of-seven-bible-translations- part-1/
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce again This site can’t be reached
The webpage at https://faithalone.org/…/a-critical-examination-of-seven-bible-translations
You will do BETTER copy pasting from the site as usual
RichardAnna Boyce
A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE ON BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
https://faithalone.org/journal/2004i/wilkin.pdf
RichardAnna Boyce
go to faithalone.org search NIV
Varnel Watson
This site can’t be reached
The webpage at https://faithalone.org/journal/2004i/wilkin.pdf
Varnel Watson
No need to copy the linX They just DONT WORK
RichardAnna Boyce
go to faithalone.org search NIV
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce did you read my 20 posts that that site does NOT open? Go to encyclopedia britannica INstead of spamming the forum with dead links pls respond to my questions with scholarly sources – some that at least have a working website or some sort of reference
RichardAnna Boyce
it opens for me all the time, and is only resource i have for you
RichardAnna Boyce
try Grace in Focus
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce WOW 20+ spam comments and still no response to my questions about your scholarly sources
Varnel Watson
what do you say as a librarian ? Francisco Arriola
Anonymous
I use neither.
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey what do you use then
SINCE we know for a fact you aing got NO real KJV either
Anonymous
Troy Day I have several King James, a TLV, a CJB, One New Man Bible, Amplified Classic, and HalleluYah Scriptures. Those are the main ones.
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey no you dont JUST Like Michael Chauncey you have a much later reprint. I know 2 ppl whoS got actual 1611 KJV and they are pricey
Anonymous
Troy Day I have 1611 available electronically, as do most people.
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey yeah they placed this one after I made a big deal one was not shared online – THAT particular 1611 if you have noticed DO NOT have the FIRST 1611 print errors – the wife beating part we’ve picked around with Link Hudson and many others SO what does it say about it being original? Brett Dobbs claim to have read it all 🙂 but I tend to agree more with Duane L Burgess on the BIBLE text of this one
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs Michael Chauncey John Mushenhouse Duane L Burgess INDEED various digital / online NIV editions (depending on the year of copyright) differ significantly one from another and from the printed editions from the corresponding year. It has been under much debate with no avail through various Bible tech conferences in recent years. Digital NIV is turning to the modern day TR.
Anonymous
Troy Day the NIV keeps updating or getting corrected to be more in line with TR or KJV. Awesome! LOL.
Anonymous
Troy Day I know it’s probably unrelated but I find it very interesting that a lot of Seminary Schools and Bible Colleges require students to get a Oxford University Press Bible. With Apocrypha
Anonymous
Gary Sawyer YES they require NASB in particular THE Oxford University Press Bible, which has also changed through the years. It appears to be a close translation from NA instead of TR which I consider good. I was too required back in my day to use Oxford NASB, and I may even have ALL its editions printed in the USA – not sure about that anymore. I kept getting them since the Revision committee posted and published irrelevant changes BUT not the things they actually changed inside 🙂 Anyhow, I stick with it as scholarly American edition without defending if it is or if it is not. In my 2 now 3 times translating the NT from greek I have found DARBY’s 2 translations in English and French to be very close to NA as well which is very surprising since NA hardly existed when DARBY was alive I have found DARBY at times MORE accurate than NASB and others – this is strictly IMHO from my own experience as NT translators – others are free to disagree John Mushenhouse Duane L Burgess Gary you would note the Apocrypha you accented on is also a very nice non-liberal critical translation Philip Williams IT was included SO NASB can be accepted among Catholics (and maybe Orthodox) which of course NEVER really happened 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day shall we bless it ex cathedra?
Anonymous
Philip Williams only if thou be the pope
Anonymous
Troy Day then we must use the same version as did St. Peter.
The Vulgate because Mark was Roman.
Anonymous
Philip Williams Vulgate did not exist during Peter or Mark …
Anonymous
Troy Day Vulgate is chiefly Old Latin.
Anonymous
Philip Williams There was no VULGATE till 4th century
There is no OLD latin that Jerome knew or used either
Anonymous
Troy Day what version did Augustine use since he understood neither Hebrew nor Greek?
