Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .5
Sodomite Scriptures
I’m sure the homosexual lobby must hate the Authorised Version of the Bible, of all the versions available it is the most unambiguous in it’s language of condemnation regarding this particular sexual perversion. Sad to say the same cannot be said of the ‘New Bibles’.
The first time the scriptures mentions the vile practice of men being sexually involved with other men is found in Genesis chapter 19. The Holy Spirit had already indicated in chapter 13 verse 13 that ‘the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly’, but it is not until chapter 19 that we understand why the LORD had come to make such a statement.
Because of their vile practice God had determined to judge the city severely but before the fires of judgement could fall God sent two angels into the city to remove righteous Lot out of the situation. Knowing the streets of Sodom were no place for strangers to be at night Lot compelled the two angels to come into his house. Word soon spread amongst homosexuals of the city that a bit of ‘fresh meat’ had arrived. A large crowd of sex-crazed homosexuals began to beat at the door of Lot’s house demanding that he send out the men (as they supposed) so that they might have carnal knowledge of them. Even after the angels had smitten them with blindness they continued to scrabble at the doors seeking to fulfil their filthy lusts.
As this particular sin was so closely related to the geographically location of Sodom the practice itself and those who practiced this vile sin were labelled Sodomites.
In Deuteronomy chapter 23 v17 we read the following command.
‘There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.’ AV
The Modern Bibles have changed the word ‘sodomite’ to something else. The NIV says ‘Shrine Prostitute’, the ESV & NASB says ‘Cult Prostitute’, the NLT & NCV says ‘Temple Prostitute’, the NKJV says ‘A perverted one’ and the Message renders it ‘A Sacred Prostitute’.
In 1st Kings 14 verse 24 we read.
‘And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.’ AV
The Modern Bibles have changed the word ‘sodomite’ to something else. The NIV & NLT says ‘Shrine Prostitute’, the ESV & NASB says ‘Cult Prostitute’, the NCV says ‘Male Prostitutes’, the NKJV says ‘Perverted Persons’ and the Message renders it ‘ Sacred Prostitute’.
None of the changes in the ‘New Bibles’ reflect the idea of Sodomy. It has been airbrushed out.
In the New Testament in Marks Gospel the Lord Jesus when commissioning His disciples said these words to them.
'And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.' Mark 6 v11 AV
Notice how the second half of the verse has gone missing in the NIV
‘And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them’ Mark 6 v11 NIV... ditto ESV, NCV, NASB, NLT & The Message
The reference to the judgment of Sodom has been removed with a stroke.
I just wonder does the NIV’s airbrushing of Sodomy out of the Bible have anything to do with the fact that the NIV translation committee had homosexuals in their ranks. One such member is Dr Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. If you don’t believe me read her official website the quote below is taken from the homepage of Virginia Mollenkott’s official website.
‘Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has lectured widely on lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights and has also been active in the transgender cause, authoring Omnigender (revised and updated version published in 2007), and serving as co-author of Transgender Journeys (2003).’
I don’t know about you but I don’t want to be reading a Bible translation that has the paw-prints of homosexuals all over it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If any of the AV committee were homosexual or unbelievers of any sort, would you reject the AV?
ReplyDeleteI hope not. You would check to see if they had distorted the translation. Did the lesbian on the NIV committee distort the NIV? Apparently she was in no position to do so, even if she had wanted:
'So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed... I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept "homosexual" is too anachronistic to be utilised in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me.'
So why do the modern versions not use 'sodomite' to refer to homosexuals? Well, to be picky, the NKJV does in:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
But the reason it is omitted in the OT is that the Hebrew text, on which the AV was based, uses it of male prostitutes who have sex with men as a service to their heathen gods:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6945&t=KJV
If the NIV wanted to endorse homosexuality, it would not have included passages such as (for example):
Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteYou entirely miss the central point being made here by Maurice... and it's telling, to say the least!
Oh, Wolfsbane, you've stumped him there. I personally think you've hit the nail on the head rather than missing the central point, but then you're not going to change their minds on these things. They're too hung up on negative things rather than the positive message of the good news for those who repent and follow Jesus.
ReplyDeleteHow ironic it is that young P. Harris should be making such a statement!
ReplyDeleteHow ironic that Jeffrey won't identify himself by his real name.
ReplyDeleteOK, 'Stephen', I'll be glad of you to spell out the central point you think I missed. I'll do my best to address it.
ReplyDeleteWolfsbane, your glowing defence of (or at the very least, lack of objection to) the inclusion of the input (whatever it was) of a homosexual in the translation of “modern” versions is worrying, but, like I said, very telling!
ReplyDeleteIt is also yet another of your silly straw-man arguments!
The reason being, of course, is that Mollenkott was not the only homosexual who had input (of whatever kind) into the “translation”.
The chairman of the NIV'S Old Testament Translation Committee, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, was also a homosexual. This is much more serious than Mollenkott's involvement, albeit corruptive as it was. Here we have one of the “leading scholars” on the NIV CBT who is a homosexual. Obviously this fact compromises the whole project, especially as this fact WAS well known by his colleagues for many years.
Dr. Woudstra, who died in the early 1990s, was a long-time friend of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. This organisation was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian 'evangelical Christians' and their friends. Dr. Blair has openly talked about Dr. Woudstra's homosexuality.
Dr. Woudstra shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong 'loving monogamous relationships' between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament (his “special area” of technical “expertise”) that corresponded to 'homosexual orientation'; this was, interestingly, the same viewpoint of Virginia Mollenkott!
This has a direct bearing on how the NIV treats homosexuality. By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced. By speaking of homosexual 'offenders' in I Corinthians ch. 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don't 'offend'; and this is the position of Evangelicals Concerned. The fact that Leviticus denounces homosexuality in total does not worry them as, according to them, “such ethical condemnations do not apply today!”
Furthermore, Wolfbane, you seem to have the idea that because these people didn't TOTALLY eradicate certain things misses the point entirely.
Firstly, just because the work of corruption is not done in one single, seamless stroke is hardly an argument for accepting corrupt works!
Secondly, Wolfsbane, your assertion is not true, anyway. There are a number of very serious doctrinally eradicative changes in the so-called "modern" versions.
Thirdly, the NIV translators claimed very openly that their work is not yet completed, in that further "translations" would be necessary (and as we have seen, that has been, and is, the case. So this is clearly a case of chipping away gradually, in many cases, not always just one sudden strike-out.
Maurice is absolutely right when he says that the paw-prints of homosexuals is all over it! That may be acceptable (evidently it is) to you Wolfsbane but, like I said before, THAT is very telling! Is this, possibly, one of the reasons why you champion such "versions"?
Stephen, you obviously know everyone that has commented on these blogs so well, to be making such implications, but can you be sure that all the translators of the KJV were without sin? No secret homosexuals, no gossips, no arrogant or unfaithful? What about those who were full of strife, envy and malice? Or what about slanderers? No? I guess they were all perfect and without sin then.
ReplyDeleteAn utterly pointless, red-herring, and deceitful comment you make Peter!
ReplyDeleteThere is a world of a difference between having someone who is not perfect on the one hand, and having unrepentant, habitual homosexuals who dedicate their life's work to the homosexual cause working on a translation of Holy Scripture!
Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has lectured widely on lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights and has also been active in the transgender cause, authoring Omnigender, and serving as co-author of Transgender Journeys. (Hardly a closet lesbian!)
Dr. Woudstra's sexual meanderings I have not gone into in explicit detail, as they are not fit for inclusion on a Christian blog!
The fact that you argue against the main thrust of this post is telling indeed!
Going by many of your previous comments, you are far from the man to be giving spiritual advice to anyone! Now that you seriously attempt to argue FOR the use of "versions" that have homosexual paw-prints all over them says more about you and your position than it does of those who defend the use of the AV as a much more accurate version than the corrupt versions you evidently feel more at home with!
So you're happy that the KJV translators were ALL Christians, without that list of sins, which Paul seemed to think were important enough to equate with homosexuality in Rom 1?
ReplyDeleteHomosexual paw prints - LOL. Next you'll be calling it "in your face poofery."
No, I wouldn't sink to your level, Peter.
ReplyDeleteYet another silly and redundant statement from you (which actually ignores entirely what I have already said in my previous comment).
For the record, the term I used was in linkage to the original wording of the post to which this comment thread relates and is thus relavant. It is also a widely used term that is well recognised and used to mean "evidence" and is not used as a term of insult (such as the filth you used/suggested).
At any rate, thanks for proving (in your comment) just how silly, immature, and insincere your whole approach to this subject is!
That's a great wee world you live in Stephen. Almost a shame you have to deal with real people with different views at all.
ReplyDeleteSorry if you found that offensive. I was just quoting Ian Paisley Jr, which I thought would be right up your street.
I'm actually saddened, not offended by you, Peter.
ReplyDeleteYour bitterness, immaturity and dishonesty is shameful!
What's that verse about a beam (KJV) and an eye?
ReplyDeleteRead the whole verse, Peter!
ReplyDeleteIt goes on to say "cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
I once argued like you, Peter (as I have already told you - if you would have the courtesy to listen).
Here's what I actually said:
“…it's simply an understanding of the importance to warn others of mistakes that I previously engaged in myself for many years; namely, considering "modern" versions to be accurate enough to be classified as reliable translations of the Scriptures in my mother tongue.”
As for my charges of you being “bitter”, “immature” and “dishonest” … I stand by them because you evidence these things by your own statements.
Take your use of the “quote” from Ian Paisley Jr., it was neither relevant or mature. Your statement, “…which I thought would be right up your street” suggests bitterness on your part. It was also a charge against me without evidence , and was therefore dishonest.
I also note that you seem intent on taking this conversion down into the gutter. I am not going to follow you, Peter... so you go right on ahead if you like.
Great, thanks.
ReplyDeleteNo, Stephen, I do not defend the inclusion of homosexuals on the NIV committee. No public sinner has a place in a work for God.
ReplyDeleteNot homosexuals; nor thieves; nor liars; nor fornicators, nor persecutors of God's people. Were any such on the AV committee?
Does the NIV promote homosexuality. That's your reading of it.
What grounds have you for that understanding?
1. That homosexuals had a hand in it.
That they were not known to the members of the committee - at least most of the members - makes the NIV no worse off than the ministry of Christ and the apostles when it emerged they had a thief and a traitor as one of the Twelve.
Yet, it is something that should make us examine it for tampering - so to your second ground:
2. The change of 'sodomite' for 'homosexual offender'. That you allege distances homosexuality from the sin of Sodom. But does it? No, for the sin of Sodom was homosexual offences.
3. You also make 'homosexual offender' imply that homosexuality is not condemned as such. Certainly that is argued by the pro-homosexual lobby - but it invalid. Christ made clear that to embrace the desire condemns one as well as the practice.
'Furthermore, Wolfbane, you seem to have the idea that because these people didn't TOTALLY eradicate certain things misses the point entirely.
Firstly, just because the work of corruption is not done in one single, seamless stroke is hardly an argument for accepting corrupt works!'
But the case is not one of almost eradicating any doctrine. The omissions that could be read to support a doctrine are the EXCEPTION. The doctrine involved is included time after time. But I repeat: the AV can also be shown to choose a word or phrase that does not as strongly support biblical doctrine as those of the NIV, etc. Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?
'Secondly, Wolfsbane, your assertion is not true, anyway. There are a number of very serious doctrinally eradicative changes in the so-called "modern" versions.'
Please name them, and we can see how the AV fares using the same criteria.
'Thirdly, the NIV translators claimed very openly that their work is not yet completed, in that further "translations" would be necessary (and as we have seen, that has been, and is, the case. So this is clearly a case of chipping away gradually, in many cases, not always just one sudden strike-out.'
IF they were engaged in deliberate corruption you would have a point. but if they were engaged in proper correction and amendment, they would be doing the same thing. The AV of 1611 is not the AV of today.
Lastly, let me ask you, Stephen, are you happy that the pawprints of bigoted Anglians, virulant Arminians and Baptist-haters are all over the AV?
Wolfsbane, you said,
ReplyDelete“No, Stephen, I do not defend the inclusion of homosexuals on the NIV committee. No public sinner has a place in a work for God…”
That’s an interesting admission on your part. It must, necessarily, affect your view of a product which is furnished by such people… otherwise you would have to argue that having unrepentant sinners involved in a work for God is no big deal, as long as they do a good job (major oxymoron there!).
I’m keen to know whether you would extend that to the position that I hold, namely that no unrepentant, unregenerate sinner has a place in a work for God!
You said,
“…homosexuals; nor thieves; nor liars; nor fornicators, nor persecutors of God's people. Were any such on the AV committee?”
No, of those involved in the formulation of the AV translation, none of them are reported to have been unregenerate sinners, and certainly not public sinners. In fact, they are reported, by many Christian historians – such as Joseph Charles Philpot, 1802-1869 leader of the Gospel Standard Baptists and a Fellow of Worcester College Oxford - to have been “learned men, yet sound in truth, alive to God, possessing the necessary qualifications for such an important work.”
You then asked,
“Does the NIV promote homosexuality. That's your reading of it.”
Yes, and there would be a number of ways of doing that. The NIV translators by selective use of corrupt (and previously rejected) manuscripts and by numerous unwarranted changes to the text, in many instances, and, in great measure being under the homosexual chairmanship (and senior “expertise”) of the NIV'S Old Testament Translation Committee, and thus the influence of Dr. Marten H. Woudstra who, when asked by evangelicals for his insight on homosexuality and the Bible, as chair of Old Testament translation for the NIV Bible and author of the New International Commentary on Joshua, Dr. Woudstra said: “I do not think the O.T. and N.T. texts are all that clear to warrant a strongly negative stand of the Christian church”, did indeed, weaken the strong original wording of the Scriptures in a deliberate and outrageous effort to further promote the idea that homosexuality is not sin, and at the very least, is not something about which the church can take a strong stand against!
You should note that Woudstra is openly championed by homosexual organisations such as “Gay Christian 101” and others for his work and supportive comments and is considered a strong proponent of the homosexual cause. I would also again refer you to what I have already said in this connection.
This is not some little secret, Wolfsbane, it is well document and not denied by ANY of his close associates and colleagues, and has in fact been admitted openly by them. What would convince you further? Would you like photographs of his engagement in homosexual acts? Do you require a detailed, explicit description of his homosexual tendencies and fantasies? The man was a well-known homosexual and advocate of the homosexual lifestyle. The only people denying this seem to be those who have a vested interest in white washing any evidence that the NIV is a pro Sodomite Scripture … namely, people who, deep down in their own conscience, know that this is way beyond what is acceptable, but will defend the NIV no matter what evidence is handed to them… even the words of self-confessed and unrepentant homosexuals who were influential in the production of the NIV as well as strong, hard working advocates of the homosexual cause!
But, if you feel that the corruptive influence of such people in the production of the NIV is something that is not such a big deal… that’s up to you!
You then ask (as if it was necessary to ask such a silly question… I can’t believe this is even been seriously quizzed as if it was something made up… look at their life works, their words and the words of their peers!):
ReplyDelete“What grounds have you for that understanding? That homosexuals had a hand in it.”
Eh, yeah… strangely enough, Wolfsbane!
Given the facts (which are well documented by others too, both homosexuals and heterosexuals) as well as what has already been said, and considering the individuals involved, and considering the entirely different translation philosophies employed by the NIV translators such as dynamic equivalence, are you seriously, and honestly, suggesting for even one single moment that the resultant translation of the NIV was utterly unaffected by such corruption?
You stated,
“…they were not known to the members of the committee - at least most of the members”
This is a straw-man argument, Wolfsbane. It is also simply not true!
Even if it was true, it still doesn’t diminish my argument in any way that there was a strong homosexual influence in the NIV translation work (again, I refer you to what I said earlier). Indeed, your statement actually undermines the reliability of the very people you are trying to defend… simply put; if folks such as Dr. Woudstra (a long time advocate of the homosexual cause) were not considered unsound by the others working in the committees, then this, by implication, denudes them of any serious capacity of discernment! Which is actually an argument for NOT using the NIV!!
Wolfsbane, you also said,
“…makes the NIV no worse off than the ministry of Christ and the apostles when it emerged they had a thief and a traitor as one of the Twelve.”
Utter blasphemy!
God have mercy on you!
The traitor and the thief was dealt with according to the sins… and in due course out-ed. But in this case, you are actually arguing from the opposite position and you progress your point in the diametrically opposite direction. You use sin amongst the Twelve (which was dealt with appropriately and accordingly) as a justification for the acceptance of sinful corruption! You are, in essence, making the opposite case! (Which is worrying, and if you are truly a born again believer who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit then your conscience must be ringing right now!)
You continued,
ReplyDelete“The change of 'sodomite' for 'homosexual offender'. That you allege distances homosexuality from the sin of Sodom. But does it? No, for the sin of Sodom was homosexual offences.”
Again, Wolfsbane, you have either not read what I said properly, or you are choosing to play games. It is abundantly obvious what I said as regards this point. What I actually said is, “This has a direct bearing on how the NIV treats homosexuality. By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced. By speaking of homosexual 'offenders' in I Corinthians ch. 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don't 'offend'; and this is the position of Evangelicals Concerned. The fact that Leviticus denounces homosexuality in total does not worry them as, according to them, “such ethical condemnations do not apply today!”
You then make a non-point statement, in terms of trying to refute what I had earlier said:
“You also make 'homosexual offender' imply that homosexuality is not condemned as such. Certainly that is argued by the pro-homosexual lobby - but it invalid.”
Wolfsbane, tell that to the NIV translation committees!… they obviously didn’t have a problem with the chairman of the NIV'S Old Testament Translation Committee, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, considered to have been one of the “leading scholars” on the NIV, (or, indeed, Mollenkott) who argued PRECISELY that! (The resultant translation clearly shows that their position prevailed.)
Wolfsbane, you then stated,
“But the case is not one of almost eradicating any doctrine.”
Actually it is! Bit by bit, by bit in this case… and in other cases more drastic and complete.
You then continued,
“The omissions that could be read to support a doctrine are the EXCEPTION.”
That is not true! (and even it were true, it is hardly a point that strengthens the case of the reliability of the NIV!)
Then, after ignoring several of my other statements in previous comments on this blog, you said,
“But I repeat: the AV can also be shown to choose a word or phrase that does not as strongly support biblical doctrine as those of the NIV, etc. Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?” (by the way, interesting choice of phrasing… and noted!)
No, it’s not, Wolfsbane! It’s about accuracy of translation, reliability of source texts, and philosophy and methodology of translation. When a reliable translation is made, doctrine is not affected. Indeed, because the AV translators were interested in a word for word translation from uncorrupted source texts. Any “word choosing” that was included in the AV which was not in the original source texts is italicised in the AV. The differences are so slight as to be incapable of affecting doctrine. This is not the case with the NIV which, to use the committee’s own words, “[we] sought by frequent modifications to produce a translation that would speak to people in that people’s own culture.” That’s an understatement! On many occasions, big and unwarranted changes are made and without so much as a footnote to indicate it!
You asked me to name the serious doctrinally eradicative changes in the so-called "modern" versions.
ReplyDeleteI will indeed, and I have a lot of material on this issue, but in deference to Maurice (who’s blog this is), I do not intend to “jump-the-gun”. Nevertheless, I will be very happy (and fully intend) to do more than merely “name” these serious matters as they are raised in turn. This is not a topic that can be adequately covered in a few quick comments… this will take time to properly cover, and I intend to do that over the coming days weeks and, if necessary, months. It doesn’t help matters, however, when you always come back with your straw-man arguments and red-herrings, neither does it aid fluency or progression of conversation when you constantly ignore what IS said to you.
So, be patient, Wolfsbane… you seem to be in an awful rush, scrambling about for anything that even remotely resembles a defence of your case.
As for “how the AV fares using the same criteria” – this is telling indeed. You evidently aren’t even aware that entirely different philosophies of translation and translation methodologies, (such as the criterion used, by the translation committees, to decide what is and what is not a reliable source text, etc.) were used by those who translated the NIV and those who translated the AV. The differences and the differences in the resultant texts are massive!
Someone previously suggested on this blog (either you or Peter) that the texts are about 95 percent the same, and that only about 5 percent of a difference can be evidenced. You are quoting that figure from another study (actually, you are misquoting (or quoting someone else’s misquote)!) The actual figure usually bandied around by most serious scholars is 97 percent… but what you evidently are not informed of is that that figure is in regards to WORD COUNT between the texts, NOT the ACTUAL WORDS USED! It could be argued, for example, that the Word count of the Koran is not much different either… but that hardly strengthens your case, Wolfsbane! The real argument is that the actual words used ARE massively different and this necessarily will have a major impact upon doctrine.
But, like I said, we will get to that in due time, and the issues will be given proper examination, not word plays and misquotations from studies that you are, evidently, not familiar with to any considerable extent.
Then you came out with this huge straw-man:
ReplyDelete“IF they were engaged in deliberate corruption you would have a point, but if they were engaged in proper correction and amendment, they would be doing the same thing. The AV of 1611 is not the AV of today.”
(By the way, Wolfsbane your constant regard for this playing with words is irritating, but more importantly, how does your conscience sit with it? One could be forgiven for thinking that you are engaging in what J. A. Wylie referred to, in his History of Protestantism, as “probabilism” and “intention to direct” – interestingly he was actually exposing a Jesuitical practise! Take from that what you will, I’m not here charging you with it, but it is worrying that you seem to be so comfortable with a similar mode of argumentation).
Your inference here is that there are changes between the AV 1611 and the AV of today, and so, therefore, the changes made by the translators of the NIV are no different and therefore no less justified.
Wolfsbane, that is Hogwash!
It could only hold water if the translation methodologies and translation philosophies employed by the respective translating committees were the same… but, they most certainly were/are NOT! Again, we will be going through this in much more detail very soon. So stay tuned.
Then you closed your comment with another straw-man:
“Lastly, let me ask you, Stephen, are you happy that the pawprints of bigoted Anglians, virulant Arminians and Baptist-haters are all over the AV?”
Given the translation philosophies employed and given the accuracy of the resultant translation (of the AV) and in light of the accuracy and reliability of the source texts used, (all in stark contrast to the translation work of the NIV, etc.) and in light of the fact that none of the AV translators were considered, by anyone, to have been unbelievers or public sinners, then their particular view points in regard to being (as you charge) Anglican, Arminian or non-Baptistic, actually prove their honesty in translation as they did not manipulate the text away from the original and toward their own particular preference … simply put, the AV is in no way less Baptistic than the texts from which it was translated!
However, it should be carefully noted that, the NIV is much less in the “Believer’s Baptism” camp than the AV! (Which, no doubt, Maurice will post about at a later stage and open up for further discussion at that stage.)
Furthermore, as a strict 5 point Calvinistic (soteriologically, that is) Baptist, I certainly do not believe that the AV aids the Arminian cause! But that is not the issue, Wolfsbane. Indeed, Calvinists and Arminians can be found on both sides of the “versions” issue and so your point really adds nothing to the present conversation… unless you are suggesting that those who are of an Arminianistic bent are actually to be considered gross sinners and perverts such as homosexuals? No one doubts my staunch Calvinist stand… but not even I would dare to suggest that brothers in Christ who disagree with me on the issue of Calvinism are to be ranked among unrepentant, habitual sinners, perverts and reprobates!
Of course, Wolfsbane, if you consider Arminians, Anglicans, and folks who don’t warm to Baptistic theology as being unrepentant, habitual sinners in the same bracket as sodomites…that’s your business… on your own head be it, if that’s the sort of bigotry you believe in!!
But the point is, had these “so-called” bigots (your words… obviously taken from others) actually done to the AV what the modern translators did to the NIV, then I would certainly have a major problem with it… but there is absolutely no evidence that they did! In fact, the evidence is to the contrary!
Point in passing... before anyone gets on their high-horse and starts pontificating about how the KJV is not the only translation based on the literal word-for-word methodology... I am already well aware of this (nor did I ever state otherwise!). But the point still stands as per the problem with the NIV, etc. using dynamic equivalence.
ReplyDeleteIt must also be remembered that, as I have said, the methodology and philosophy of translation is a very important factor, but it is not the only factor. Indeed, it is possible to have an even more literal translation than the KJV... but then we need to consider the source texts and the reliability of the sources used to furnish those translations, etc. It is perfectly conceivable that you can arrive at a highly word-for-word version...based on less accurate source texts. Thus, the resultant translation would not be more accurate than the KJV despite it being produced via the word-for-word method.
In this connection, for the ESV supporters out there, perhaps it would be profitable to give sincere consideration to the following:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=1220071032406
If that link doesn’t work, try this one:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1220071032406
Again, these matters will be dealt with in due time and given a full and appropriate examination. It never ceases to amaze me how that many of the folks who believe that the KJV is not the most accurate version in the English tongue seem to think that the “versions” issue can be properly discussed in a quick, all encompassing, blog post or comment.
This is a much bigger and more important issue than that.
A sincere word of thanks to Maurice for continuing with this series.
Stephen
ReplyDeleteThanks for the detailed response.
'I’m keen to know whether you would extend that to the position that I hold, namely that no unrepentant, unregenerate sinner has a place in a work for God' Yes, that is the meaning of my statement. You seem to think I meant it was OK for a secret sinner to be on the committee - but that is not my meaning. My only point is that we cannot tell if someone is a secret sinner - only God knows. So we cannot afterwards condemn the work on the basis that the sinner is NOW known. We just have to check they did not mar the work.
'No, of those involved in the formulation of the AV translation, none of them are reported to have been unregenerate sinners, and certainly not public sinners.' This is my point: what if historical documents show that one or more of them at the time were fornicators, homosexuals, child-sex abusers, murderers, liars, thieves, etc? Would you then condemn the AV as the work of corrupt men?
'weaken the strong original wording of the Scriptures in a deliberate and outrageous effort to further promote the idea that homosexuality is not sin, and at the very least, is not something about which the church can take a strong stand against!' But your proof of this is nonsense - that not using 'sodomite' makes homosexuality OK. Perhaps you believe the authors of the Hebrew and Greek were in on the plot, since they did not use 'sodomite'???
Your further proof is that by using 'homosexual offenders' the NIV is saying only the practice of homosexuality is condemned. As I pointed out, desiring the sin is as much an offence as doing it. One wonders of course how condemning homosexual practise as worthy of hell in some way promotes homosexuality? And if the NIV wanted to promote homosexuality as OK, why did they translate like this:
Romans 1: 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
'The man was a well-known homosexual and advocate of the homosexual lifestyle.' Well-known WHEN? Did the committee know this at the time? When did all this come out?
' But, if you feel that the corruptive influence of such people in the production of the NIV is something that is not such a big deal… that’s up to you!' If there was evidence of it being known by the committee, that would be a big mark against them. If there was evidence that homosexuality was promoted by the NIV, both the translators and the version would have to be condemned. But all you have come up with so far is at best inferences. Suspicions don't count - bring us proof.
'and considering the entirely different translation philosophies employed by the NIV translators such as dynamic equivalence,' You and I may not like dynamic equivalence, but I have never before heard it suggested that it is an evidence of homosexual conspiracy!
ReplyDelete'are you seriously, and honestly, suggesting for even one single moment that the resultant translation of the NIV was utterly unaffected by such corruption?' Yes, I don't see any clear evidence of homosexual promotion in it. It's not my favourite version, but I don't see how it is pro-homosexual at all.
'if folks such as Dr. Woudstra (a long time advocate of the homosexual cause) were not considered unsound by the others working in the committees, then this, by implication, denudes them of any serious capacity of discernment! Which is actually an argument for NOT using the NIV!!' I would agree, IF they knew this. But I would also bear this in mind:
Dr. Richard Bancroft, the general overseer of getting the AV completed, and the ruling spirit in the High Commission Court - a sort of Inquisition - became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1604, around the commencement of the AV work. Within a year, some 300 ministers were suspended, deprived, excommunicated, imprisoned, or forced into exile.
And this:
James himself was no better. His plan was for 'an English Popery in place of a Romish'. Morally, he was also suspect as a homosexual, some of the Puritans at court being scandalized by his open kissing and fondling of Buckingham and other young men.
Both those men had influence on the AV.
'You use sin amongst the Twelve (which was dealt with appropriately and accordingly) as a justification for the acceptance of sinful corruption!' You seem incapable of following a logical statement. But here goes: Secret sin among the Twelve did not invalidate the ministry of the Twelve, neither must it in the NIV committee. Only known sin, tolerated and accepted as OK by the group, would make the ministry invalid.
I said:'“The omissions that could be read to support a doctrine are the EXCEPTION.”
You replied: 'That is not true!'
You keep making the assertion, but offer no proof!
'Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?” (by the way, interesting choice of phrasing… and noted!)' You sure have a strange mind! I thought one so fond of ancient language would know of this one!
ReplyDelete'No, it’s not, Wolfsbane! It’s about accuracy of translation, reliability of source texts, and philosophy and methodology of translation.' I agree - so why do you keep making silly claims that the AV may omit or add words that seem to weaken a doctrine, but other versions may not?
'When a reliable translation is made, doctrine is not affected'. Agreed!
' Indeed, because the AV translators were interested in a word for word translation from uncorrupted source texts' So is the NKJV, the ESV, and some others. The NIV goes for dynamic equivalence as the rule, but the AV only occasionally.
Let me repeat that last bit: THE AV is not word-for-word all the time. So you can't make that an absolute demand for a good translation.
'Any “word choosing” that was included in the AV which was not in the original source texts is italicised in the AV.' No ,I was not referring to the additional words used to convey the meaning. I meant the use of actual words from a text other than the Greek. Words the TR/AV chose in preference to the Greek text. Words that could be construed as you did with the NIV choices - 'weakening the doctrine'.
I'm saying that none of this should be blamed on the compliers or translators. The apparent weakening is just that - apparent. The doctrines they are supposed to weaken are clearly taught elsewhere in the text.
'On many occasions, big and unwarranted changes are made and without so much as a footnote to indicate it!' Whether they are warranted or not IS the debate. Making the allegation is not proof of it. That's a fallacy called 'begging the question'.
'and without so much as a footnote to indicate it!' And this is why my favourite version is the NKJV! Full of textual footnotes!
'You asked me to name the serious doctrinally eradicative changes in the so-called "modern" versions.
I will indeed, and I have a lot of material on this issue, but in deference to Maurice (who’s blog this is), I do not intend to “jump-the-gun”. Nevertheless, I will be very happy (and fully intend) to do more than merely “name” these serious matters as they are raised in turn.' I look forward to that.
'It doesn’t help matters, however, when you always come back with your straw-man arguments and red-herrings,' Seems to me my 'red-herrings' are things you cannot answer, so you ignore them.
'neither does it aid fluency or progression of conversation when you constantly ignore what IS said to you.' Please point out anything I missed. I'm not infallible, not even possessed of 'sacred tradition'. But as far as I can see, you think I ignore your comments just because I continue to offer argument against them.
'As for “how the AV fares using the same criteria” – this is telling indeed. You evidently aren’t even aware that entirely different philosophies of translation and translation methodologies, (such as the criterion used, by the translation committees, to decide what is and what is not a reliable source text, etc.) were used by those who translated the NIV and those who translated the AV. The differences and the differences in the resultant texts are massive!' Oh, I am aware of the differences. I intend only to apply the same principles you offer me against the other versions, to the AV. No partiality.
'The real argument is that the actual words used ARE massively different and this necessarily will have a major impact upon doctrine.' OK, Stephen, so tell me how many actual words differ, or even the percentages. Using my NKJV, which notes significant (to use your term) differences (not spelling, for example), they seem to be relatively few. I look forward to learning from you the actual amount.
ReplyDelete'Your inference here is that there are changes between the AV 1611 and the AV of today, and so, therefore, the changes made by the translators of the NIV are no different and therefore no less justified.' Yes - in answer to your point that the NIV is constantly being revised, I pointed out that the AV has been likewise revised several times. I haven't kept up to how many changes the NIV have got to, but I assume it is not many - otherwise it would be called something else. But if you know something about it I don't, please speak up.
'It could only hold water if the translation methodologies and translation philosophies employed by the respective translating committees were the same… but, they most certainly were/are NOT!' I think you are confused again. Maybe you are comparing the differences within the AV revisions with the differences outside the NIV - between its underlying text and the ones used by the AV? But the comparison is between the AV revisions and the NIV revisions - how the original AV and today's AV differs; how the original NIV and today's NIV differs.
'in light of the fact that none of the AV translators were considered, by anyone, to have been unbelievers or public sinners,' Some of the Puritans would differ.
'they did not manipulate the text away from the original and toward their own particular preference … simply put, the AV is in no way less Baptistic than the texts from which it was translated!' Really!? You think 'baptize'is an natural English word? Perhaps you better check the Greek:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G907&t=KJV
No, it was kept untranslated, to conceal the Baptist meaning.
Do you think 'bishoprick' is faithful to the Greek? No, it was put in the AV to conform to Anglican ideas:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1984&t=KJV
'Indeed, Calvinists and Arminians can be found on both sides of the “versions” issue and so your point really adds nothing to the present conversation… unless you are suggesting that those who are of an Arminianistic bent are actually to be considered gross sinners and perverts such as homosexuals?' No ,just pointing out that the AV translators are not all the faithful servants of God you seemed to suggest.
'But the point is, had these “so-called” bigots (your words… obviously taken from others) actually done to the AV what the modern translators did to the NIV, then I would certainly have a major problem with it… but there is absolutely no evidence that they did! In fact, the evidence is to the contrary!' As I've now presented evidence for both paedo-baptist and Anglican tampering, I take it you now have a problem with the AV.
I'll give you time to reflect. I'm on duty tonight and am unlikely to get back to this until Saturday, so you'll have all the time you need.
Stephen
ReplyDeleteI didn't get your last post until now. I'll leave that till later too. Thanks.
I was going to ask if you'd taken that beam out of your own eye yet, but it's pretty evident that you haven't.
ReplyDeleteCan someone be a Christian and read only the NIV or ESV then? Can they seriously study God's word and learn more about God? If the answer is no, then I go back to a point I made previously. DA Carson and RC Sproul to name but two, should know about this and we do need to stop taking them seriously. If the answer is no then WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
Peter, I am happy to discuss things with people who are genuine in their comments... but you are just a bare faced liar!
ReplyDeleteI never said that people are not Christians if they READ versions other than the KJV. (That would be just as much of an accusation against my own early Christian walk as anyone else's! ... if you had the courtesy of listening to what I said to you earlier...evidently not!)
You have also for, the second time, accused me in the wrong as per your inference about my attitude to Sproul and Carson... so I shall simply refer you back to the answer I have already given you.
As for beams in eyes... you need to get the beam out of your own eye before trying to remove the moat out of other people's eyes... I have repented of, and openly admitted, my former approach in that I used to consider the "other versions" to be reliable translations... you don't seem willing to even imagine that you need to re-look at the whole issue... you are too busy committing the sin of baring false witness!
Say whatever you will, vent you bitterness, immaturity, silliness, and false accusations all you like... pathetic! (Even those folks who DO support the use of "other versions" likely wince every time they see you appearing!)
The "big deal" is... we ought to hold to the most accurate translation of Scripture in our mother tongue, not settle for anything less! Especially not corrupted "versions"
Interestingly (though not surprising given your, very evident, utter disregard of honesty) you seem to have a keen desire to keep coming back and commenting on an issue which you claim to consider "[as not being] a big deal!"
"Say whatever you will, vent you bitterness, immaturity, silliness, and false accusations all you like... pathetic! (Even those folks who DO support the use of "other versions" likely wince every time they see you appearing!)"
ReplyDeleteI thought you were talking about yourself there.
So you've repented of using other versions, therefore implying that using other versions is a sin. So those openly using other versions are sinning and if they are characterised by sin in their lives, they must not be Christians.
Perhaps when YOU mature you will realise that there are more important issues in the Christian life. I would rather have my children reading the NIV than being turned off by a version they don't understand. I don't have any issues with the KJV other than the fact that it uses outdated language. I know that there are no perfect versions, but as I'm not prepared to learn Hebrew or Greek, then I'll make do with the corrupt versions (according to you.) When it comes to it I'll let God be the judge - not you.
The reason I keep coming back is that I am sick of people like you who will look down their noses at other Christians because they don't agree with you. And as for "Jeffrey" up above(and yes the quotes are intentional,) what sort of dishonest coward tries to "out" people (not in a sodomite sense,) but keeps their own identity hidden?
Peter, again... I actually referred you back to WHAT I ACTUALLY HAD TOLD YOU BEFORE! If you don't have the courtesy of reading what people ACTUALLY say to you, and in the context in which they said it, then how dare you falsely accuse me!
ReplyDeleteI didn't say or suggest that people are not saved if they read anything other than the KJV (and by the way, your comment only makes sense, albeit falsely accused, if being a Christian means being without sin here on earth!)
Peter it is possible to repent of sin committed whilst a Christian - but, alas, that is not the issue here! Because, I didn't say that it was a sin to read another version, did I? NO! I said I had repented of my former approach to the "versions" issue... what does the word "repent" mean, Peter? Huh?
As anyone reading this blog will know, it means "to turn and go in the other direction!" Which is PRECISELY what I have done regarding this issue of "versions"... once I misguidedly (like you) thought the other versions were reliable enough to be considered sound ... but then turned from that view and went the other way when I was shown the error of my way! (I refer you again to my original comment about this some days ago!)
And, the reason why I am discussing this topic is not to look down my nose at anyone... that would be hypocritical given that I once stood in the same position as you regarding this issue (again, something I went into detail about earlier... obviously it was not received in the same spirit in which it was offered)
You do come across as a very bitter, angry and dishonest man, and I think what you have said about your reasons for coming onto this blog (almost every day, despite thinking it's a waste of time discussing the topic) does betray a deeper problem... but you are right that God is our judge... so between you and God be it. That doesn't mean that other Christians, especially those who you attack, are not allowed to inspect the fruit that you bear in your life! I believe Christ Himself encouraged folks to know people by the fruit that they bear.
One thing I would say, though, is stop telling lies! Which, by the way, is a sin! and I rebuke you publicly to your face for it when you direct it towards me by falsely accusing me!
As for your "Jeffrey" comment... I couldn't agree more! Is this a generic statement you are making (since you don't address it as something that I have said), or are you accusing me of "hiding my own identity"? For the record, I am not hiding my identity. When I post comments I use my first name "Stephen" which really is my own name. (In case you are accusing me, which, to be fair, isn't clear).
Peter, with regard to the comment you made about the NIV being easier to read; certainly the New International Version claims to be a fresh, free, dynamic, unique translation whose strengths include clarity and readability. It is said to have been translated so that anyone could read and understand.
ReplyDeleteCertainly it is easy to read, however, as far as the accuracy and fidelity to the texts of the original languages is concerned, the New International Version is found to be disastrously lacking. Due to the translation philosophies used to furnish the NIV, the reader can never be sure if the words he is reading have inspired words of God behind them or not. He never knows when sound or unsound interpretations are a part of this English text. He can never be sure that, when doing word studies, he has a word to study!
It should be noted that even if you were right about the KJV, you do not solve such a problem by introducing a different, even greater, problem!
It is also a myth that children are better served by, and more keen to read, the NIV than the KJV! There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that homes and churches where the KJV is used, have kids in them that are less keen to read the Scriptures than homes and churches were the NIV is used. In fact, there is a denomination (of which, for the record, I am not a part) that uses only the KJV, and the kids there are amazingly well versed in the Scriptures, way over and above what would be considered the norm in most other churches. This, of course, is not a one off case or comparison, neither is it something that only I have observed, nor (to be fair) is it the only factor involved - and neither do I claim it to be the only factor involved.
But, it certainly cannot honestly be said that kids are any keener to read the Scriptures in NIV form than they are to read them in the KJV form. Your presupposition, and that of the promoters of the NIV who claim that children simply wont read anything else other than a "modern" version is a false one!
It is also often an excuse, rather than a reason.
At any rate, your being "sicken by people like [me]" who promote the use of the KJV as being better than any other English language version and your charge (false charge) that we "look down [our] noses at other Christians because they don't agree with [us]" is also an excuse for your bitternes and, indeed, your eagerness to keep coming back and commenting upon an issue which you say you don't consider to be a big deal.
After all, KJV promoters can't seriously be accused of being uniquely guilty of "looking down their noses" at other Christians who do not agree with them, Peter! ... especially considering some of the comments made on the comments section of this blog!
"It is also a myth that children are better served by, and more keen to read, the NIV than the KJV! " That's where you're wrong. My children have been to churches were KJV is read and they don't understand the English. They are happy to read their own version because they understand it. There is evidence enough for me. I would be happier for them to read and understand God's word than have to struggle to try to get past a language barrier before they can learn about God.
ReplyDeleteAll your repetitive rhetoric and your contradictions, and your failure to answer questions are no argument. In fact to borrow a phrase, they're a straw man argument. I suspect you don't have children of your own, or you might understand where I'm coming from.
No doubt you'll come back with more of the same words, and call me deceitful and dishonest, or some other derogatory remarks, because you feel you know me so well. But hey, it's what I've come to expect from you.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI actually am a father and husband, so you have just proved yourself wrong on that point.
I do answer, and answer specifically... something that you evidently don't like or can't handle.
I accuse you of things that you are guilty of, evidenced by your own words... which are splashed all across the commentary threads of this blog and there for all to see!
Did you misquote me? Yes many times ... and it's on record throughout these commentary threads.
I address your charges against me... the fact that you keep repeating your charges, naturally, will mean that my responses seem repetitive.
Please evidence all these "contradictions".
As for your comment: "that's all the evidence I need"... thank you very much for stating that Peter... it proves my point! You make judgements based entirely on the subjective, not surprising, then, that you would be such an avid supporter of a translation that feeds that very mindset! Oh, and your subjective, limited study and understanding of the subject, coupled with your faulty presuppositions have in no way proved me wrong!
What I have said about children not been any keener to read the Scriptures in homes and churches that use the NIV than kids in homes and churches that use the KJV is true. I was also careful to say that it wasn't the only factor... no doubt IF kids see anger and bitterness in a parent's words and a keen disdain and negative attitudes towards the language of the KJV, etc. (such as those that you continually spew on this blog), then they could be influenced by that too! But, again, like I was careful to say, these are not the only factors... a point lost on anyone not prepared to look beyond the mere, convenient, subjective.
Besides, I could also make a similar, but counter point that my child reads and memorises verses in the KJV very well indeed, and will often go around telling friends, etc. about the Bible stories read. But to make an argument for use or rejection of a version, that has been used successfully for generations right up to and including the present, based solely on the subjective (as I pointed out) is faulty thinking.
Though, like I said before, discussing things seriously with you is a complete waste of time... because you evidently aren't listening. Often I just ignore your bile-filled, petty statements, but when you actually LIE and BEAR FALSE WITNESS... of course you can expect a response!