Anonymous
Philip Williams tell us
Anonymous
Troy Day twas most certainly the same Old Latin as used by Tertullian.
Anonymous
Philip Williams Which version of the Bible did Augustine use?
When Augustine quoted the Holy Scripture, which version of the Bible did he use? Although that sounds like a perfectly acceptable question to pose, the reality is that Christians of Augustine’s era never saw what is called a single book that would today be described as “the Bible.”
Augustine would have had a stack of manuscripts that contained separate books of the Bible. He may not always have had access to every book of the Bible simultaneously, nor even to every section within every book. Augustine knew only a little Greek, and did not spontaneously refer to the Greek Bible. He mostly used what is termed the Vetus Latina, the “Old Latin” version of Biblical texts. This is the name used to denote old Latin translations from the Greek text, which were used in the Western world before – very slowly – what would be called the Vulgate translation by St Jerome took precedence. Only very gradually did Augustine start to make greater use of Jerome’s translations from the Hebrew found in the Vulgate. The ‘Old Latin’ translations were of varying quality, depending on the Books of the Bible concerned, and presented many erroneous readings which the user was not always able to detect. In fact, Augustine in his Retractions admitted that several times he had made incorrect interpretations on the basis of reading imperfect or even false translations In his Letter 71, he remarked in frustration on ‘the endless diversity of the Latin translators’. ‘The text is so different in the various manuscripts that it is almost intolerable; the Latin version is so suspect that one is afraid of finding another interpretation in the Greek, so that one hesitates to quote from it or use it as the basis of any proof’ (Letter 71,6). Understandably, this problem was particularly serious in theological disputes. How is this to be remedied? In On Christian Doctrine, he wrote, ‘We must either acquire a knowledge of the language from which the Scriptures have been translated into Latin, or we must use the translations of those who keep close to the original, not because these are adequate, but because they enable us to discern the accuracy or errors ofother translators who have chosen to follow the thought rather than the words’ http://augnet.org/en/life-of-augustine/augustine-in-general/1302-augustines-bible/
Anonymous
Troy Day did thou discover Old Latin from Google?
That would be 21st Century.
Anonymous
Troy Day sorry. Codex is more ancient than that.
Anonymous
Troy Day same Old Latin version that Joseph of Arimathea carried to Glastonbury.
Anonymous
Philip Williams yeah you will get there but SO WHAT? HOW does this contribute to the digital NIV you know nothing of /
Anonymous
Troy Day gots to let’s you do something on your owns.
Anonymous
Philip Williams HOW does this contribute to the digital NIV?
Anonymous
Troy Day fingers (digits) required to use digital NIV on mobile phone.
Anonymous
Philip Williams you probably still use fingertips on your bible to find some books about NOAH
Anonymous
Couple things…
Troy Day, this may come as a surprise brother so I hope you’re sitting in a sturdy chair…I Agree that one of the inherent dangers with digital books is the content can change without notice. For critical texts such as bibles, this has the potential of confusing anyone reading the digital versions. Churches and newer teachers over time could begin to base doctrine and teach from less than accurate texts.
The other thing is that digital text is simple data existing in a computer server somewhere…bad stuff can happen from hacking.
Printed bibles cannot have its contents hacked into and altered unnoticed.
It’s also scary to think of how our constitution and other documents from the founding of our country are vulnerable if digital versions are relied upon from our elected leaders.
Anonymous
Len Sterling YES bad stuff can happen from hacking. but this is NO hacking This is a deliberate altering of the text without the proper scriptoral committee NOW in this can occur with the BIBLE of Philip Williams as well where the pope himself descends from the Vatican and pens a map of Genesis where Noah landed – X marks the sport and 666 is the mark of that man…
Anonymous
Troy Day Agree 100%
Anonymous
Len Sterling when you see the comparison side by side you cannot but agree or agree to disagree
Anonymous
Which version of the NIV. There’s a big difference between the original and later versions such as the TNIV.
Anonymous
Evelyn Gardiner there you go – read the article
Anonymous
Troy Day I did and consider the information interesting
One need always be cautious in this regard.