Do you really think that you can just fire off lies about people and not be accused of being deceitful and dishonest? You are "sickened" by the views of KJV promoters, yet arrogate to yourself the right to tell lies and falsely accuse people? Surely THAT is a contradiction, Peter!
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
“'I’m keen to know whether you would extend that to the position that I hold, namely that no unrepentant, unregenerate sinner has a place in a work for God' Yes, that is the meaning of my statement. You seem to think I meant it was OK for a secret sinner to be on the committee - but that is not my meaning. My only point is that we cannot tell if someone is a secret sinner - only God knows. So we cannot afterwards condemn the work on the basis that the sinner is NOW known. We just have to check they did not mar the work.”
But the point is, if it is wrong to have an unregenerate sinner on the job of translating the Scriptures, then there must be a reason for it being wrong in the first place… namely because their involvement is not only inappropriate, as a fact, whether known at the time or not, but someone with unclean hands can hardly be said to not have had a sullying influence on a work, especially in the case of the NIV which adopted a dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation such that relied heavily upon the subjective views, and, importantly, the “discernment” (something an unbeliever, engaged in gross sin – regardless of when it was discovered - can hardly be said to have!) of the translators involved. And, especially since the person in question was so senior in their involvement of translation. Of course, when we look at the resultant work we can indeed see that the viewpoint of Woudstra, and those whom he spent so much effort supporting (the homosexual cause), it is clear that the work was marred in that that the texts chosen (cherry picked from previously rejected, corrupt source texts) by the committees working on the translation were those that were lest condemning of the sin of homosexuality. Indeed the position held by Woudstra that homosexuality was not something that was sinful in and of itself, and not something that the church could take a strong stand against, sits much more comfortably with the NIV than it does with the AV or the RT or the Byzantine texts. So, yes I think it is clear by anyone with even the slightest objectivity and familiar with the philosophies employed by the translators of the NIV and the resultant text in contrast with the much more reliable Byzantine texts, that homosexuals did indeed mar the work. (Of course, given the philosophy of translation employed by the NIV translators, the entire work is utterly unreliable anyway, so we are talking here about the level of unreliability of a completely unacceptable and extremely liberal and poorly translated version.)
I think you are showing an extreme level of tolerance towards the NIV and it’s translators, such that you would never dream of showing to the AV and it’s translators… which is telling, actually, especially in the light of the fact that one of your main objections is that KJV defenders are guilty of this. If it were shown to be the case that one of the KJV translators was an unregenerate sinner, and involved in gross sexual immorality, you would be bellowing the point as a major reason for doubting the veracity of the claims of KJV promoters about the reliability of the resultant text! … in fact, you even mount an attempt to do just that with you ludicrous argument about King James’s views on homosexuality being a corrupting influence on the AV (an extremely weak argument, according to even many who would hold to your view point about versions). You also evidence a lack of historical knowledge about a former King of England. He was actually involved in far more than just homosexual kissing or petting… I have read Buckingham’s diaries and they were involved in even more serious and debauched activities than that (at least as far as we can trust those Diary entries, which probably were true enough). But that, of course is not the issue, because James was not actively involved in the translation of the text, and certainly if he was, then we must add DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) to the list … because the resultant text of the AV can hardly be said to be more tolerant of homosexuality than the Received Text and the Byzantine texts, which are by far the most reliable source texts, compared to the corrupted, rejected texts used by the likes of the NIV. Again, you are either through ignorance, or dishonesty, trying to compare apples with oranges, so-to-speak, and it is obvious, it also does nothing to further your case or “address” anything.
ReplyDelete“This is my point: what if historical documents show that one or more of them at the time were fornicators, homosexuals, child-sex abusers, murderers, liars, thieves, etc? Would you then condemn the AV as the work of corrupt men?”
Of course, it would call into question the veracity of the reliability of such translators, but the problem is, and as I have been careful to state (not only to you but to Peter also) it is the translation philosophy used by the translators of the NIV (and others like it) that leaves it so dangerously open to the subjectivity of the translators and thus the involvement of such people is far more dangerous and corrupting in terms of the marring of the work, and the potential to mar the work, than was the case with the AV, which was translated by people who applied a very much different philosophy of translation. But, again, the point is, none of the AV translators appear to have been unregenerate, sinners … the same cannot be said of the NIV translators, who DID have homosexuals, ecumenists, and liberals within their ranks. The fact of the matter is not in question, so you cannot take that which is an admitted fact and that which is a “what-if” and present them as equal, especially given the further fact that entirely different philosophies of translation and source texts were used. You make an utterly non-point… when you try to do just that, and thus do not “address” the issue … which leaves you less qualified to be accusing others of not addressing the issues!
You also said,
ReplyDelete“'weaken the strong original wording of the Scriptures in a deliberate and outrageous effort to further promote the idea that homosexuality is not sin, and at the very least, is not something about which the church can take a strong stand against!' But your proof of this is nonsense - that not using 'sodomite' makes homosexuality OK. Perhaps you believe the authors of the Hebrew and Greek were in on the plot, since they did not use 'sodomite'???”
Clearly you are the one who is, to use your own phrasing, “incapable of following a logical statement”! My point is that by removing the word sodomite removes an important, specific, connection between the actual sin of homosexuality and the punitive destruction of the city. To simply reduce this to become a sin, rather than the specific sin of homosexuality, does in fact, at the very least, weaken the idea that homosexual activity incurs the wrath of God. Of course, ALL sin does this, that was not my point. My point was that by deliberately choosing a corrupted source text that does not make this homosexual link as being the specific sin in focus DOES weaken the resultant text and, whilst not entirely eradicating all and every mention of homosexuality, does still weaken the text and this is precisely the argument used by Woudstra, namely that the texts are not clear that homosexuality is something against which the church is justified in taking a negative stand. His involvement in the translation of the NIV clearly softened the connection between homosexual acts and an important specific example of God’s wrath toward it. Again, Wolfsbane, you wouldn’t dare afford such tolerance to this argument if it was being used to promote the KJV!, evidenced by the fact that you are prepared to use much less convincing arguments to call into question the reliability of the AV.
“Your further proof is that by using 'homosexual offenders' the NIV is saying only the practice of homosexuality is condemned. As I pointed out, desiring the sin is as much an offence as doing it. One wonders of course how condemning homosexual practise as worthy of hell in some way promotes homosexuality? And if the NIV wanted to promote homosexuality as OK, why did they translate like this:
ReplyDeleteRomans 1: 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
You are doing it again, Wolfsbane. I could understand how that someone may overlook something that their opponent has previously stated because they are in such haste to blast anything that undermines their own position, but to do it on numerous occasions, given that I have already addressed this point approximately THREE TIMES now, namely (and I quote), “this is clearly a case of chipping away gradually, in many cases, not always just one sudden strike-out” and, “just because a heretic's work is not seamlessly done is hardly an argument for accepting his/her work!”
'The man was a well-known homosexual and advocate of the homosexual lifestyle.' Well-known WHEN? Did the committee know this at the time? When did all this come out? … If there was evidence of it being known by the committee, that would be a big mark against them”
Are you being serious Wolfsbane? I mean, before God, are you seriously proposing to counter my charge using this?!! IT DID COME OUT… it’s a fact, and is attested by some of his closest associates and friends. This was the pedigree of “one of the most senior translators” of the subjectively orientated NIV, regardless of whether it was known by every single translator working in the committees. However, my point was that for a man to have been so far removed from spiritual soundness of mind in that he was an unregenerate sinner involved in the promotion of an aberrant lifestyle (even IF others were unaware of it) then surely this would have manifested itself in terms of others discerning that this man was not a sound born again believer. A man who has been living so far from God that he believed (and argued) that the church cannot use Scripture to justifiably take a strongly negative stand against homosexuality, would surely not be someone with whom any born again, Bible believing Christian would be happy to work with in the translation of Scripture (to argue that Woudstra’s liberal and unorthodox view of homosexuality would not have been apparent in those working committees whilst they worked through the texts is beyond the pale, Wolfsbane, unless you denude the other translators of even a even the tiniest smidgeon of discernment!) Which was my point in response to your statement. A statement that actually argues more for the REJECTION of the NIV than for it’s acceptance!
“If there was evidence that homosexuality was promoted by the NIV, both the translators and the version would have to be condemned.”
Amen!
“But all you have come up with so far is at best inferences. Suspicions don't count - bring us proof.”
ReplyDeleteNo, it is a verifiable fact that homosexuals, unrepentant and unregenerate, one of whom was considered to be one of the best in his subject area, and held a senior position within the translation committee, and who worked tirelessly to promote the homosexual cause and who is championed by homosexuals themselves as someone who did. When you consider his seniority within the translation committees, and when you consider his own statements regarding his views, especially as regards the church not being justified in taking a strongly negative stand against homosexuality on the basis of the OT and NT texts, coupled with the fact that the NIV was an extremely subjectively translated text, using some of the least reliable of source texts, then to argue that there is no proof or reason to believe that the translation was not marred by homosexuals who were free to cherry pick from very unreliable source texts is an extremely naive and unacceptable argument.
Proof, Wolfsbane;
"There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today" - Marten H. Woudstra as quoted by Evangelicals Concerned Inc.
Evangelicals Concerned Inc. is an organisation which was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian 'evangelical Christians' and their friends. Dr. Blair, who was a friend of Dr. Woudstra, says that Woudstra “was on their mailing list from the inception of the organisation and he shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong 'loving monogamous relationships' between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament [his special area of technical expertise] that corresponded to 'homosexual orientation'”.
Woudstra also helped the Christian Reformed Church’s special task group to produce it’s study report on Homosexuality. (The task group was appointed and began their work in 1970, the report was published in 1973.)
That report makes interesting reading (to say the least!):
“In fact, its [homosexuality] origin is so unclear as to be finally a mystery”
“As the cause of homosexuality is uncertain, so is the possibility of correcting it”
“From this story [Genesis 19, Sodom & Gomorrah] read as an isolated incident we cannot conclude however that homosexualism is here condemned”
“In how far the prohibition of homosexualism [in Lev 18:21 & 20:13] is binding on us is therefore a question that remains”
The report also makes constant use of the term “the Christian homosexual”
Clarence Boomsma, who was four times moderator of the CRC and pastor of two CRC churches, holding the record for the longest pastorate in the CRC; 35 years in the CRC church in Grand Rapids, was also one of the men appointed to the CRC task group on homosexuality who produced the report mentioned above. Boomsa had this to say about Dr. Woudstra’s homosexuality, “It is generally believed among us [Christian Reformed Church and Calvin Seminary] that Dr. Woudstra was a homosexual.”
The NIV OT (under the chairmanship of Dr. Woudstra) was not published until 1978. The NIV NT was published in 1973. The final complete work was published in 1978.
To assert that Woudstra’s unorthodox views regarding the Bible and Homosexuality were not known prior to the completion of the NIV, especially by the scholars who worked under his chairmanship as “expert in his field”, is impossible to accept! (unless, like I said, you call into question their discernment, or their suitability as up-to-date scholars in their area of expertise!) Whichever way you slice this, it is an argument against the NIV, not an argument for it!
“'and considering the entirely different translation philosophies employed by the NIV translators such as dynamic equivalence,' You and I may not like dynamic equivalence, but I have never before heard it suggested that it is an evidence of homosexual conspiracy!”
ReplyDeleteA straw-man argument… and a telling one. It is interesting that whilst you, correctly, dislike dynamic equivalence, you don’t see the danger which it opens the text up to when being translated by someone with aberrant views. I say your argument is a straw-man argument because I never suggested that “dynamic equivalence is EVIDENCE of homosexual conspiracy” … my point was that it makes such a conspiracy possible… and when you add translators of Woudstra’s pedigree to the mix, it’s inevitable. Though, clearly, short of providing you with photographic evidence of Woudstra actually engaging in an act of Sodomy, or verbally admitting under oath that he did seek to corrupt the text, you will refuse to even consider that which is factually known about him.
“'are you seriously, and honestly, suggesting for even one single moment that the resultant translation of the NIV was utterly unaffected by such corruption?' Yes, I don't see any clear evidence of homosexual promotion in it. It's not my favourite version, but I don't see how it is pro-homosexual at all.”
That is naivety to a level that you would never tolerate in your opponents.
“Dr. Richard Bancroft, the general overseer of getting the AV completed, and the ruling spirit in the High Commission Court - a sort of Inquisition - became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1604, around the commencement of the AV work. Within a year, some 300 ministers were suspended, deprived, excommunicated, imprisoned, or forced into exile.”
But he wasn’t free to cherry pick in the way in which translators using dynamic equivalence, using vastly inferior texts, were. So, again, you are not comparing like with like.
'You use sin amongst the Twelve (which was dealt with appropriately and accordingly) as a justification for the acceptance of sinful corruption!' You seem incapable of following a logical statement. But here goes: Secret sin among the Twelve did not invalidate the ministry of the Twelve, neither must it in the NIV committee. Only known sin, tolerated and accepted as OK by the group, would make the ministry invalid.
No, correction, Wolfsbane, works produced by unregenerate sinners, homosexuals and ecumenicals using faulty translation philosophies and methodologies and very unreliable source texts, which had been previously rejected for centuries, cannot be defended by pointing to sin amongst the Twelve. Because, the sins amongst the Twelve were dealt with within the group and by discernment. Put simply, the pure work of the Twelve did not sit comfortably with sin… it was exposed and thus cast out… and before their work was completed! Not so with the NIV translation group! Even going by your own “logic” you should be arguing that given those facts, the NIV cannot continue to be defended as worthy of use, and it certainly cannot be seriously considered as good or better than the AV (though, to be fair to you, I don’t think you would say that it is as good or better than the AV… but many do and it is important to make it clear, especially in an open public forum) Rather, like the sinner amongst the Twelve, now that we know these things about the fact that morally corrupt translators worked comfortably without problem with other translators involved in the translation of the NIV, the work should be cast out, not defended. Just what sort of rag-tag of translation group was this? Homosexuals, ecumenicals and other dubious characters… hardly folks that you would be happy to see teaching in your church, without repentance, let alone being set free to cherry pick as they pleased from unreliable source texts in an effort to produce a “version” of holy Scripture!
The very fact that you don’t like dynamic equivalence translations and yet seek to defend this point is absolutely absurd!
“I said:'“The omissions that could be read to support a doctrine are the EXCEPTION.”
ReplyDeleteYou replied: 'That is not true!'
You keep making the assertion, but offer no proof!”
Neither do you, but that doesn’t seem to stop you from making your own repetitive point! Your hypocrisy doesn’t diminish my assertion.
I did say that I would be providing evidence, in due time and in context, against the idea that this is merely an “exception” as this series continues, and I shall.
Indeed, as I also pointed out, your statement is hardly an argument that bolsters your position, at any rate!
“‘Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?” (by the way, interesting choice of phrasing… and noted!)' You sure have a strange mind! I thought one so fond of ancient language would know of this one!”
I never said that I was unfamiliar with it, I simply said that it was an interesting choice of phrasing, and given this current discussion it is. But there you go again, Wolfsbane, you attack the personality and mental condition of your opponent, in an unconvincing attempt to fill the vortex of intellectual redundancy that is so evident in so many of your own arguments. It might get a cheer from commentators like Peter, but it is an altogether strange approach to adopt by someone who has a pious disdain of “the invective of KJ-only-ers!”
“'No, it’s not, Wolfsbane! It’s about accuracy of translation, reliability of source texts, and philosophy and methodology of translation.' I agree - so why do you keep making silly claims that the AV may omit or add words that seem to weaken a doctrine, but other versions may not? “
If you agree, then why do you keep inferring the silly idea that the work of the AV translators can be so easily compared, on a like-for-like basis, with translations such as the NIV (which used unacceptable translation methodologies and philosophies and the least reliable source texts)?
“'When a reliable translation is made, doctrine is not affected'. Agreed!”
Glad to hear that! I hope it has occurred to you that the opposite is also true!
“Let me repeat that last bit: THE AV is not word-for-word all the time. So you can't make that an absolute demand for a good translation.”
Repeat it as often as you like… I don’t (and didn’t) argue otherwise!
“I'm saying that none of this should be blamed on the compliers or translators. The apparent weakening is just that - apparent. The doctrines they are supposed to weaken are clearly taught elsewhere in the text.”
That argument doesn’t hold much water, especially as per the dynamic equivalent versions such as the NIV … doctrinal truth can be watered down and undermined in part without being entirely erased from the text in one go… evidenced by the approach used by the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
“'On many occasions, big and unwarranted changes are made and without so much as a footnote to indicate it!' Whether they are warranted or not IS the debate. Making the allegation is not proof of it. That's a fallacy called 'begging the question'.”
ReplyDeleteAnother straw-man argument there, Wolfsbane! Or, put another way, there is plenty of proof and I shall be bringing these evidences out in turn as this series continues.
“'and without so much as a footnote to indicate it!' And this is why my favourite version is the NKJV! Full of textual footnotes!”
That is a subject that I suspect Maurice will likely post about (we shall see)… and I’ll be happy to deal with that one fully in turn. It’s worthy of an entire post of its own!
“Seems to me my 'red-herrings' are things you cannot answer, so you ignore them.”
It may seem like that to someone who finds comfort in word plays and sleight-of-hand approaches because their own arguments are found wanting. I just wonder how your conscience sits with that, before God. I have not ignored anything you have said. By all means take issue with things I say, but please don’t say things about me that are patently not true!
“'neither does it aid fluency or progression of conversation when you constantly ignore what IS said to you.' Please point out anything I missed. I'm not infallible, not even possessed of 'sacred tradition'. But as far as I can see, you think I ignore your comments just because I continue to offer argument against them.”
Your sarcastic, and graceless invective aside, my point is that you ignore things I say when you come back to accuse me of purporting things I have on numerous occasions claimed not to have said! Unless you, of course, are simply not being honest in your approach…?
“'As for “how the AV fares using the same criteria” – this is telling indeed. You evidently aren’t even aware that entirely different philosophies of translation and translation methodologies, (such as the criterion used, by the translation committees, to decide what is and what is not a reliable source text, etc.) were used by those who translated the NIV and those who translated the AV. The differences and the differences in the resultant texts are massive!' Oh, I am aware of the differences. I intend only to apply the same principles you offer me against the other versions, to the AV. No partiality.”
Basically, you restate what you have said before… and I offer the same response as I offered before, namely that you must argue the point on a like for like basis which includes, not just the philosophies and methodologies involved, but also the source texts used. Hardly impartial issues, unless you argue that the source texts are all equally reliable, and that the translation philosophies are all equally valid. (They are not!)
“I look forward to learning from you…”
Given your sarcastic, guffawing tone, I find this hard to believe!
Nevertheless, and as I have said, the issues will be dealt with in detail in time as this series continues.
“'Your inference here is that there are changes between the AV 1611 and the AV of today, and so, therefore, the changes made by the translators of the NIV are no different and therefore no less justified.' Yes - in answer to your point that the NIV is constantly being revised, I pointed out that the AV has been likewise revised several times. I haven't kept up to how many changes the NIV have got to, but I assume it is not many - otherwise it would be called something else. But if you know something about it I don't, please speak up.”
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong about this.
According to the Trinitarian Bible Society;
“The NIV translation Committee have determined that a new, revised edition of the NIV is in order. Because of changes (either perceived or actual) in the English language, a language which is "continuously subject to influences and developments worldwide...[the NIV] needs to be brought up to date in certain areas". The "influences and developments" that the Committee had in view were apparently those brought about by issues of political correctness such as the feminist agenda, because the changes being made in this new edition are the results of the introduction of gender-inclusive language. This follows the same fashionable obsessions or fads as seen in other modern versions such as the New Revised Standard Version, the Contemporary English Version and the Good News Bible 2nd Edition.
It must be noted at the beginning that this New International Version: Inclusive Language Edition does not go nearly as far in its changes as have other translations. It has retained "the gender used in the original languages when referring to God, angels and demons". However, "it was recognized that it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit".
The initial question to be asked is how one can remain faithful to the original language texts and at the same time abandon them. The cultures in which the Bible was originally written were strongly patriarchal. Families were headed by fathers, and except in unusual situations the inheritance was passed from father to son. In addition, fathers were often held responsible for the actions of their children and husbands for their wives (see Numbers 30). It is the males who were to be circumcised, the males who were to go to war and the males who were to present themselves before the Lord three times each year (Exodus 23.17). Thus, it is impossible to see how one can "mute the patriarchalism of the culture" without "compromising the message of the Spirit".”
ReplyDelete“On January 28, 2002, the International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House announced the publication of Today's New International Version, a revision of the trusty old NIV which was designed to incorporate 'gender-accurate' use of language. On February 23, 2002, World magazine replied with another cover story by Susan Olasky: 'Five days early, Five years late: The upcoming publication of a politically correct revision of the popular New International Version Bible seems like a scene from Groundhog Day'. She stated that, 'It was all reminiscent of the battles fought five years ago, beginning in March, 1997. That's when WORLD surprised IBS and Zondervan by breaking the story that the NIV was quietly going gender-neutral. IBS and Zondervan scrambled to get their side of the story out, taking advantage of the Internet to post open letters on their websites, and initially charging that WORLD got the story wrong'. In light of signatures of Barker and Ryskamp on the 'Colorado Springs Guidelines', Olasky commented that, 'when IBS and Zondervan announced plans for the TNIV last month, it was not merely a new product rollout. The two organizations were breaking well-publicized agreements that had seemed to deliver them from a public-relations quagmire. They were admitting that work on a gender-neutral Bible had continued despite IBS's pledge that it would not.' The preface to the TNIV states that, 'While a basic core of the English language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural forces continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well established words and phrases.' Part of these 'complex cultural forces' has caused the IBS to make what it classifies 'gender-related' changes. 'All gender-related changes in the TNIV are made to update masculine terminology that, in view of the immediate context, is often misunderstood and clearly used with generic intent. The changes do not have any doctrinal impact upon the text of Scripture'. However, the publishers were quick to point out that “The TNIV is not merely a gender-accurate edition of the NIV. More than 70 percent of the changes made were not related to gender’”
“'they did not manipulate the text away from the original and toward their own particular preference … simply put, the AV is in no way less Baptistic than the texts from which it was translated!' Really!? You think 'baptize'is an natural English word? Perhaps you better check the Greek:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G907&t=KJV”
So, in keeping with your position, do you tell people that you were “dipped”? or do you talk about your having been “baptized”?
The point I was making was that the AV translators didn’t remove from the text the basis of true baptism, whereas the NIV translators did. Which is interesting, given what you have said, in earlier comments, about the translators of the AV being “Baptist Haters”.
ACTS 8:36-38:
AV –
36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
NIV –
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Verse 37 in the NIV is relegated to a doubtful footnote – undermining the veracity of believer’s Baptism. The AV “Baptist haters” didn’t do this, interestingly. Even though it would have greatly assisted their beliefs about baptism to have undermined the veracity of believer’s baptism in such a way!
This is hardly an argument against the honesty of the AV translators, quite the opposite!
“'Indeed, Calvinists and Arminians can be found on both sides of the “versions” issue and so your point really adds nothing to the present conversation… unless you are suggesting that those who are of an Arminianistic bent are actually to be considered gross sinners and perverts such as homosexuals?' No ,just pointing out that the AV translators are not all the faithful servants of God you seemed to suggest.”
ReplyDeleteSo, if your not a Calvinist or if you don’t warm to baptistic theology, etc. you cannot be a faithful servant of God?
At least they were not unregenerate sinners such as those who have been so influential in the modern translations!
“'But the point is, had these “so-called” bigots (your words… obviously taken from others) actually done to the AV what the modern translators did to the NIV, then I would certainly have a major problem with it… but there is absolutely no evidence that they did! In fact, the evidence is to the contrary!' As I've now presented evidence for both paedo-baptist and Anglican tampering, I take it you now have a problem with the AV.”
Certainly not! “paedo-baptism” is blasted by verse 37 of Acts chapter 8 … which these “Baptist hating” Anglicans were, nevertheless, so careful and honest to translate correctly and retain within the text!
“I'll give you time to reflect.”
Here your condescending, graceless, pious hypocrisy shines forth!
For someone who is in such a rush to throw any scrap, no matter how ludicrous or self-confuting it may be to your case, at your opponents - to the extent that you do not even take the time to carefully read all the comments of your opponents before you respond, evidenced by the fact that you posted your comment before even bothering to take the time to check the other comment I had included some time before, hardly qualifies you as someone who should be encouraging others to “reflect” on these matters!
I want to make a quick reference to the comments of 'Peter' about his children not being able to understand the language in the KJV.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in a home where God was not honoured, but by His mercy I was saved as a child. The church which I subsequently attended used the KJV only and, because of gracious believers, who were prepared to disciple young people like myself, I never had any significant difficulty with learning what I needed to know as I grew in my Christian walk.
Also, I remember being encouraged as a teenager to read God's Word prayerfully, and ask Him to reveal His truth to my heart. The verses I learnt as a child are buried in my heart, and they have great meaning in my Christian life today.
I am not in a position to argue in depth about translation styles and textual differences, but I do know that the KJV, if a believer will apply themselves to it prayerfully, is as easily learnt as any other translation. Now I have children of my own, and I will take time to train them, using the KJV, as I have seen the benefit of it.
Too many people today use understanding of the scriptures as an excuse to accept weaker translations. It is a symptom of the culture in which we live, where people have a 'junk food' mentality to everything. It is no more difficult today to read and understand than it was thirty years ago, the problem is, we have so many other distractions today in society, that we want our scriptures 'quick and easy', just like everything else. We are in danger of raising a society of lazy christians, who don't want to dig deep and learn much, but would rather have superficial, scratch the surface only christianity.
'but then we need to consider the source texts and the reliability of the sources used to furnish those translations, etc. It is perfectly conceivable that you can arrive at a highly word-for-word version...based on less accurate source texts. Thus, the resultant translation would not be more accurate than the KJV despite it being produced via the word-for-word method.' True. Each issue has to be addressed: Textual support and translation principle.
ReplyDeleteHere's my problem with the AV-has-the-best-textual-support position: the argument starts out with the claim that the true text has been preserved by the Byzantine text-type, and not by the others. (Is that your position?)
It argues that the other text types are corrupt and any omission or addition compared to the Byzantine text is a corruption - and any version translating that is therefore corrupt. (Is that your position?)
All well and good, if the Byzantine text is indeed the true text.
But when I point out that the AV departs from the Byzantine text-type in various places, how do you respond? By saying those places are not really important, or less important than those departures found in the NIV, ESV, etc?
Surely 'corruption' is corruption? Is that the right way to speak of other translations, but not of the AV?
Other AV supporters see the problem, and argue that Erasmus and the other compliers of the TR were guided by God to choose the right bits of the 'corrupt' texts instead of the true, Byzantine text. Others go even further, arguing that the English of the AV must be inerrant too, otherwise we don't have an inerrant Bible.
What is your position on the TR's use of the Vulgate over against the Bzyantine text? Is it OK for Ersamus, et al to use 'corrupt' texts, but not the compliers of the NIV, ESV, etc?
Again, the argument is often used that the TR/AV is based on the great majority of copies, while the NIV, etc. is based on only a few. But that is not the case -the TR/AV is based on many more copies that the NIV, etc., BUT by no means the majority. If numbers count, as the AV supporters imply in using this criticism of the NIV, then that condemns the AV for the same reason as the NIV - most of the copies are against it.
To keep this simple so that all who are following it can be sure of what your defence of the AV really is, please tell us what is the true text-type of the New Testament, and is it OK for the AV to depart from it?
More later.
'It never ceases to amaze me how that many of the folks who believe that the KJV is not the most accurate version in the English tongue seem to think that the “versions” issue can be properly discussed in a quick, all encompassing, blog post or comment.'
ReplyDeleteYou're right, it is a big subject. It needs plenty of blog space. But headway can be made 'bit by bit', exposing the fallacies in argument, and downright errors of fact, as they come up.
Glad to be of service.
'The "big deal" is... we ought to hold to the most accurate translation of Scripture in our mother tongue, not settle for anything less! Especially not corrupted "versions"'
ReplyDeleteThe problem comes when one seeks to class as 'corrupt' any version not one's own. Apparently the apostles were guilty of using 'corrupt' versions, as they quoted from the LXX, not the Hebrew Masoretic text prepared in 1524-25 by Jacob ben Chayyim.
And of course Wycliffe, the morning Star of the Reformation, preached from a translation of the 'corrupt' Vulgate.
If only today's AV experts had been there, the use of corrupt versions could have been avoided.
'Due to the translation philosophies used to furnish the NIV, the reader can never be sure if the words he is reading have inspired words of God behind them or not. He never knows when sound or unsound interpretations are a part of this English text. He can never be sure that, when doing word studies, he has a word to study!'
ReplyDeleteYes, that is a valid criticism of dynamic equivalence. That's why I only use the NIV for consultation. It is good when it gets it right - the meaning then can be very helpful.
However, throwing stones at the NIV for dynamic equivalence gets one or two smashed windows in the AV, for it is not entirely word-for word either. The translators were not beyond giving the meaning rather than the words when they thought fit.
'It should be noted that even if you were right about the KJV, you do not solve such a problem by introducing a different, even greater, problem!'
ReplyDeleteCorrect! And the same goes in reverse - solving a problem in the modern versions by leaving a bigger one in the AV is no help at all.
The answer is to acknowledge the weaknesses in each version and respect the better versions. No need to make one THE Bible, especially not by making slurs on ALL the others. Where criticism is deserved, in the AV and others, let's make it impartially.
'But the point is, if it is wrong to have an unregenerate sinner on the job of translating the Scriptures, then there must be a reason for it being wrong in the first place… namely because their involvement is not only inappropriate, as a fact, whether known at the time or not, but someone with unclean hands can hardly be said to not have had a sullying influence on a work,'
ReplyDeleteYes, but if they remain secret unbelievers, they must have the same effect - if your conclusion is a must. The AV had 47 on its committee - are you saying NONE of those men were secret fornicators, homosexuals, paedophiles, thieves, etc? Given the history of the Church, that's expecting a bit much.
No, the issue is, Can they be shown to have corrupted the version?
You only 'proof' is:
1. the change of term from sodomite' to 'perverted one' or 'cult prostitute', etc.
But the Hebrew reveals the meaning for the AV term in the OT:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2023:17&version=NKJV
Why does the AV not use the term in the NT, if it is necessary to pinpoint homosexuality as a sin?
2. use of 'those practicing homosexuality'(NIV) instead of 'for them that defile themselves with mankind' (AV).
How is 'that defile themselves with mankind' more clearly about homosexuals than 'those practicing homosexuality'? BOTH refer to the action - 'that defile' and 'practise', so your assertion that one points to the person and the other to the practise is plain wrong.
And it is the NIV that specifically uses the term 'homosexual'.
NO proof that the NIV deliberately weakened the condemnation of homosexuality. Just plain bad exegesis. I blame Michael Penfold.
'especially in the case of the NIV which adopted a dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation such that relied heavily upon the subjective views, and, importantly, the “discernment” (something an unbeliever, engaged in gross sin – regardless of when it was discovered - can hardly be said to have!) of the translators involved. And, especially since the person in question was so senior in their involvement of translation.'
ReplyDeleteCorrect, we need to test the work where such influence could be present. But as I've said, you produce no proof that homosexuality has been promoted. The same insinuations you have made about the NIV could be made about the AV:
1. The AV committee appointed by the homosexual head of that church, composed entirely of his subordinates.
2. The use of 'sodomite' restricted to the OT, implying homosexuality was only wrong under the Mosaic covenant, not under the New.
See how #2 works? Both it and yours are invalid criticisms of the versions. They presume homosexual promotion to be the reason for the word use, but without proof.
'I think you are showing an extreme level of tolerance towards the NIV and it’s translators, such that you would never dream of showing to the AV and it’s translators…'
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one accusing a version of being 'corrupt' and a 'perversion'. The AV is a fine version. Like other conservative Evangelical versions, it has some blemishes.
'If it were shown to be the case that one of the KJV translators was an unregenerate sinner, and involved in gross sexual immorality, you would be bellowing the point as a major reason for doubting the veracity of the claims of KJV promoters about the reliability of the resultant text!'
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I have already made the point that even the ministry of the Twelve had a secret apostate, and that did not call it into question.
'in fact, you even mount an attempt to do just that with you ludicrous argument about King James’s views on homosexuality being a corrupting influence on the AV (an extremely weak argument, according to even many who would hold to your view point about versions).'
You haven't read me right. I was making the point that using YOUR approach, the AV could be condemned as a pro-homosexual version. But using a proper approach, both it and the NIV cannot be so accused.
'You also evidence a lack of historical knowledge about a former King of England. He was actually involved in far more than just homosexual kissing or petting… I have read Buckingham’s diaries and they were involved in even more serious and debauched activities than that (at least as far as we can trust those Diary entries, which probably were true enough).'
ReplyDeleteThank you for the valuable update. I did stop reading when it discussed his homosexuality. When I get time, I may explore the nature of his further corruptions.
Imagine naming your Bible after such a man! No doubt politically correct, but hardly in keeping with the holy word contained within!
'But that, of course is not the issue, because James was not actively involved in the translation of the text,'
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the head of the church that formed the AV committee, the man authorising it, the man laying down the rules and to whom the Archbishop of Canterbury answered, was not actively involved in the translation? Just because he did not himself translate the Greek into English? All he needed to do was instruct them what sort of theology or church government or morality would be acceptable. How much he did so we do not know, other than the obvious Anglican bias in certain parts of the finished work.
'and certainly if he was, then we must add DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) to the list … because the resultant text of the AV can hardly be said to be more tolerant of homosexuality than the Received Text and the Byzantine texts, which are by far the most reliable source texts,'
The RT and the Byzantine texts contained specific words for both the 'wife' and 'husband' type of homosexual - the AV calls the former 'effeminate' and uses a rather vague phrase for the latter, 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Does that not weaken the identification with homosexual? Do we think every effeminate man we know is a homosexual, or do we think some may be, some are just a bit girlish in mannerism - mamma's boys?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G733&t=KJV
And abuser of oneself with mankind? Lager-louts? Drug-users?
No wonder the NIV uses 'men who have sex with men' to cover both, and the NKJV uses 'homosexuals, nor sodomites'. The ESV uses 'men who practice homosexuality'.
And the NIV footnote reads: 'The words 'men who have sex with men' translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.'
The ESV footnote reads:'The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts'
THe AV is the one 'weakening' the case against homosexuals, going by your reasoning.
'compared to the corrupted, rejected texts used by the likes of the NIV.'
Yes, the NIV uses Greek texts I would consider less accurate than the Byzantine. But so does the AV! Why talk of 'corrupted, rejected texts' for the NIV, but ignore the 'corrupted, rejected texts' in the AV? That's defending tradition at all costs, including the truth.
'it is the translation philosophy used by the translators of the NIV (and others like it) that leaves it so dangerously open to the subjectivity of the translators and thus the involvement of such people is far more dangerous and corrupting in terms of the marring of the work, and the potential to mar the work, than was the case with the AV, which was translated by people who applied a very much different philosophy of translation.'
ReplyDeleteBoth versions were exposed to serious harmful powers. Whether a homosexual committee man used his influence to weaken the wording of the version, or a homosexual king used his to influence the choice of terms in translation, is debatable. But the answer is to check the version and see if such corruption has entered. As far as I can see, no homosexual bias can be proved in either version, though both could be accused of it if one had an overly suspicious mind.
'But, again, the point is, none of the AV translators appear to have been unregenerate, sinners … the same cannot be said of the NIV translators, who DID have homosexuals, ecumenists, and liberals within their ranks. The fact of the matter is not in question, so you cannot take that which is an admitted fact and that which is a “what-if” and present them as equal,'
ReplyDeleteWell, Yes, I can - for your position depends on the credibility that 47 men in high positions were all converted men, none of them being a secret fornicator, homosexual, paedophile, thief, etc. The history of the church suggests that VERY unlikely.
'My point is that by removing the word sodomite removes an important, specific, connection between the actual sin of homosexuality and the punitive destruction of the city. To simply reduce this to become a sin, rather than the specific sin of homosexuality, does in fact, at the very least, weaken the idea that homosexual activity incurs the wrath of God. Of course, ALL sin does this, that was not my point. My point was that by deliberately choosing a corrupted source text that does not make this homosexual link as being the specific sin in focus DOES weaken the resultant text'
ReplyDeleteYou are sadly misinformed. NONE of the texts has 'sodomite'. It is an English word the AV folk used to denote the Hebrew 'qadesh':
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6945&t=KJV
There is nothing in the Hebrew to relate it to the word 'Sodom'. It is a male word meaning homosexual male prostitute. The female equivalent is 'qĕdeshah', which the AV translates as 'harlot'. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6948&t=KJV
Get it? qĕdeshah, qadesh. Cult prostitutes.
So nothing to do with changing the texts.
The only puzzling thing is why the AV did not use 'sodomite' of plainly homosexual texts in the NT. The hyper-suspicious could accuse the AV of making homosexuality a mosaic sin, not a NT sin.
I'm glad I'm not hyper-suspicious.
' the argument used by Woudstra, namely that the texts are not clear that homosexuality is something against which the church is justified in taking a negative stand.'
ReplyDeleteI would expect a homosexual to make that (unfounded) assertion - but did he say the removal of 'sodomite' accomplished that?
If so, I'm sure he admired the AV for not using it in the NT references to homosexuality.
But I think he did not. Rather he was playing with words, suggesting it is OK to embrace homosexual feelings, as long as one did not engage in the act. Nonsense, of course.
Homosexuals might like to claim it is the overt act that is condemned, but it is both the lust and the act. So 'homosexual offender' does not serve their purpose, unless you concede it does.
'However, my point was that for a man to have been so far removed from spiritual soundness of mind in that he was an unregenerate sinner involved in the promotion of an aberrant lifestyle (even IF others were unaware of it) then surely this would have manifested itself in terms of others discerning that this man was not a sound born again believer.'
ReplyDeleteLike Judas? Or many others down the ages who gave outward appearances of faith, but were deceived and deceiving. No, Stephen, it is quite possible for an unconverted man to go undetected his whole life in the midst of God's people.
The more mature believer may get a suspicion or two, but they are not the Holy Spirit - they cannot search the heart.
'to argue that Woudstra’s liberal and unorthodox view of homosexuality would not have been apparent in those working committees whilst they worked through the texts is beyond the pale, Wolfsbane, unless you denude the other translators of even a even the tiniest smidgeon of discernment!'
ReplyDeleteDo you have proof that he openly promoted those views to the committee? If he did, they were miserable compromisers for letting him continue. But show us the proof.
I've found that sinners are very clever at concealing their sins or heresies, until it suits them to come out.
'then to argue that there is no proof or reason to believe that the translation was not marred by homosexuals who were free to cherry pick from very unreliable source texts is an extremely naive and unacceptable argument.'
ReplyDeleteSo show me where the NIV promotes homosexuality. If he was actively distorting the word to make homosexuality acceptable, there will be evidence of it. Evidence, not suspicions.
'It is interesting that whilst you, correctly, dislike dynamic equivalence, you don’t see the danger which it opens the text up to when being translated by someone with aberrant views.'
ReplyDeleteBut I do see the danger. Dynamic equivalence opens the way for all sorts of mistaken views, and down-right heresy. But the question remains: did Woudstra actually corrupt the translation. He was in a postion to at least try it on, but did he? Proof?
'I say your argument is a straw-man argument because I never suggested that “dynamic equivalence is EVIDENCE of homosexual conspiracy” … my point was that it makes such a conspiracy possible… and when you add translators of Woudstra’s pedigree to the mix, it’s inevitable.'
So a sinner is going to sin at EVERY opportunity? Even if his job is on the line?
'Though, clearly, short of providing you with photographic evidence of Woudstra actually engaging in an act of Sodomy, or verbally admitting under oath that he did seek to corrupt the text, you will refuse to even consider that which is factually known about him.'
Have I denied he was a homosexual? NO. What I have denied is that you have shown he actually corrupted the NIV to make homosexuality acceptable.
So what I want is NIV text to show this corruption (text will do, no need of photographic evidence).
'But he [Bancroft]wasn’t free to cherry pick in the way in which translators using dynamic equivalence, using vastly inferior texts, were. So, again, you are not comparing like with like.'
ReplyDeleteHe was free to order the text to be done his way, no matter what principle of translation was used:
"Archbishop Richard Bancroft and his Influence on the KJV.
It was Archbishop Bancroft that approved or made the rules for the translation of the KJV. By his establishment of the rules and overseeing of the actual translation, Bancroft had great influence on the KJV. Bancoft's chaplain, Leonard Hutten, was one of the translators. Several bishops who were in agreement with many of Bancroft's views and were directly under his chain of command were also translators.
In spite of his great influence and authority over the translation, the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft. This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published. Paine noted that Miles Smith, final Editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128).
Henry Jessey, a Baptist pastor in the early 1600's, complained about the KJV for its bent favoring "episcopacy," and said that Bancroft, "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53). "Prelacy" refers to a system of church government by Prelates such as Archbishops and Bishops set over more than one local church.
Were these fourteen changes directly inspired or approved by God? Are they the "verbally inspired Word of God, preserved through all ages since the Apostles?" One reason to question these fourteen changes is that the changes were certainly made to support episcoplian church government views of the Church of England. The changes were also in violation of some of the translation rules for the KJV. In addition, expressed opposition by some of the KJV translators to these changes indicate that these changes were viewed wrong by these translators."
http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm
'Even going by your own “logic” you should be arguing that given those facts, the NIV cannot continue to be defended as worthy of use,'
ReplyDeleteThen given the facts, you too must reject the AV as corrupted and unworthy of use. Or are some homosexuals and errors acceptable?
'and it certainly cannot be seriously considered as good or better than the AV (though, to be fair to you, I don’t think you would say that it is as good or better than the AV…'
Correct. I hold to the Majority Text as being the most accurate, so that puts the AV above the NIV on accuracy - but still makes both deficient. The difference between your position and mine is this: I say many translations are accurate enough to be considered the word of God, whether based on the Majority Text, the Received Text or the Critical Text.
The Vulgate is the word of God. The Geneva Bible is the word of God. The AV is the word of God. The NIV is the word of God. The NKJV is the word of God. The ESV is the word of God. Some are more accurate than others, but ALL are the word of God - NOT 'perversions'.
'Rather, like the sinner amongst the Twelve, now that we know these things about the fact that morally corrupt translators worked comfortably without problem with other translators involved in the translation of the NIV, the work should be cast out, not defended. Just what sort of rag-tag of translation group was this? Homosexuals, ecumenicals and other dubious characters… hardly folks that you would be happy to see teaching in your church, without repentance, let alone being set free to cherry pick as they pleased from unreliable source texts in an effort to produce a “version” of holy Scripture!'
And the homosexual king/head of the church who set up the AV translation? The persecuting Archbishop who pressurised the translators? And the secret homosexuals, fornicators, paedophiles, thieves who may have been among the 47-man committee? Should we reject the AV on that basis, or should we rather examine the AV for evidence of tampering by sinners?
I go for the latter in ALL versions.
'I never said that I was unfamiliar with it ['sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander'], I simply said that it was an interesting choice of phrasing, and given this current discussion it is.'
ReplyDeleteDo enlighten us.
'why do you keep inferring the silly idea that the work of the AV translators can be so easily compared, on a like-for-like basis, with translations such as the NIV (which used unacceptable translation methodologies and philosophies and the least reliable source texts)?'
ReplyDeleteTheir translation principles are indeed different - for the most part. But that was not my meaning. I mean, for example, we can raise the same objection you do about the NIV departing from the Byzantine text, about the AV. It too departs from the Byzantine text. If the NIV is 'corrupt' for doing so, so too is the AV.
Or accusing the NIV of airbrushing homosexuality because it does not use 'sodomite'. The AV does not use it for the NT occurrences of homosexuality - so is it suggesting homosexuality was merely a Mosaic sin, like eating pork?
'doctrinal truth can be watered down and undermined in part without being entirely erased from the text in one go…'
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Is that what was going on in the AV when it chose to separate 'Jesus Christ' from 'God'?
AV: Titus 2:13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
NKJV: Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
NIV: Titus 2:13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,
AV 'chipping away' at the deity of Christ?
'The "influences and developments" that the Committee had in view were apparently those brought about by issues of political correctness such as the feminist agenda, because the changes being made in this new edition are the results of the introduction of gender-inclusive language. This follows the same fashionable obsessions or fads as seen in other modern versions such as the New Revised Standard Version, the Contemporary English Version and the Good News Bible 2nd Edition.'
ReplyDeleteThat's why I said such changes would entail another version. No longer the NIV, but the TNIV.
I gather these are now to be discontinued in favour of the NIV 2010. Here's their explanation of 'gender-inclusiveness' in their version:
http://www.biblica.com/niv/accuracy/#2011
'So, in keeping with your position, do you tell people that you were “dipped”? or do you talk about your having been “baptized”?
ReplyDeleteI use 'baptized by immersion', where my hearers might otherwise misunderstand.
Why did the AV translators leave it in the Greek? Nothing to do with their paedobaptist theology?
'The point I was making was that the AV translators didn’t remove from the text the basis of true baptism, whereas the NIV translators did. Which is interesting, given what you have said, in earlier comments, about the translators of the AV being “Baptist Haters”.
ACTS 8:36-38:
AV –
36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
NIV –
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Verse 37 in the NIV is relegated to a doubtful footnote – undermining the veracity of believer’s Baptism.'
Rubbish! Verse 37 tells us belief in the Lord Jesus is a condition of baptism. But without that verse would anyone seriously doubt it? Is it not declared many times elsewhere? It is taken for granted here.
What the AV translators (not the Greek text)are guilty of is suppressing the meaning of 'baptize'.
Interesting also, that this verse is not part of the Byzantine text. It is found in the Western texts and in the Latin. So the AV is using 'corrupt' texts, by your standard.
'The AV “Baptist haters” didn’t do this, interestingly. Even though it would have greatly assisted their beliefs about baptism to have undermined the veracity of believer’s baptism in such a way!'
You are obviously ignorant of the doctrine of baptism. BOTH paedobaptist and Baptist insist on belief for the one baptised: either by proxy for the infant, or by the candidate - as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. If an Anglican bishop had stood in Phillip's place, he would have required the eunuch give a profession of faith in Christ.
'So, if your not a Calvinist or if you don’t warm to baptistic theology, etc. you cannot be a faithful servant of God?'
ReplyDeleteYou can be, just a less accurate one: like the versions issue.
'At least they were not unregenerate sinners such as those who have been so influential in the modern translations!'
You know their hearts? You are sure ALL 47 of them were saints?
'the fact that you posted your comment before even bothering to take the time to check the other comment I had included some time before, hardly qualifies you as someone who should be encouraging others to “reflect” on these matters!'
ReplyDeleteIf you check the times, you might see how close our postings were. Since I was constructing a long post, you were able to post yours before I got mine off.
I have changed my system now, breaking the argument up into one or two points at a time. Hopefully, that will resolve most cross-posting.
But when I point out that the AV departs from the Byzantine text-type in various places, how do you respond? By saying those places are not really important, or less important than those departures found in the NIV, ESV, etc?
ReplyDeleteSurely 'corruption' is corruption? Is that the right way to speak of other translations, but not of the AV?”
It’s not the way I speak of other translations per se, it is how I describe those translations (all of the modern translations) which have corruptions and hundreds of errors. A few blemishes of little or no consequence in the translation of the AV are not the same as corruptions and hundreds of errors which are evident in the modern translations. More on that later.
“Again, the argument is often used that the TR/AV is based on the great majority of copies, while the NIV, etc. is based on only a few. But that is not the case -the TR/AV is based on many more copies that the NIV, etc., BUT by no means the majority. If numbers count, as the AV supporters imply in using this criticism of the NIV, then that condemns the AV for the same reason as the NIV - most of the copies are against it.”
That’s actually not true. The Textus Receiptus IS based on the majority. You can only state otherwise by bulking the five thousand manuscripts of the Byzantine in together and classifying them as one text family… which, of course, is not accurate. Although, to be fair, I have actually argued this in more detail, earlier, and also previously stated that numbers, alone, do not settle the issue (they are important though). So to try and use the numbers issue against my argument is no more than a straw-man argument on your part.
To keep this simple so that all who are following it can be sure of what your defence of the AV really is, please tell us what is the true text-type of the New Testament, and is it OK for the AV to depart from it?
My position is as stated at the beginning of this discussion. The AV, whilst a translation at best, is the best translation in the English tongue to date. It is theoretically conceivable that an even more precise translation could be furnished, but to date that has not been evidenced. Given the current trends in scholarship, particularly in the areas of translation philosophy, methodology, and the use of much less reliable source texts, then it doesn’t seem like we are not going to get a better translation of the Scriptures in the English tongue any time soon. Until a superior translation in the English tongue is produced, I will continue to use the AV and encourage (not ‘force’) others to do likewise. I shall also continue to warn folks of the ludicrous and deceitful idea, currently circulating around the churches, that all translations are of equal merit.
From the time of the Reformation until the late nineteenth century, the church believed that the true text of the New Testament resides in the Received Text, derived from Greek manuscripts belonging to the Byzantine tradition - that the true text is essentially the same as what we now call the Byzantine Text. The church never resolved every uncertainty as to the correct reading. The best alternative among some minor variants was never settled absolutely. But the church was content that, in the main, Byzantine text preserves the real New Testament. Discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed other textual traditions and left doubt in some monds as to which tradition is most faithful to the original. Defenders of the Byzantine text argue, correctly, that the longtime supremacy of Byzantine text is a strong argument in its favour. Why, at the time of the Reformation, when the people of God were seeking the true text of the New Testament, would He have placed in their hands a text from the wrong textual tradition - in apparent violation of His promise to lead them, as they desired it, into all truth?
Of course, some scholars will argue against this; D. A. Carson says, “The Westminster Confession of Faith, and its counterpart, the Baptist Confession of 1689, are quite correct to attest to God's "singular care and providence" inasmuch as the text has been "kept pure in all ages . . .;" but "all ages" surely includes the first, second, and third centuries, not to mention the nineteenth and twentieth. Because this is so, we cannot understand "kept pure" to mean that each manuscript agrees perfectly with the other, since no manuscript agrees perfectly with any other. What is at stake is a purity of text of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants. This is true for any textual tradition.”
ReplyDeleteTwo things must be said against Carson’s assertion.
Firstly, doubts concerning the correct text indeed racked the church during the centuries he names - the first three and the last two. But these doubts do not undermine our confidence in the Byzantine text! Weeding out all the invalid texts which immediately sprang up after the New Testament was completed was a process requiring several centuries, much like the process leading to general confidence in the exact limits of the canon. The last two centuries have been a period of apostasy. We should not be surprised that when modernist skepticism and cultic superstition have inundated the church, the church should also suffer a plague of false Bibles resting on false texts!
Secondly, the umbrella of substantial agreement which covers the approximately five thousand Byzantine manuscripts does not reach out to the other manuscript traditions, and differences between Byzantine and Alexandrian texts, for example, are not trivial. They touch many historical facts and practical teachings of great importance to believers. Hence, it is extremely hard to imagine how, if a text such as the Alexandrian text (which the NIV relies so heavily upon) is the right text, God could have so long withheld it from the church, while the church was seeking the "all truth" he had promised. Perhaps He withheld it precisely because it is a false text! The errors in the Alexandrian text stand at variance with the doctrine of inerrancy. Thus, He may have withheld the Alexandrian text until the time when, according to His sovereign plan, He was willing to let apostasy and its false teachings, including the denial of inerrancy, test the hearts of His people.
Although we can with confidence endorse the Byzantine text, it does not unequivocally specify every single word of the New Testament. Occasionally it offers variant readings. Other texts would have been consulted by the AV translators in this regard. Determining which readings are authentic, however, is not just a scholarly exercise!
“'The "big deal" is... we ought to hold to the most accurate translation of Scripture in our mother tongue, not settle for anything less! Especially not corrupted "versions"'
ReplyDeleteThe problem comes when one seeks to class as 'corrupt' any version not one's own.”
No, the problem comes when prideful people will not submit to the authority of God’s Word and, instead, seek to cherry pick and/or accept a “version” that tickles-their-fancy! The AV certainly didn’t tickle my fancy… especially not whilst I sought out and used other versions, earlier in my Christian walk… it was only by God’s grace that I was brought back to the AV… and what a challenge to my pride that was!
“throwing stones at the NIV for dynamic equivalence gets one or two smashed windows in the AV, for it is not entirely word-for word either. The translators were not beyond giving the meaning rather than the words when they thought fit.”
Nor were they wrong to do so and nor were they mistaken in the ways that they did so to anywhere like the level of inaccuracy which the translators of the NIV so often were! To present this issue as if to say that each did no different, and to the same extent, to the other, and that therefore each carries just as much merit, is dishonest.
“'It should be noted that even if you were right about the KJV, you do not solve such a problem by introducing a different, even greater, problem!'
Correct! And the same goes in reverse - solving a problem in the modern versions by leaving a bigger one in the AV is no help at all.”
Another one of your straw-man arguments! The KJV does not present an even greater problem.
“The answer is to acknowledge the weaknesses in each version and respect the better versions.”
Which, when taken to it’s fullest conclusion, will lead to holding onto the best and rejecting the rest.
“Where criticism is deserved, in the AV and others, let's make it impartially.”
But, given the fact that each must be examined in turn, and considering the multiple issues involved (different translation philosophies, different methodologies, different source texts, different translators (abilities, qualifications, reliability, honesty, track records, etc.), these are hardly issues about which born-again believers should be impartial!
“But the point is, if it is wrong to have an unregenerate sinner on the job of translating the Scriptures, then there must be a reason for it being wrong in the first place… namely because their involvement is not only inappropriate, as a fact, whether known at the time or not, but someone with unclean hands can hardly be said to not have had a sullying influence on a work,'
ReplyDeleteYes, but if they remain secret unbelievers, they must have the same effect - if your conclusion is a must. The AV had 47 on its committee - are you saying NONE of those men were secret fornicators, homosexuals, paedophiles, thieves, etc? Given the history of the Church, that's expecting a bit much.”
And there you go again with your straw-man argument… “but if”!
The problem is that when talking about the NIV translation committees, we are not talking about “if”. We are talking about verified fact. The NIV translation team had at least two homosexuals, one (Woudstra) at a very senior level, ecumenicals, and liberal theologians involved in the work. There have been rumours that other big names involved are homosexual too… but given the fact that a rumour is just that (until it is proven otherwise) I have not sought to suggest other names at this stage. I am dealing with facts, not ‘what if’ery’
To date, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the AV translators were involved in gross sin, and until such times as evidence comes to light, then deciding their guilt based merely on your expectations (wishful thinking!) does not hold the same amount of water as my assertion that the NIV translation was not furnished by appropriate and reliable scholarship! – certainly not as reliable as the translation of the AV. Again, you are not arguing like for like and, in fact, you even break your own rules (albeit misguided rules) of “impartiality”!
No, the issue is, Can they be shown to have corrupted the version?
Absolutely, yes!
“You only 'proof' is…”
No, Wolfsbane, you either have not read my earlier statements, or you are being dishonest. I have said that I shall be bringing more evidence to the table, in turn, as the discussion continues.
“I'm not the one accusing a version of being 'corrupt' and a 'perversion'. The AV is a fine version. Like other conservative Evangelical versions, it has some blemishes.”
To say that modern translations, such as the NIV, are “conservative, Evangelical versions” is an outright lie!
Furthermore, to suggest that there is no difference between “some blemishes”, and “hundreds of mistakes, as well as calibrated corruptions” is very telling, indeed!
“I have already made the point that even the ministry of the Twelve had a secret apostate, and that did not call it into question.”
ReplyDeleteAgain, you ignore what I actually said earlier; the sinner amongst the twelve was, when exposed, cast out from among them. This has not been the case with the translators of the NIV who had, amongst their number, ecumenicals and homosexuals! It is impossible to accept that Woudstra’s views would have been unknown to people who were considered to be up-to-date experts in their field working so closely with a man who had such demonstrable (given his work previous to the completion of the NIV translation, as well as the fact that they were working together on, and examining closely, the very words of the texts in question) abberant views regarding the Bible and Homosexuality. Again, unless you denude these people of discernment or suitability as up-to-date experts in their field of “expertise” – thus hardly “conservative” or “experts”.
“1. the change of term from sodomite' to 'perverted one' or 'cult prostitute', etc.
ReplyDeleteBut the Hebrew reveals the meaning for the AV term.
Why does the AV not use the term in the NT, if it is necessary to pinpoint homosexuality as a sin?
2. use of 'those practicing homosexuality'(NIV) instead of 'for them that defile themselves with mankind' (AV).
How is 'that defile themselves with mankind' more clearly about homosexuals than 'those practicing homosexuality'? BOTH refer to the action - 'that defile' and 'practise', so your assertion that one points to the person and the other to the practise is plain wrong.
NO proof that the NIV deliberately weakened the condemnation of homosexuality. Just plain bad exegesis. I blame Michael Penfold.
'especially in the case of the NIV which adopted a dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation such that relied heavily upon the subjective views, and, importantly, the “discernment” (something an unbeliever, engaged in gross sin – regardless of when it was discovered - can hardly be said to have!) of the translators involved. And, especially since the person in question was so senior in their involvement of translation.'
Correct, we need to test the work where such influence could be present. But as I've said, you produce no proof that homosexuality has been promoted. The same insinuations you have made about the NIV could be made about the AV:
1. The AV committee appointed by the homosexual head of that church, composed entirely of his subordinates.
2. The use of 'sodomite' restricted to the OT, implying homosexuality was only wrong under the Mosaic covenant, not under the New.
See how #2 works? Both it and yours are invalid criticisms of the versions. They presume homosexual promotion to be the reason for the word use, but without proof.
'I think you are showing an extreme level of tolerance towards the NIV and it’s translators, such that you would never dream of showing to the AV and it’s translators…'
“You are sadly misinformed. NONE of the texts has 'sodomite'. It is an English word the AV folk used to denote the Hebrew 'qadesh':
There is nothing in the Hebrew to relate it to the word 'Sodom'. It is a male word meaning homosexual male prostitute. The female equivalent is 'qĕdeshah', which the AV translates as 'harlot'.
Get it? qĕdeshah, qadesh. Cult prostitutes.
So nothing to do with changing the texts.
The RT and the Byzantine texts contained specific words for both the 'wife' and 'husband' type of homosexual - the AV calls the former 'effeminate' and uses a rather vague phrase for the latter, 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Does that not weaken the identification with homosexual? Do we think every effeminate man we know is a homosexual, or do we think some may be, some are just a bit girlish in mannerism - mamma's boys?
And abuser of oneself with mankind? Lager-louts? Drug-users?”
Wolfsbane, the term “abuser of oneself”, in context, denotes misuse of the body in a sexual sense. It is clear and adds further meaning to the sin in that it is here specifically described as an abuse of the body. Abuse of oneself in a sexual sense can also be understood to describe masturbation as it is a sexual activity that is a form of bodily abuse. So, two men involved in such an activity and together would be best described as “abusers of themselves with mankind”.
In the AV NT, the homosexuality is inferred (without any danger of it not being understood as homosexuality), and specifically categorized as something that is defiling, and thus sin. In the other versions, it is stated that they are homosexuals or engaging in homosexuality (the sin is named). The AV’s use of “defilile” describes the nature of the sin and it’s effects rather then simply naming it.
ReplyDeleteIn the NIV OT translation (the chairmanship of which was under the homosexual Woudstra) the homosexual practices are much less clear because Woudstra, et al, evidently worded their translation in such a way that emphasized a more general idea of perversion re. the temple prostitution, etc. The AV translators were more specific and called out the specific sins of anal sex (which is actually included in the meaning of the original because that’s what these perverts of the temple engaged in) by describing those that engaged in such filthy activity as “sodomites” (which is not, of course, restricted to the activities of homosexuals, but certainly includes it… and was also understood to have included oral-sex). Of course, I am told, that these are also the principle methods employed by homosexuals engaging in intercourse of a sexual nature. It is this kind of activity that was specifically being referred to in the original Hebrew reference – this was the specific form of such sexual temple antics being engaged in, and translated by the AV translators (who sought to translate the words and retain the original, pure decency of language in the source text). “Having sex with other men” may be more readable in our morally reckless and feckless society, but it is certainly a much more vulgar way of putting it, and certainly lacks the cadence of the original Hebrew text. It is also, ironically, much less precise in describing the actual sins engaged in. The OT of the NIV, translated under the chairmanship of a homosexual, interestingly, chooses to be less specific in its translation of the Hebrew words regarding the perversity of the temple prostitution antics.
The argument that homosexual activities are specifically called out as sinful elsewhere, especially in the NT (the chairmanship of which was not under Woudstra’s authority) is beside the point. The strength of the charge against people who engage in specific perverted sexual acts, whilst still retained over all, is watered down significantly and opens up a foot hold for even more liberal critics to suggest that the act of sodomy (also known in some legal fields as “buggery”) is not sin or abuse in and of itself, or that “there were no specific cases of it being mentioned or punished in the Scriptures.” With the AV, it is obvious. Much less so with the NIV… and this is hardly surprising given the involvement of strong advocates of “homosexuality” and “homosexualism” within the translation committee. It is also important to note where the strongest homosexual influence was brought to bear on the work of the NIV – Woudstra – the OT committee chairman. To miss this, and try to supplement the OT work with NT references, misses the point entirely. Also, and to be fair, I am not arguing that all of the OT references have been removed entirely, either… but there is evidence of deliberate tampering, especially with regard to specific references to anal sex.
Furthermore, Maurice, in describing such modern versions as “Sodomite scriptures” is absolutely right… perhaps more right than he realized! The acts that were engaged in at these perverted temples, which we today call “sodomy” is not restricted to homosexual activities (although CERTAINLY INCLUDE it, obviously). You cannot, for example, take the NIV and use it to show people, specifically, that acts of anal sex or oral sex (say, between husband and wife) are sin … you can with the AV!… because, like the original, it properly translates into our own language exactly what was being spoken of in the original Hebrew. The fact that you are ignorant of the historical facts regarding the specific acts engaged in as per the temple prostitution, etc., is not an argument against the translation work of the AV! Nor are you, evidently, qualified enough to be accusing others of being “sadly misinformed”!
ReplyDeleteThis IS clear evidence of tampering via clever slight-of-hand. Of course, I get the impression that no matter what evidence is brought to you, you will right it off as not enough… on your own head be it. But, your ignorance is no refutation of historically verifiable fact! Nor should AV supporters be described as “overly suspicious” when a sodomy-friendly translation such as the NIV is furnished at the hands of those who support such lifestyles and practices!
“the NKJV uses 'homosexuals, nor sodomites'. The ESV uses 'men who practice homosexuality'.”
Again, another one of your beloved straw-man arguments! I didn’t say that all of the modern translations are equally guilty of tampering with this particular issue, at least to the same extent as the NIV… though many of them are.
“THe AV is the one 'weakening' the case against homosexuals, going by your reasoning.”
Rubbish!
“And it is the NIV that specifically uses the term 'homosexual'.”
Another straw-man argument (or declaration of ignorance) – Of course the AV didn’t use the term homosexual… the term didn’t exist until the late 1800’s!
“Yes, the NIV uses Greek texts I would consider less accurate than the Byzantine. But so does the AV! Why talk of 'corrupted, rejected texts' for the NIV, but ignore the 'corrupted, rejected texts' in the AV? That's defending tradition at all costs, including the truth.”
ReplyDeleteAnother straw-man. You infer that each departs from the Byzantine in the same way and with equal measure. Not true! Nor did I state that the AV translators didn’t consult other texts!!
Your charge that I am “defending tradition at all costs, including the truth” could only be true if the former part of your statement was true too. Alas, it is not!
“But, again, the point is, none of the AV translators appear to have been unregenerate, sinners … the same cannot be said of the NIV translators, who DID have homosexuals, ecumenists, and liberals within their ranks. The fact of the matter is not in question, so you cannot take that which is an admitted fact and that which is a “what-if” and present them as equal,'
Well, Yes, I can - for your position depends on the credibility that 47 men in high positions were all converted men, none of them being a secret fornicator, homosexual, paedophile, thief, etc. The history of the church suggests that VERY unlikely.”
You cannot present a “what-if” as being equal to admitted facts if you want to be taken seriously!
“Very unlikely” is not the same as fact. The NIV was, verifiably, translated by Homosexuals and ecumenicals, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that the AV was translated by translators who were involved in gross sin.
“The only puzzling thing is why the AV did not use 'sodomite' of plainly homosexual texts in the NT. The hyper-suspicious could accuse the AV of making homosexuality a mosaic sin, not a NT sin.
I'm glad I'm not hyper-suspicious.”
Just very ignorant or naive!
Sodomy, whilst being an activity engaged in by homosexuals, is not ONLY a homosexual practice. The translators of the AV used “sodomites” to describe those involved in that activity (which we, today, call “sodomy”). This takes in the homosexual, for sure, but not only the homosexual. Other terms can be used to describe other acts which may not necessarily be acts of sodomy, but which are homosexual in nature.
“the argument used by Woudstra, namely that the texts are not clear that homosexuality is something against which the church is justified in taking a negative stand.'
I would expect a homosexual to make that (unfounded) assertion - but did he say the removal of 'sodomite' accomplished that?”
Yet you refuse to admit the evidence of tampering by the NIV OT translation committee (which included a very senior homosexual) especially with regard to a word which homosexuals (and other perverts) find most offensive!
“If so, I'm sure he admired the AV for not using it in the NT references to homosexuality.”
More sarcasm and ignorance! I hardly think including the full meaning for the Hebrew regarding the activities carried out by people engaged in oral sex and buggery is evidence that the AV translation committee were under the controlling influence of a homosexual king (who had no part in the actual translation of the AV text)!
“it is quite possible for an unconverted man to go undetected his whole life in the midst of God's people.”
ReplyDeleteBut, in the NIV translation committee’s case, the facts are now coming out… they were a rag tag of sexual perverts, ecumenicals and compromisers… or, not up-to-date experts in their fields, and therefore not suitable for the job!
“The more mature believer may get a suspicion or two, but they are not the Holy Spirit - they cannot search the heart.”
We are not talking here about undetectable influences! No doubt there are instances of covered sin that will only be exposed at the last, but we are talking here about evidence of deliberate tampering for vested interests.
“'to argue that Woudstra’s liberal and unorthodox view of homosexuality would not have been apparent in those working committees whilst they worked through the texts is beyond the pale, Wolfsbane, unless you denude the other translators of even a even the tiniest smidgeon of discernment!'
Do you have proof that he openly promoted those views to the committee? If he did, they were miserable compromisers for letting him continue. But show us the proof.”
Another straw-man – and you ignored what I said earlier… if these scholars were really the experts that some people would have us believe they were, then they would not only have been aware of up-to-date theological issues and works (such as those put forward by Woudstra, before the completion of the NIV) but they would have, if they were careful, conservative and spiritually minded, have discerned these views of Woudstra’s and others as they worked so closely with him to translate the very texts and words in question… as many other people have since discerned.
“So show me where the NIV promotes homosexuality. If he was actively distorting the word to make homosexuality acceptable, there will be evidence of it. Evidence, not suspicions.”
I have shown you where the NIV is sodomy-friendly. That’s a disgraceful big plus in the “right” direction for sodomites of every description, thanks to the translators of the NIV!, albeit not a 100 percent out and out entire declaration that homosexuality is acceptable to God (I never stated that it was!) Your willful blindness and constant charges that there is no proof may shorten the debate, but proves only your blind naivety!
“It was Archbishop Bancroft that approved or made the rules for the translation of the KJV. By his establishment of the rules and overseeing of the actual translation, Bancroft had great influence on the KJV. Bancoft's chaplain, Leonard Hutten, was one of the translators. Several bishops who were in agreement with many of Bancroft's views and were directly under his chain of command were also translators.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of his great influence and authority over the translation, the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft. This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published. Paine noted that Miles Smith, final Editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128).
Sounds very James White’ish!
Although White points out the work Gustavus Paine did on the translators of the KJV, he very conveniently overlooked Paine's conclusion:
“Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity - no mere mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them.” ("The Men Behind the King James Version," p. 173).
I know very well that the translators of the KJV are the focus of chapter four in White's book. "The KJV translators were not infallible human beings," White points out. "Some, in fact, may have harbored less than perfect motivations for their work" (p. 70). No one claims the KJV translators were infallible. Also, White is very vague in his statement. What is meant by "may have"? Where is the proof of such a statement? Paine does not suggest that the translators had any motives less than pure. Where is the imperfect motivation and who are the "some"?
White also proclaims that the translators were Anglicans, like Westcott and Hort, and believed in baby sprinkling (p. 71). Actually, the translators were Anglicans and Puritan. As for believing in baby sprinkling, he forgot to mention that the translators were more concerned with producing God's word for the English speaking people then they were in their church's doctrine. In the original preface to the KJV the translators wrote, "If we be the sons of the truth we must consider what it speaketh and trample upon our own credit, yea and upon other men's too." There is nothing in the finished text that proves otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWhite also has a series of quotes from the original preface to the KJV written by one of the translators, Dr. Miles Smith. (There’s no point repeating them all here for examination, most of which prove nothing or are taken out of context. For example, White seems to think the translators of the KJV favoured the need for additional translations and therefore would welcome modern versions (p. 76). It is true the translators stated a "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures." But this statement must be placed in its context. In marginal notes, expandatory definitions would be profitable. At the time the average reader owned few books, if any, and did not have access to the great wealth of study Bibles we have today. Marginal notes explaining words would make the use of the text that much more "profitable." The translators would not accept the readings of modern critical scholarship, however, The translators wrote "...and all is sound for substance in one or the other of our editions, and the worst of ours (that is before 1611) is better than their authentic vulgar."
You can say whatever you want about the translators of the KJV but the facts are very clear. The translators believed they translated the very word of God and that their work was beyond themselves.
“'Even going by your own “logic” you should be arguing that given those facts, the NIV cannot continue to be defended as worthy of use,'
Then given the facts, you too must reject the AV as corrupted and unworthy of use. Or are some homosexuals and errors acceptable?”
Straw-man, again… There is no evidence that the AV translators tampered with the text of the AV to make it less anti-buggery than the texts from which it was produced. Not so with the NIV!
“And the secret homosexuals, fornicators, paedophiles, thieves who may have been among the 47-man committee? Should we reject the AV on that basis, or should we rather examine the AV for evidence of tampering by sinners? “
ReplyDeleteHilarious, if it were not so serious! You almost make more straw-man arguments than James White! …and as regards his work on this subject, that really is saying a lot! He may be a good scholar in many areas of theology (actually, he is!)… but as regards the issue of “versions” he clearly proves himself NOT to be a jack-of-all-trades in the field of theology! – and it would be unfair to expect him to be, but the point is, the “versions” issue is not his strong point! Neither is it the strong point of folks who have only studied theology at a very low level, yet consider themselves to be authorities on the matter whilst blindly, and unquestioningly, regurgitating the words and claims of their [King] James White!
It’s telling, to say the least!
“‘Verse 37 in the NIV is relegated to a doubtful footnote – undermining the veracity of believer’s Baptism.’
Rubbish! Verse 37 tells us belief in the Lord Jesus is a condition of baptism. But without that verse would anyone seriously doubt it? Is it not declared many times elsewhere? It is taken for granted here.”
No, actually, it’s not so clearly declared elsewhere as it is here. Besides, you cannot simply cut parts of the text out, claiming, in effect, “aw, well, sure it’s mentioned elsewhere”! To do so would produce (to use your word) ‘rubbish’!
“What the AV translators (not the Greek text)are guilty of is suppressing the meaning of 'baptize'.”
Fanciful, and yet if it is such a bad word, then why do you continue to use it? Why not just tell people that you were “dipped under” the waters of “dipping”? Besides, it certainly hasn’t caused the “BAPTISTS” a problem!
The English language was profoundly changed by the AV translation which at times needed to use words that weren’t in common usage at the time. What else were they to call it, in the English of that time? “Dip-ism”?
“You are obviously ignorant of the doctrine of baptism. BOTH paedobaptist and Baptist insist on belief for the one baptised: either by proxy for the infant, or by the candidate - as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. If an Anglican bishop had stood in Phillip's place, he would have required the eunuch give a profession of faith in Christ.”
ReplyDeleteAnother dishonest straw-man (and evidently hypocritical, too!) You make the statement that “paedobaptist and Baptists insist on belief for the one baptized”!
The paedo-baptists insist on faith, by proxy, FOR the infant... which is not in line with ANY VERSE in scripture!
Baptists insist on a personal profession of faith FROM the one to be baptized! – in line with verse 37 of Acts chapter 8 (the very verse relegated to the footnotes by the NIV – which was my point!). Thus the NIV weakens the veracity of the truth of this very clear difference in the text between true believer’s baptism and paedo-baptism.
Your little line about, “if an Episcopalien bishop had stood in Philip’s place…” is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the point being made!
“The difference between your position and mine is this: I say many translations are accurate enough to be considered the word of God, whether based on the Majority Text, the Received Text or the Critical Text.”
Then either you are extremely ignorant of the topic, or you are being dishonest! I blame James White!
“The NIV is the word of God. The NKJV is the word of God. The ESV is the word of God. Some are more accurate than others, but ALL are the word of God - NOT 'perversions'.”
Utter nonsense!
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteYour comments (below) require further examination (exposing!):
“The difference between your position and mine is this: I say many translations are accurate enough to be considered the word of God, whether based on the Majority Text, the Received Text or the Critical Text.”
“The NIV is the word of God. The NKJV is the word of God. The ESV is the word of God. Some are more accurate than others, but ALL are the word of God - NOT 'perversions'.”
At best, these statements evidence a serious ignorance on your part regarding this subject, and at worst, they slander the very Word of God!
The NIV made numerous unwarranted changes strictly on the basis of the translators’ judgement. When Rebekah’s family spoke to Abraham’s servant, asking him to let the young woman remain for a few more days (Genesis 24:55), the AV says, “after that she shall go.” The NIV changes this to, “then you may go.” The Hebrew, indeed, could be ‘she’ or ‘thou’ (‘you’ in the masculine singular), but the change would indicate that Rebekah’s family was permitting the servant to leave by himself (“then thou mayest go”).
Genesis 34 also bears an unwarranted change. Dinah’s brothers, in response to Shechem’s desire to marry Dinah, gave requirements for the marriage to take place, If these requirements are met, the Jews will give their daughters and take the Hivites’ daughters (verse 16). If not, the brothers “will…take our daughter” and go (verse 17). The NIV changes ‘daughter’ in verse 17 to ‘sister’. While it was true that Dinah was the mens’ sister, the Hebrew word (and the wording of the preceding verse) requires the word ‘daughter’. If inerrancy is based upon words, and Jesus Himself declared that even the smallest part of a letter would not pass away (Matthew 5:18), this sort of baseless change affects much more than just one verse; it has an impact on the whole of Scripture.
This impact is clearly seen in Hosea 12:4. The passage speaks of Jacob overpowering the angel and then making supplication to God. Hosea says that in Bethel God “spake with us.” In Genesis 28:13, God spoke with Jacob alone; on this basis the NIV changes ‘us’ in Hosea to ‘him’. The context of Genesis 28 would make it so. But the Hebrew in Hosea is ‘us’. Just as the priests, while “yet in the loins” of their father Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec (Hebrews 7:7-10), so in Genesis God speaks to not only Jacob but to all who were “in his loins” – a statement that would include all the people of Israel in the sins and blessings of Jacob. To change the ‘us’ in Hosea to ‘him’ does away with the full force of the verse, not to mention the impact that God intended; again the final impact is upon the whole Bible itself.
An area of change in the NIV which affects virtually all of the Old Testament is the translators’ interpretation of the most common titles of God. Beginning in Genesis 15:2, they render Adoni YHVH, a form of the covenant name of God usually translated ‘Lord GOD’, as ‘Sovereign LORD’. Indeed, the idea of God’s sovereignty is found in this passage and throughout Scripture. But Adoni means ‘my Lord’, and the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, has the idea of ‘being’. Rendering the name ‘Sovereign LORD’ tends to emphasise God’s sovereignty only, while the context could very well be dealing with His mercy or justice or some other attribute, or might well include all of His attributes by the mere fact of His being God. Nor do the translators explain why they chose this one attribute to highlight; they only state that they do and leave the reasoning to the reader’s imagination.
ReplyDeleteAnother change in reference to the titles of God is from ‘the LORD of hosts’ to ‘the Lord Almighty’. This change is necessitated, the translators say, “because for most readers today… ‘of hosts’ has little meaning, whereas ‘almighty’ conveys the sense of the Hebrew “he who is sovereign over all the ‘hosts’ (powers) in heaven and on earth…’.” However, most people, and especially the unsaved, have no more understanding of the phrase ‘Lord Almighty’ than to consider it a mild expletive. There are places in Scripture where the Greek and Hebrew word for ‘almighty’ is used (for example, 2 Corinthians 6:18), and in these places it is only right and proper to translate the word ‘almighty’. But, the word in the NIV translated as ‘almighty’ in many places in the Old Testament does not mean ‘almighty’; it means ‘of hosts’. The phrase ‘LORD of hosts’ at the very least makes sincere readers pause to consider its meaning; and meaning there is! It is also no problem for those who understand who the hosts in heaven and on earth are (as in Luke 2:13, which the NIV contradictorily and inconsistently (trends so typical of the NIV) renders “Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared…”)!
Poetry, too, is not without revision in the NIV. Poetry is printed in poetic line to “reflect the structure of Hebrew poetry. This poetry is normally characterized by parallelism in balanced lines;” however, as the NIV translators admit, “scholars differ regarding scansion of Hebrew lines.” Scholars also use the difficulties of determining metre and parallelism in Hebrew poetry to insert a diversity of meaning into Scripture, and translation becomes a game that in the end proves to be detrimental to belief in the inerrancy of God’s Word. Briggs in the International Critical Commentary proposes a number of emendations to Psalm 114, inserting and deleting words from the Hebrew in order to produce the parallelism he believes is proper for the Psalm. Others use parallelism to dispute the biblical teachings on Creation: in Genesis 1-2, “did the author really mean to express two distinct thoughts …or did he regard the creation of man as part of the creation of the earth, so that his lines are really parallel statements…?”
In the NIV, too, we find revisions in order to produce new, unoriginal parallelism. It must be borne in mind that these changes are changes to God’s Word – changes not intended by the men who penned the original texts and not by the original Author Himself. With the NIV translators’ view of “never-ending translation”, who knows what other, even more liberal changes may be incorporated into the next edition, or the edition after that, or the edition after that?
ReplyDeleteAlthough, ironically, the NIV translators stress the need for parallelism and balance, they have failed to achieve either. Instead, the stately rhythm and flow of the AV, so familiar to Christians (and to many unsaved) for four centuries is lost in the NIV’s attempt to ‘communicate’ (ironic, indeed!). The translators manage to retain “your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Psalm 23.4) yet for the sake of unlearned readers change ‘mercy’ (verse 6) to ‘love’, resulting in the unfamiliar “surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life.” Not only does this lose the rhythm found with the additional syllable in mercy, it also loses the theological significance of mercy as found in the mercy seat in the tabernacle and so often in the lives of David and his spiritual kinsmen.
An unusual Hebrew particle found throughout the Old Testament is the word na. Classified by most Hebrew scholars as a particle of the entreaty or exhortation, it is accurately translated, “I pray thee.” This little word carries with it much more than just a simple request. Its implications are more in the way of earnest entreaty, as Moses’ request of God, “I beseech thee, shew me thy glory” (Exodus 33:18); or it denotes urging, as when Abram urged his wife to deny their marriage (Genesis 12:13). The NIV, as stated earlier, has “striven for more than a word-for-word translation,” but in its attempt to catch “the thought of the biblical writers” it has missed the significance of this Hebrew particle. The NIV has Abram telling Sarai, “say you are my sister,” which is more of a command than a request; in Exodus 33:18, Moses merely says “Now show me your glory”. The man of Gibeah who sought to protect his house guest from his kinsmen, in the NIV merely says “No, my friends, don’t be so vile,” in contrast to the AV’s “Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly” (Judges 19:23).
Another Hebrew word that is often ignored is hinneh, usually translated ‘Behold’. Some scholars claim that this word serves no significant function in the Hebrew language, that it is merely an interjection rather than a meaningful part of speech. The NIV translators make no comment on the word; instead they simply omit it (note Genesis 1:29, 12:11). Again, the major issue in the omission of this and other words is not so much laxity of translation. It is, rather, a matter of inerrancy. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, His admonitions against changing that Word must be heeded. Each word must be considered important, because God considers it important; otherwise, He would have omitted it.
ReplyDeleteThere are places in both the Old and New Testaments in which words must be inserted to give sense to the English translation, as there would be in translating any written work from one language to another. The Hebrew and Greek languages often omit words, particularly forms of the verb ‘to be’. A fully literal translation of Genesis 1:4 would be, “And God saw the light, that good.” For Hebrew readers this makes perfect sense; for English readers a verbal form needs to be inserted, rendering, “that it was good.” However, in Scripture, again because of admonitions to keep God’s Word pure, these additions need to be noted. The AV does this by italicising the added words. The NIV does not do this. The theory of translation employed by the NIV is that it is the thoughts behind the words, not the words themselves, that are important; thus there are, in essence, no added (nor subtracted) words possible in their translation. Every word in their translation would have been meant by the author, regardless of what he wrote. The, author of Genesis would have meant, “that the light was good.” Thus, according to the NIV translators, the translation is accurate; there are no added words. But, as discussed above, a man’s thoughts can only be known by his actual words. If the original words are changed or omitted, then the reader is deprived of the original words and given only the thoughts of others (usually very far removed) as to what the original author’s thoughts may or may not have been. This is completely unacceptable, and can in no way be considered accurate.
With regard to the texts used to furnish the NIV New Testament, the Alexandrian manuscripts, particularly the two oldest, differ greatly from the traditional text. The Vatican manuscript differs from the traditional in 7,578 words, and the Sinai manuscript differs from the original 8,972 times. Indeed, the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts disagree between themselves more than three thousand times in the Gospels alone! As the nineteenth century textual critic John Burgon put it, “It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS (manuscripts) differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”
Yet, twentieth century scholars have chosen, on this basis of their own reasoning (heavily influenced by pro-Roman Catholic scholarship), to abandon the Traditional Text in favour of a text based on these two Alexandrian manuscripts. The newest edition of this text is the United Bible Society’s Third Edition. Although the NIV translators were ‘free’ to consider and incorporate readings from other Greek texts (thus rendering the basis of the NIV New Testament an “eclectic” text), it appears that they followed the United Bible Society’s Third Edition for their New Testament work.
ReplyDeleteModern, critical scholarship has produced many serious errors, way beyond what is acceptable in the translation of a Bible version. Many examples in the NIV can be cited. In Matthew 5:44 the AV reads, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” The NIV, however, says, “But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Supporters of the NIV argue that the NIV says essentially the same thing as the AV, just with fewer words. However, the NIV reading, particularly in our culture, would free Christians from actions and words that display the love of God, a love that draws even enemies to the Saviour.
Another well-known problem in the NIV that finds it’s origin in the United Bible Society’s text is 1st Timothy 3:16. The AV tells us that “without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.” The NIV, on the other hand, says, “…He appeared in a body.” For almost four hundred years English readers have used this brief creed as a statement of belief in the deity of Christ: God was manifest in the flesh. In the NIV, however, this phrase is useless. “He appeared in a body;” who appeared, Jesus? Of course He did, because He was a man. But was He God? Not from this verse in the NIV; here Jesus is just another person, or some sort of spirit that appeared in a body. The NIV supporters argue that there are plenty of other verses in Scripture that deal with Christ’s deity. (Such an argument actually misses the point that is being made!) Furthermore, there are no other verses in Scripture that affirm the Godhood of Jesus as clearly and boldly as this does. It should be noted that texts which are actually portions of Scripture that were used by the early church and include “God” in this verse have been disregarded by the NIV! On the basis of the United Bible Society’s omission, the NIV changes this passage from a creed to a statement of the obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe NIV, again on the basis of the Alexandrian texts, weakens another passage which teaches the deity of Christ. In the AV Romans 14:10b, 12 reads “for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ…so then everyone of us shall give an account of himself to God.” The NIV changes this to “For we will all stand before God’s judgement seat…so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.” In the Traditional Text, all men are to stand before Christ, giving account to God; thus, Christ is being called God. The NIV changes “Christ” in verse 10 to “God”; thus verse 12 becomes merely a restatement of verse 10, without the affirmation that the Person of the Godhead who has the right of judgement is Christ. To compound the matter, the NIV gives no footnote to indicate the change. Thus someone referring to these verses in the AV would find a NIV reader totally uncomprehending. Here a wonderful verse which plainly declares our Saviour’s deity is done away with without the average Christian even knowing it. The deity of Christ is attested in this passage in some Alexandrian manuscripts, the majority of other manuscripts, many ancient versions, and at least ten church fathers. It is missing from only a handful of manuscripts (seven), which unfortunately for the Church includes the two considered to be the ‘best’ by modern scholars: the Vatican manuscript and the ‘original hand’ (as opposed to the corrected) copy of the Sinai manuscript! The NIV, by this omission, does more than delete a few words; it reflects the high-handed approach to textual criticism threatening the Church today!
Not only is the doctrine of the person of Christ affected by the NIV, but Christ’s virgin birth is weakened by the NIV. The AV in Luke 2:33 reads, “And Joseph and his mother marvelled.” The NIV renders this “The child’s father and mother marvelled.” Of course, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, neither physically nor spiritually. The reader of the NIV is given verses in which Joseph and Mary are freely put together as Jesus’ ‘father and mother’. Thus the NIV, with its use of the United Bible Society’s text, casts doubt on the virgin birth of the Saviour.
ReplyDeleteAnother verse which has problems in the NIV is Colossians 1:14. Again the person and work of Christ are involved. The AV reads, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” The NIV changes this to, “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The AV provides the important words “through his blood” which are crucial to our understanding of redemption. It is by means of Christ’s blood, the precious blood of the Covenant, that eternal redemption has been provided for His people. It is important to note the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the NIV translators who, whilst claiming to ‘communicate’ with modern man, omit the necessity of Christ’s death and the shedding of His blood for the salvation of men, a doctrine that modern man is so confused about.
In a related matter, Romans 1:16 in the AV says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ…” The NIV renders Paul’s words, “I am not ashamed of the gospel.” The phrase “of Christ” is omitted, without a single note or comment, not only from the NIV but from the United Bible Society’s text as well. What was the “good news” of which Paul was not ashamed? Christ’s own gospel is the ONLY “good news” man needs to hear; it is the “good news” of which Paul spoke about in Romans 1:16, and it is the “good news” of which we must not be ashamed. Christ’s gospel is the only one which is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.”
In addition to the doctrines of the person and work of Christ being weakened, the NIV calls into question the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture by introducing mistakes into the very text of Scripture and by omitting portions of verses which show fulfilment of prophecy. In Mark 1:2 the AV says, “As it is written in the prophets…” and then quotes from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. The NIV says, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet…” and then proceeds to quote from both Isaiah and Malachi. The NIV deliberately attributes this Malachi quotation to Isaiah. Isaiah did not write Malachi. The AV has the proper reading with the plural “prophets”, since there are two of them, so that both Malachi and Isaiah are represented. Critical scholars would argue that, from their reason-based criteria, the United Bible Society’s reading, as used by the NIV translators, is correct. However, by sheer reasoning, based on the presupposition that Scripture is infallible, one would imagine that Mark, having been a good Jew, would know when a prophecy was from Isaiah and when it was from Malachi. Even without that, the Holy Spirit’s guidance would have eliminated the mistake of attributing a passage written by one prophet to another. In this day of unbelief, the United Bible Society’s reading, and thus the NIV’s, only gives the opponents of Scripture reason to debate the Bible. Worse, it causes even Christians to doubt the veracity of the Word of God, leaving them without an anchor in this world.
Another problem in prophecy in the NIV is found in Matthew 27:35. The AV reads, “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” The NIV renders this, “when they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.” The NIV adds a footnote, “A few late manuscripts ‘lots that the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled: “They divided my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing” (Psalm 22:18)’.” Old Testament quotations in the New Testament serve several very important purposes. They tie the two testaments together, giving God’s people one Word; they give Christians a heritage that extends back to Creation and the Jews a Messiah who fulfilled God’s prophecy; they give us proof that God will do all that He has said He will do. Of course, there are some quotations that are difficult to determine; in other words, some Christians will insist that they are quotations while other Christians will say that they are not. It is a pleasure, therefore, when the New Testament tells us that a passage is a quotation, as it does in Matthew 27:35. It is a frustration when, on the basis of the United Bible Society’s text, the NIV omits the fact, or as in this case relegates it to a vague footnote.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to words and phrases being omitted from the NIV, whole sections of Scripture are not to be found in its pages, or are set apart and warned against. Mark 16:9-20 is the classic example of this. These verses are found in almost every manuscript of Mark 16 except the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts. The NIV includes the passage, but separates it from the rest of the text and inserts before it the note, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The same problem is repeated in John 7:53 - 8:11. At a ‘conservative’ American seminary, one professor who uses the NIV stated that these and other ‘questionable’ passages are not to be preached or even read because they are not a part of Scripture. Here, suffice it to say that the NIV’s handling of these passages do much to dissuade people away from belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. By accepting as fact the textual –critical reasoning of liberal men, Christians who use the NIV and other such inaccurate ‘translations’ no longer have an authority on which to rest their faith; there no longer exists one God inspired Bible.
In addition to these verses being omitted or called into question, there are a number of verses which are deleted entirely from the United Bible Society’s Greek text and thus from the NIV. These verses include:
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14
Mark 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28
Luke 17:36; 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29
Romans 16:24
It is incredible that proponents of the NIV often argue that none of these textual ‘variants’ is particularly important and no doctrine is affected by these problems. They proclaim that we do not base doctrine on any one verse. The problem, however, is basically two-fold. First we do not always have many perspicuous verses for any given doctrine. The doctrine may be inherent in all of Scripture, but explicitly stated only once or twice. The omission of even one verse, therefore, makes teaching that doctrine to believers and documenting it to unbelievers more difficult, and in some cases impossible.
ReplyDeleteIt must be noted that the proponents of the NIV who believe that no doctrine is affected by the NIV’s handling of Scripture are wrong! The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is greatly affected. (In addition to the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, and the Blood of Christ, etc., etc.) As stated earlier several times, if inerrancy is not based upon the words of Scripture, it has no basis at all. It cannot be based upon the original authors’ thoughts, nor even on the thoughts of God Himself, for these are beyond man’s ability to know. Inerrancy must be based upon words, God’s words, as set forth by His servants. The original Scriptures will remain inerrant no matter how modern scholars try to destroy them through perverse translation and interpretation; but man’s belief in their inerrancy, and thus in their authority over his life, is damaged greatly by the NIV translators’ view of translation and the United Bible Society’s liberal, so-called ‘reasonable’, textual critical methods.
The NIV often includes footnotes in places where verses are omitted or changed, but some of these footnotes are too general, are misleading, or are actually incorrect. Following is a summary of footnotes given in the NIV New Testament, with the number of times each is used.
ReplyDeleteSome manuscripts – 82 times
Some early manuscripts – 32 times
A few late manuscripts – 2 times
Some late manuscripts – 6 times
Other manuscripts – 1 time
Many early manuscripts – 3 times
The most reliable early manuscripts – 1 time
Many manuscripts – 4 times
Some less important manuscripts – 1 time
Two early manuscripts – 1 time
The earliest and most reliable and other ancient witnesses – 1 time
One early manuscript…other manuscripts do not have… - 1 time
One early manuscript – 1 time
Late manuscript of the Vulgate…(not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century) – 1 time
This betrays some of the bias on the part of the translators. They are vague and obscure when they want to be (“Some manuscripts”) but can be very specific when they wish (“Late manuscript of the Vulgate”, etc.). There are occasions when the translators omit verses or words with no comment at all (e.g., 1st John 5:13).
One very surprising omission from this group of the variant readings is in the book of Revelation. For years those opposed to the Received or Traditional Text (from which the AV is translated) have argued that there was a great weakness in the traditional Greek text of this book. However, the NIV gives only two occasions of textual variants in the footnotes in Revelation. In the United Bible Society’s text there are ninety-two occasions of variants noted; and these ninety-two occasions are not exhaustive but selective. Some were not even indicated by footnote. It is interesting that, in the NIV, changes throughout the remainder of the Bible were often designated by footnotes; in Revelation only two such occasions are to be found. Instead, the NIV translators appear to note only the variants that they considered important; they simply omit those which they consider unimportant or insignificant. However, on the basis of Revelation 22:18-19, (“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”), is there anything in God’s Word that is unimportant or insignificant?!
As with the Old Testament change “peace offering” to “fellowship offering”, the NIV New Testament translators have found it necessary to change terminology long used by the English–speaking church to wording they consider more easily understood. Terms such as sin, grace, propitiation, and righteousness, terms with precise meanings that have been understood and taught by the Church for centuries, have been retranslated by the NIV into less precise, even ambiguous words. A few will be listed below, and the major ones will be treated separately afterward.
ReplyDeletegrace becomes favour (Exodus 34:9; Psalm 84:11)
glory becomes honour (Psalm 84:11)
righteousness becomes doing what is right (1st John 3:7)
believe becomes trust (John 14:1)
Comforter becomes Counsellor (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7)
Advocate becomes one who speaks to the Father in our defence (1st John 2:1)
think becomes feel (Philippians 1:7) (a real problem in this feeling-orientated age!)
mercy seat becomes atonement cover (numerous times throughout scripture)
tabernacle becomes tent of meeting (again numerous times)
inspiration becomes God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) (a translation not found in any of the six standard Greek lexicons!)
propitiation becomes sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25) or atoning sacrifice (1st John 2:2)
Some of these may seem minor, but none is. The older terminology has been understood and employed by the Church for centuries. The Christian familiar only with the NIV finds the words of Christians of by-gone eras closed books. Suddenly the voluminous works of men such as Spurgeon and many, many others are unintelligible. Also lost to these twentieth century NIV readers are the concordances and lexicons and Bible dictionaries that employ this theological language. Confessions of faith, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and other seventeenth century confessions, with their catechisms – these can have no place in the homes and lives of those whose faith is tied to the language of the NIV.
In addition to this, some of these synonyms are not fully synonymous. They do not convey the full idea of the original terms, often weakening the meaning of both the Greek and the English. Changing ‘grace’ to ‘favour’, and ‘glory’ to ‘honour’, are prime examples of this. It is by God’s grace, unmerited and free, that we are saved. Favour is the idea of something that can be earned or paid back. God’s glory is another thing to which we can add nothing; we can, however, honour Him just as we can honour others of renown.
ReplyDeleteAssociated with this is the problem of preinterpretation. The NIV translators assume that the education level of the reader is such that he cannot understand theological language, so the translators take it upon themselves to interpret the language for them. The Greek word for flesh, sarx, can mean sinful nature or it can mean flesh. Its translation has to be based upon its use in context. But as with sheol in the Old Testament, the NIV translates sarx always in one way – sinful nature. This is very interpretive but contradicts standard interpretations of Romans 6 and Galatians 5, as will be more fully discussed below.
The NIV translators did not seem to be concerned with following the traditional phrasing of the Bible, despite their stated desire to maintain the tradition of previous translations. The NIV rendering of certain portions of Scripture is very bizarre. A few examples will be cited.
In 1st John 3:7b, the AV states, “he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” The NIV renders this, “he who does what is right is righteous.” Implied in this is a righteousness obtained through works. “Doing what is right” is not the same as “doing righteousness.” Righteousness goes far beyond the “doing right” of verse 7, or the not doing “what is sinful” of verse 8. It has been stated that, since helping an old woman across the street is right, this action would make a person acceptable before God. There are too many people today who think that God will accept them if their good works outweigh or outnumber their bad works. This translation tends to teach, and at the very lest feed, this idea.
Another inaccurate statement of the NIV is found in Titus 1:2. The AV reads, “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie promised before the world began.” The NIV says, “a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time.” Aside from the obvious paraphrase, the surprising statement of “God, who does not lie…” is impossible to accept. There are things which God cannot do. He cannot sin, He cannot deny Himself, etc. He also cannot lie. The phrase “does not lie” implies that God is able to lie but usually does not, or at least is not at the moment. ‘Cannot’ denotes an inability; ‘does not’ includes a violation aspect. It is much the same as saying “I cannot steal” (“I am unable to do so”, which would indicate that the speaker could not do so even if he wanted to), or “I do not steal” (“by the grace of God, I do not steal because I have, at least for this moment overcome the temptation to do so”). It is not apparent whether this translation is based on English style, is trying to settle a theological issue, or is just carelessness. In any event, the weakening of the reading is more than unfortunate; it’s heresy!
ReplyDeleteIn James 3:1 there is a NIV Interpretation which is very typical of the translation style and approach of the translators. The NIV interprets the Greek to mean that the problem is one of presumption to become teachers, rather than that a teacher will be held strictly accountable for what he teaches. The translation itself is presumptuous; although this may indeed be one of a number of points being made in this particular verse, the NIV interpretation is unfair to Scripture and the reader to give one interpretation as the only possibility.
ReplyDeleteThe same sort of preinterpretation problem occurs in 1st Corinthians 7:1b, where the AV reads, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The NIV renders this, “it is good for a man not to marry.” The literal meaning of “not to touch a woman” is a euphemism for abstaining from immorality. The Word ‘touch’ in this context has connotations of intimate contact. What is in view is not abstaining from marriage, but from immoral intimate contact. Although marriage is mentioned later in the passage, and some have interpreted the entire passage in that light, the context is still one of abstaining from immorality – an immorality not found in marriage. Again, the NIV rendition is more than simple translation; it is an unfair interpretation which could cause some to abstain from the holy and honourable relationship which God intended for most of His children (note Genesis 2:18; 1st Corinthians 7:9; 1st Timothy 4:3; Hebrews 13:4).
In another passage verb tense or form is changed, seemingly at random. Galatians 6:1 in the AV reads, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” The NIV says, “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.” Several problems must be noted here. First is the problem of ‘restoring’. In the Greek and the AV the verb ‘restore’ is a direct command to be obeyed. The NIV gives the idea that ‘restoring’ is something which ought to be done, not something that must be done.
Also, the substitution of “gently” for “in the spirit of meekness” is hard to understand. The “spirit of meekness” relates directly to the way in which you are “considering thyself”. If the Christian has this “spirit of meekness”, he will not be overbearing or proud and place himself in the position of being tempted. “Gently” refers to the way of restoring and does not seem to relate to the attitude of the restorer.
ReplyDeleteThird, the verse in Greek is one sentence. It carries one full, uncomplicated thought. Here again the NIV translators, whilst claiming to make the Scriptures more readable to modern man, take longer sentences and divides them into short, chopped up ones (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14; Acts 1:1-5; Hebrews 1:1-4; 1stCorinthians 5:5-10). The problem is, they also break up shorter, uncomplicated sentences. There are times, however, when it is crucial for the reader to realize that one main idea is being conveyed; by inserting unnecessary punctuation and taking liberties with verb forms, the translator obscures God’s intended meaning, the meaning conveyed by the words of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It may be easier to read, but the issues God intended to be understood are altered in the NIV.
Along the same line, the NIV obscures the natural reading of the text in 1st Thessalonians 4:14. The AV reads, “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.” The NIV has, “We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.” The difference here may seem minor, just the omission of the two little words “for if”. However, the words are in the Greek and are there for a purpose. The sentence is not a statement of fact, although it has the underlying fact of being true. It is instead conditional: “If we believe this (and we do)” we believe these other things as well. Again, since God moved Paul to include the conditional, can so-called ‘Christian’ translators legitimately do otherwise?
In 1st Thessalonians 4:12 the NIV changes statements into what would normally be their results. Here a comparison is in order:
ReplyDeleteAV:
“That ye may walk honestly, toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.”
NIV:
“So that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.”
This is the equivalent of taking a statement (“he hit the rock”) and rendering it as its effect or result (“the rock was broken”). In this passage, whereas the original desire was for Christians to “walk honestly toward them that are without,” the NIV would have the believer “win the respect of outsiders.” While the AV would have the believer “lack nothing” the NIV wants him not to have to depend on anyone. In the NIV, the desire is for pride and respect, and for total independence, two things considered improper in other passages of Scripture. Here again is another reason for formal equivalence translation. By the NIV’s subtle changes, although aiding easy-reading, it is not only terminology that changes, but also syntax and form, and in the end interpretation.
Another extremely frustrating misinterpretation is produced in the NIV in John 20:27b. Here the AV says, “and be not faithless but believing.” which the NIV renders “stop doubting and believe.” The passage is that of ‘doubting Thomas’, the apostle who did not believe that the Lord had risen from the dead. The problem is, from the Greek Thomas was not merely doubting; he was in rebellion. The Greek employs a double negative here, resulting in emphasis. Thomas does not just say, “I will not believe;” he says, “I will not believe!” His is not merely doubt, but rather a rebellious, faithless refusal to believe. Thus he does not need to stop doubting, he needs to stop being faithless and unbelieving. The NIV’s “stop doubting” only perpetuates the cliché of the ‘doubting Thomas’. Yet again, the NIV translation gives an inaccurate rendering of the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in this passage the second half of the clause is separated from the first in the Greek by a ‘but’. This is not just a weak connective or conjunctive word, but a strong adversative, showing a strong contrast between the two phrases. Thomas is not to be faithless, but he is to be believing. The NIV, however, makes an unwarranted change here, and in doing so weakens the Scriptures.
One common problem with which most Christians find difficulty in the NIV is the constant use of “sinful nature” for the Greek word sarx, flesh. Doing so produces such translations as “live by the spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (Galatians 5:16), and “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature” (Romans 7:18). It would be better to translate the word ‘flesh’, as it should be, and let the individual Christian study the Scriptures for himself to determine, according to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, what the passage teaches.
One almost humorous example of the NIV’s preinterpretation of sarx is found in 1st Corinthians 5:5. The AV reads, “deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” The NIV renders this, “hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed.” It is interesting to note that those who have been handed over to Satan, according to the NIV, no longer have a sinful nature! Of all the explanations for ridding the believer of sin this is the most ridiculous. In actuality, though, this is certainly not humorous. This really goes far beyond what a Christian should have to endure in a so-called ‘translation’.
In John’s gospel there are several examples of over-translation or misinterpretation which need to be cited. In John 14:1 we have the familiar AV words, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.” The NIV says, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, trust also in me.” The word ‘trust’ has a sense of the will involved. ‘Believe’ has the idea of assent, understanding, and will involved. It would be better to keep the normal use of ‘believe’ rather than to put ‘trust’ in the text. Also note that the NIV breaks this one sentence (in the Greek) into two sentences, making a major break between not having troubled hearts and believing in the Father and the Son.
ReplyDeleteIn John 16:31 the AV reads, “Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?” This the NIV renders, “’You believe at last!’ Jesus answered.” The NIV has changed this from a question about belief to an exclamatory statement of belief. Here is another example of a translation which, if done literally as the AV, could be understood by almost anyone. If the phrase were figurative, perhaps the sort of translation done by the NIV would be necessary; but this is not the case!
One final example of the unusual translation practices of the NIV will be cited. In Matthew 1:25, the AV reads, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” However, the NIV changes this to, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And gave Him the name Jesus.” The result of such inaccurate translating, in this particular case, is a very bold attack upon the virgin birth. Since the doctrine of the virgin birth is under great attack in this present day, a clear, accurate, and precise translation of these passages is needed for a proper understanding and defense of this doctrine.
There are many verses which clearly illustrate the serious errors of textual criticism and interpretation which characterize the NIV. Here is an example - Hebrews 11:11.
ReplyDeleteAV:
“Through faith also Sara herself receiveth strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.”
NIV:
“By faith Abraham even though he was past age - and Sarah herself was barren – was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.”
It must be noted that the parts of this verse in the NIV which refer to Abraham are found in no Greek manuscript at all, not even one! There is not even a note in the United Bible Society’s text to indicate anyone even considered such a reading as that which is in the NIV!!
However, some scholars believe that Sara is not a good example of faith. So they use the argument that, in the Greek, the word ‘to conceive’ seed is normally used of a male begetting and not of a woman conceiving (as per the “The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews”, Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964, pp. 299-302). This argument, however, is only a smokescreen. The fact of the matter is that, according to the original Greek text, the verse is dealing with a statement about Sara, not Abraham! Translators are not free to build or make up their own Greek text based upon their interpretation of a passage; they are only to translate the text that is before them. Here an interpretation based upon subjective ideas becomes the actual text of the NIV. No longer is Sara the focus of the passage, but instead Abraham is given the place of prominence. The correct reading is relegated to a footnote, “or ‘by faith Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children’.” The problem with this is that the “or” makes it sound as if either rendering is correct. The fact is that the NIV’s rendering of the passage is completely inaccurate.
It is hard to understand how anyone would dare to that enough accuracy exists in this translation, called the NIV, to be considered God's Word, when at times the NIV translates and includes as text passages without any Greek textual support at all.
Furthermore, in case anyone thinks that the problems mentioned here are exhaustive, it should be noted that these problems can be encountered on virtually every single page of the NIV!
And yet, Wolfsbane, you consider this to be just as much the Word of God as the AV?!
Utter nonsense!
Much more could be said of other "modern" versions too… and likely will be as this discussion continues!
Correction of typo in one of my comments above:
ReplyDelete**it doesn’t seem like we are not going to get a better translation of the Scriptures in the English tongue any time soon**
That should have been:
it doesn’t seem like we are going to get a better translation of the Scriptures in the English tongue any time soon.
'And yet, Wolfsbane, you consider this to be just as much the Word of God as the AV?!'
ReplyDeleteCorrect - in the sense the the LXX is. The apostles used it as Scripture. Maybe not as accurate as the Hebrew text, but evidently good enough for them. Not a 'perversion'.
Or like the Vulgate used by John Wycliffe. Not the Byzantine text, but good enough to be regarded as the word of God.
I'm no fan of the NIV, but it is good enough to be treated as the word of God, by the standards of the apostles and great men of God in past ages.
Demonizing all but the AV is a cultish error, unworthy of an honest commentator, let alone a Christian one.
Wolfsbane, you make yet ANOTHER false witness / straw-man argument against a brother in Christ:
ReplyDelete"Maybe not as accurate as the Hebrew text, but evidently good enough for them. Not a 'perversion'. Or like the Vulgate used by John Wycliffe. Not the Byzantine text, but good enough to be regarded as the word of God."
You present the argument as if the massive number of inaccuracies and calibrated corruptions of liberal critical scholars is no worse and no more than the what is found in the Vulgate. To those who are not familiar with the subject, that might sound convincing ... the problem is, however, that to those who are familiar with the subject, it is clearly a highly dishonest presentation of the facts - otherwise known as deceit!
Furthermore, there are NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that the apostles quoted a Greek Old Testament such as the LXX.
Quotations by the apostles in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint, but only because the new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. Eusebius/Origen manuscripts which underlie the document, today called the Septuagint or LXX. These manuscripts are Alexandrian, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.
Wycliffe, like the AV translators, was not wrong to consult the Vulgate... they did not give carte blanche approval of everything contained therein, however, - such as the approval you give to modern versions which contain and awful lot more inaccuracies and outright corruption!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." is indeed what we ought to do – and to reject all but the best and most accurate available to us.
You end, as you began your comment - with a straw-man argument:
"Demonizing all but the AV is a cultish error, unworthy of an honest commentator, let alone a Christian one."
Your statement is true only if it is the case! Of course, in my case, it is not ... and given the fact that I have made my position regarding this very clear on numerous occasions during this debate, then you are evidently not the man to be accusing or inferring dishonesty in other Christians!
'You present the argument as if the massive number of inaccuracies and calibrated corruptions of liberal critical scholars is no worse and no more than the what is found in the Vulgate. To those who are not familiar with the subject, that might sound convincing ... the problem is, however, that to those who are familiar with the subject, it is clearly a highly dishonest presentation of the facts - otherwise known as deceit!'
ReplyDeleteYou are very fond of accusing me of lying - that say much about the strength of your argument.
No, I never said all the inaccuracies/corruptions are equal. I point out that the AV has enough to condemn it, since omitting/adding words and sentences to the word of God is the issue.
A woman is a whore if she sleeps with 10 men or 100. IF the modern versions are 'perversions' on the basis of their additions/omissions, so too is the AV.
'Furthermore, there are NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that the apostles quoted a Greek Old Testament such as the LXX.'
ReplyDeleteOK, what Scripture were the apostles using, since it obviously was not the MT?
In any case, what I said about their use of the LXX applies to ANY other version they used.
Why were they using something not in the AV OT?
'Wycliffe, like the AV translators, was not wrong to consult the Vulgate... they did not give carte blanche approval of everything contained therein, however, - such as the approval you give to modern versions which contain and awful lot more inaccuracies and outright corruption!'
ReplyDeleteI do not give approval to everything in the modern versions, but like Wycliffe with the Vulgate, I use them as Scripture.
Do you think he told his hearers, "I'm quoting from a perverted text, but I'm picking out the good bits?" I'm sure he preached it as the word of God.
I would do the same with the NIV, if it was the Bible used by an enquirer. If I came to a passage that was added/omitted, or poorly translated, I would either just not use it or I would explain why I wasn't using it.
I do the same with the AV additions/omissions.
'"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." is indeed what we ought to do – and to reject all but the best and most accurate available to us.'
ReplyDeleteBut not classify them as 'perversions', not the word of God, etc. For when you find a more accurate translation then the AV, you will not want people to call the AV a perversion or not the word of God.
'It is hard to understand how anyone would dare to that enough accuracy exists in this translation, called the NIV, to be considered God's Word, when at times the NIV translates and includes as text passages without any Greek textual support at all.'
ReplyDeleteWhot? Like the AV does? I must admit that is news to me (but I'm not a reader of the NIV). Please give me the reference. Surely its not the Johannine Comma? Or Paul's goads in Acts 9?
' If inerrancy is based upon words, and Jesus Himself declared that even the smallest part of a letter would not pass away (Matthew 5:18), this sort of baseless change affects much more than just one verse; it has an impact on the whole of Scripture.'
ReplyDeleteYou rightly point out several errors in the NIV, and you high-light the gravity of changing even one letter. But what then of the AV? It has hundreds, thousands, of erroneous letters!
You are using the tens of thousands of such errors in the NIV to condemn it, but want to justify the AV for its thousands! If Christ's warning applies to copy and translation errors, EVERY version but the originals stands condemned.
Can't you see the hypocrisy (unintended, I'm sure) of your position?
'Baptists insist on a personal profession of faith FROM the one to be baptized! – in line with verse 37 of Acts chapter 8 (the very verse relegated to the footnotes by the NIV – which was my point!). Thus the NIV weakens the veracity of the truth of this very clear difference in the text between true believer’s baptism and paedo-baptism.'
ReplyDeleteAren't you confused again? Acts 8:37 is NOT part of the Byzantine Text. Why are you arguing for a corrupt text?
“You are very fond of accusing me of lying - that say much about the strength of your argument.”
ReplyDeleteActually, it grieves me to have to call you out for the deceitful arguments you make. The number of times I do so reflects the number of half-truths and lies you tell. As for the strength of my argument, I am happy for others to read what I have said and make up their own minds.
“No, I never said all the inaccuracies/corruptions are equal. I point out that the AV has enough to condemn it, since omitting/adding words and sentences to the word of God is the issue. A woman is a whore if she sleeps with 10 men or 100. IF the modern versions are 'perversions' on the basis of their additions/omissions, so too is the AV.”
Again, you repeat the same straw-man, so I shall repeat my response:
As has been repeated to you over and over and over again, it is vitally important that, when discussing these matters honestly, we compare like with like. You simply cannot compare apples with oranges, so-to-speak. First of all, the AV does not have “hundreds of thousands” of erroneous anything! The AV translators, basing their work on the Byzantine and Masoretic texts, as well as consulting others for clarity of words such as using some words from the Latin Vulgate only where and when the English vocabulary had been exhausted and found wanting in terms of finding the exact word equivalent as that in the Hebrew and Greek. Indeed, as a recent BBC news article correctly pointed out, the AV changed the English language in many respects. Latin versions that came before it were certainly not perfect, but consulting them and using certain words when the English had otherwise been exhausted was not a wrong course of action where this was done accurately and faithfully in relation to the original text. This cannot, however, be used to excuse the translators of so-called “modern” versions who consulted other works and evidently cherry picked from them at will, and changed words without first exhausting the vocabulary of the English language. Indeed, the translators of so-called “modern versions” PRIMARILY based their works on rejected and heavily corrupted source texts, unlike the AV translators who PRIMARILY used the Byzantine and Masoretic texts. Your argument here about the AV translators using the same tactics as the so-called “modern versions” is deceitful, to say the least! The AV translators produced a more accurate translation in the English language than anything that had come before it. If we are to accept any of the so-called “modern versions” then they must surpass the accuracy of the AV. THEY DO NOT! Indeed, as long as modern critical scholars continue to use corrupt source texts as their primary texts, and as long as the current trends in translation methodology and philosophy continue, then we are not going to get a more accurate version than the AV, certainly not any time soon. Until a more accurate version appears, then Christians have no call to be using or encouraging others to use anything that is in any way less accurate than the AV in the English tongue.
“'Furthermore, there are NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that the apostles quoted a Greek Old Testament such as the LXX.'
ReplyDeleteOK, what Scripture were the apostles using, since it obviously was not the MT?”
The Apostles would have quoted the un-pointed Hebrew texts, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would have quoted the Scriptures perfectly, without error in whatever language they did so.
“In any case, what I said about their use of the LXX applies to ANY other version they used.”
That depends upon which “versions” you are using to read their quotes! If you read corrupted translations based on corrupted source manuscripts, then your argument is a non point at any rate! If you use the AV which was based upon reliable source text then you have a reliable quotation of their quote.
Even if a corrupt, rejected manuscript was to report that the apostles said something (whether or not they did say it), and then so-called “modern” versions based upon those same corrupted manuscripts made the same report, it proves nothing. I’m sure the apostles said lots of things that could very well have been written down by various people, yet not included in the canon of Scripture.
“Why were they using something not in the AV OT?”
Give specific examples.
“'Wycliffe, like the AV translators, was not wrong to consult the Vulgate... they did not give carte blanche approval of everything contained therein, however, - such as the approval you give to modern versions which contain and awful lot more inaccuracies and outright corruption!' I do not give approval to everything in the modern versions, but like Wycliffe with the Vulgate, I use them as Scripture.”
Wycliffe produced a more accurate version in the English language than anything else that existed at that time, the AV translators did a better job. The translators of the so-called “modern” versions DID NOT produce a more accurate version than the AV. Wycliffe and then the AV translators produced better translations than what came before them, whereas the modern critical scholars of the so-called “modern versions” produced versions that are LESS ACCURATE than that which came before in the English tongue… their work represents a regression, not a progression. Your use of those versions and your encouraging others to use them, helps to promote this regression from accuracy.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." is indeed what we ought to do – and to reject all but the best and most accurate available to us.'
But not classify them as 'perversions', not the word of God, etc. For when you find a more accurate translation then the AV, you will not want people to call the AV a perversion or not the word of God.”
No, again, there is a major difference! Wycliffe and then the AV translators were honest men who faithfully sought (and succeeded) to produce better translations, in the English tongue, than what came before them, whereas the modern critical scholars of the so-called “modern versions” produced versions that are LESS ACCURATE than that which came before in the English tongue. The two issues are diametrically opposite. The fact that you try to make them seem the same is very telling indeed!
“'It is hard to understand how anyone would dare to that enough accuracy exists in this translation, called the NIV, to be considered God's Word, when at times the NIV translates and includes as text passages without any Greek textual support at all.' I must admit that is news to me (but I'm not a reader of the NIV). Please give me the reference?”
ReplyDeleteFOR THE THIRD TIME! (and not the only example):
AV:
“Through faith also Sara herself receiveth strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.”
NIV:
“By faith Abraham even though he was past age - and Sarah herself was barren – was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.”
“but I’m not an NIV reader”
If you have not properly examined the text, yet continue to argue against, and falsely accuse, those who have and who evidently know a lot more about the NIV than you do raises further questions about your honesty!
“But what then of the AV? It has hundreds, thousands, of erroneous letters! You are using the tens of thousands of such errors in the NIV to condemn it, but want to justify the AV for its thousands! If Christ's warning applies to copy and translation errors, EVERY version but the originals stands condemned.”
Utter nonsense! Again, you are not comparing like with like.
The AV translators, basing their work on the Byzantine and Masoretic texts, as well as consulting others for clarity of words such as using some words from the Latin Vulgate only where and when the English vocabulary had been exhausted and found wanting in terms of finding the exact word equivalent as that in the Hebrew and Greek. Indeed, as a recent BBC news article correctly pointed out, the AV changed the English language in many respects. Latin versions that came before it were certainly not perfect, but consulting them and using certain words when the English had otherwise been exhausted was not a wrong course of action where this was done accurately and faithfully in relation to the original text. This cannot, however, be used to excuse the translators of so-called “modern” versions who consulted other works and cherry picked from them at will, and changed words without first exhausting the vocabulary of the English language. Indeed, the translators of so-called “modern versions” primarily based their works on rejected and heavily corrupted source texts, unlike the AV translators who used the Byzantine and Masoretic texts. Your argument here about the AV translators using the same tactics as the so-called “modern versions” is deceitful, to say the least! The AV translators produced a more accurate translation in the English language than anything that had come before it. If we are to accept any of the so-called “modern versions” then they must surpass the accuracy of the AV. THEY DO NOT! Indeed, as long as modern critical scholars continue to use corrupt source texts as their primary texts, and as long as the current trends in translation methodology and philosophy continue, then we are not going to get a more accurate version than the AV, certainly not any time soon. Until a more accurate version appears, then Christians have no call to be using or encouraging others to use anything that is in any way less accurate than the AV in the English tongue.
“'Baptists insist on a personal profession of faith FROM the one to be baptized! – in line with verse 37 of Acts chapter 8 (the very verse relegated to the footnotes by the NIV – which was my point!). Thus the NIV weakens the veracity of the truth of this very clear difference in the text between true believer’s baptism and paedo-baptism.'
ReplyDeleteAren't you confused again? Acts 8:37 is NOT part of the Byzantine Text. Why are you arguing for a corrupt text?”
No, I’m not confused, nor was I confused before. Again, as we have already discussed, the Byzantine texts are the most reliable, but are not the original autographs. This does not mean that every single source text has equal standing with the Byzantine, on that basis alone, neither does it mean that the Byzantine texts have equal standing with the original autographs. As regards Acts 8:37, it is found in the Greek texts of Beza, and Elzevir. It is also quoted by many early church fathers.
'Again, as we have already discussed, the Byzantine texts are the most reliable, but are not the original autographs. This does not mean that every single source text has equal standing with the Byzantine, on that basis alone, neither does it mean that the Byzantine texts have equal standing with the original autographs.'
ReplyDeleteWe are agreed on that.
'As regards Acts 8:37, it is found in the Greek texts of Beza, and Elzevir. It is also quoted by many early church fathers.'
So the NIV is perverse in ignoring the great majority of Greek manuscripts and going for a small minority, but the AV is sound when it does the same? That's HYPOCRISY, Stephen.
All your talk of the Byzantine text being far superior to the Critical text, and then you abandon it to defend the AV!
Seems to me you are saying Erasmus and the AV translators were infallibly guided to pick and choose which Greek text to follow, never mind any principle like majority witness, age or location. That is KJV-Onlyism, despite your protestations.
'The AV translators, basing their work on the Byzantine and Masoretic texts, as well as consulting others for clarity of words such as using some words from the Latin Vulgate only where and when the English vocabulary had been exhausted and found wanting in terms of finding the exact word equivalent as that in the Hebrew and Greek. '
ReplyDeleteI've just shown you where the AV used a whole sentence not in the Byzantine text. You then defended them doing so by appealing to those non-Byzantine texts. Not a matter of finding an exact word equivalent, Stephen, but of importing whole sentences.
'The AV translators produced a more accurate translation in the English language than anything that had come before it.'
ReplyDeleteWe are agreed on that.
'If we are to accept any of the so-called “modern versions” then they must surpass the accuracy of the AV.'
Correct, if by 'accept' you mean replace the AV with them. But we can accept them in the sense we still regard previous translations as the word of God, even though they were less accurate.
'THEY DO NOT!'
The NKJV is comparable in accuracy to the AV, and has the advantage of providing textual notes to the even more accurate Majority Text. It is also in the common tongue, as were the Greek originals.
'Indeed, as long as modern critical scholars continue to use corrupt source texts as their primary texts,'
Indeed, to be deplored. But so too is the AV when it uses corrupt source texts when it thinks fit. Why do you condemn one but justify the other?
'and as long as the current trends in translation methodology and philosophy continue, then we are not going to get a more accurate version than the AV, certainly not any time soon.'
Not all current trends are the same: the Majority Text folk are working on a formal equivalence Majority text version. I have in my possession their Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, and it provides not only the Greek but also a literal English translation. All we await is the full translation.
'Until a more accurate version appears, then Christians have no call to be using or encouraging others to use anything that is in any way less accurate than the AV in the English tongue.'
That's why I recommend the NKJV. It points out where the AV errs in choosing corrupt texts, and it is in the common tongue.
'It is hard to understand how anyone would dare to that enough accuracy exists in this translation, called the NIV, to be considered God's Word, when at times the NIV translates and includes as text passages without any Greek textual support at all.
ReplyDeleteAV:
“Through faith also Sara herself receiveth strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.”
NIV:
“By faith Abraham even though he was past age - and Sarah herself was barren – was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.”'
The passage, Hebrews 11:11, has a problem for the translator. According to Lenski, καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα makes Sarah the subject, but the predicate does not fit her. And καταβολὴν σπέρματος refers to the injection of sperm into a woman, not something Sarah was capable of.
Lenski treats it as a problem, and offers his solution (Abraham is the subject, Sarah only mentioned is association with him) - but only as a possibility.
The problem is resolved by most as in the AV/NKJV/NIV (2010)/ESV, but by others as in the older NIV that you quoted.
AV Hebrews 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
NKJV Hebrews 11:11 By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.
NIV(2010) And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise.
ESV Hebrews 11:11By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.
Perhaps you can offer a better example?
'Wycliffe and then the AV translators produced better translations than what came before them, whereas the modern critical scholars of the so-called “modern versions” produced versions that are LESS ACCURATE than that which came before in the English tongue… their work represents a regression, not a progression. Your use of those versions and your encouraging others to use them, helps to promote this regression from accuracy.'
ReplyDeleteI use them only as secondary helps, where their grasp of the meaning of a passage might bring out more than I thought my own version implied. But I do not object to others using a modern version, if that is the only one they have or believe is best. It is less accurate, but it is still the word of God.
That does not mean I promote the less accurate versions - I tell people what is the better version, and if they don't take my advice, that's up to them.
I certainly don't tell them the AV is the only Holy Bible and the others are perversions or Satan's Bible. That would be a lie.
'The Apostles would have quoted the un-pointed Hebrew texts, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would have quoted the Scriptures perfectly, without error in whatever language they did so.'
ReplyDeleteOK, Stephen, tell me where this is found in the OT Hebrew:
Hebrews 10:5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
The AV OT reads: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
AV in the OT reads, 'mine ears hast thou opened'; but the AV in the NT reads, 'but a body hast thou prepared me'. Which is it? Where did the writer to the Hebrews get '
but a body hast thou prepared me'?
Answer - from the LXX:
Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm
Of course one can argue that most of the LXX copies were re-written by later Christian scribes and the Hebrews passages inserted.
That would still leave us with the Hebrews writer contradicting the Hebrew OT.
Why not keep it simple and accept the NT version is the more accurate, or at least used a less accurate version (the LXX)to bring the message?
But maybe you don't believe there was an LXX prepared in OT times? That the LXX story is all a conspiracy by corrupt Church Fathers?
"The NKJV is comparable in accuracy to the AV, and has the advantage of providing textual notes to the even more accurate Majority Text."
ReplyDeleteNot true (refer to newer comment thread).
"I certainly don't tell them the AV is the only Holy Bible and the others are perversions or Satan's Bible. That would be a lie."
I do not recall making such a statement - another of your pointless straw-man arguments.
As for your LXX statements, again you make a completely non-argument.
'As for your LXX statements, again you make a completely non-argument.'
ReplyDeleteSo answer the question:
AV in the OT reads, 'mine ears hast thou opened'; but the AV in the NT reads, 'but a body hast thou prepared me'. Which is it? Where did the writer to the Hebrews get '
but a body hast thou prepared me'?
I said: "I certainly don't tell them the AV is the only Holy Bible and the others are perversions or Satan's Bible. That would be a lie."
ReplyDeleteYou replied: 'I do not recall making such a statement - another of your pointless straw-man arguments.'
Then let me remind you of this example:
I had said: “The NIV is the word of God. The NKJV is the word of God. The ESV is the word of God. Some are more accurate than others, but ALL are the word of God - NOT 'perversions'.”'
You replied: 'Utter nonsense!'
If they are not the the word of God, what are they?
The NIV, being primarily a product of dynamic equivalence and based primarily on very unreliable source texts is a construct of modern liberal higher criticism ... not something I would dare to claim to be the "Word of God". It is a corruption of God's Word - a "perversion" (to use one of Tertullian's words).
ReplyDeleteThe ESV, whilst not a dynamic equivalent orientated translation, is, however, too reliant upon less accurate source texts. The ESV is a poor translation, despite the high claims made about it (though it is much better than dynamic equivalent versions).
The NKJV is much better than both the ESV and the NIV, but has major problems (outlined in a more recent blog post, entitled "Dodgy Documents").
So, yes, to lump them altogether and claim that they "ALL are the word of God" is utter nonsense. Each must be examined separately and in turn.
Not all translations are perversions / corruptions, etc. (Again, something no one on this blog has claimed, despite your straw-man argument that states, in effect; to acknowledge that the best (in English) is not perfect, prevents us from calling some of the others perversions or corruptions.
Some are less accurate than others, some are poor translations, others are evidently seriously corrupted.)
The AV is by far the superior in the English tongue to date ... and there is not one shred of evidence to say that any other English translation, to date, is better.
I, like Maurice and others, will be holding onto the best, despite it's own minor blemishes.
Remembering the differences between the Greek texts are minor, and the translation is generally accurate, it is foolish to classify the NIV as a 'perversion'.
ReplyDeleteBut since I am more interested in advancing accuracy in the Scripture than defending less accurate versions from your invective, I'll take this to the "Dodgy Documents" thread.
Remembering the differences between the Greek texts are far from minor, and the translation is generally inaccurate, it is foolish to classify the NIV as anything other than "a perversion".
ReplyDelete"But since I am more interested in advancing accuracy in the Scripture than defending less accurate versions from your invective..."
I laughed after reading that statement, Wolfsbane! Your hypocrisy is to such an extent, that it is hilarious.
The idea of YOU complaining about "invective" is truly ironic!
I think you are more interested in the sound of your own voice than "advancing accuracy of Scripture"!
'The idea of YOU complaining about "invective" is truly ironic!'
ReplyDeleteI'll leave it to the honest reader to make the assessment.
Wolfsbane, the honest reader can see (as a number of readers of this blog have already shared with me) that you are indeed full of invective and straw-man arguments ... you are a hypocrite and a bare-faced liar.
ReplyDeleteYour latest comments prove themselves to be further evidence of this.
Lame!
I commit your comments to the Lord. 1 Peter 2:21-23.
ReplyDeleteIndeed ... and that works both ways.
ReplyDelete