What is wrong with the NIV? [Archive]

Naomi4Christ

13th February 2006, 06:23 PM

My reason for not liking the NIV is because of it's style. I like to read the NRSV, REB, NAB and even the Douay Rheims not only because they are good translations with the deuterocanon but the style is that worthy of Holy Scripture. The NIV, in my opinion, manages to make Holy Scripture boring because of the style of English used.

No thees and thous = boring, eh?

You really need to focussing on what scripture is saying rather than how it is saying it. It contains important information for how we should be living our lives. It is not there to make us feel good via some kind of artistic impression.

higgs2

13th February 2006, 06:33 PM

It is sacramentarian.
What is?

karen freeinchristman

13th February 2006, 06:34 PM

No thees and thous = boring, eh?

You really need to focussing on what scripture is saying rather than how it is saying it. It contains important information for how we should be living our lives. It is not there to make us feel good via some kind of artistic impression.

Me thinks the lady is a touch hyper-critical? :sorry:

There aren't thees and thou's in the ones AngCath listed AFAIK. I think people here are far enough along to be able to focus on both what scripture is saying as well as how it is being said, and both are important. Accuracy in translation is important (to me).

higgs2

13th February 2006, 06:35 PM

As I've said elsewhere, the main thing I dislike about the NIV versions I've encountered is the study notes, or lack of study notes.

We read the NRSV in church so it's familiar in that way too.

Naomi4Christ

13th February 2006, 06:36 PM

Me thinks the lady is a touch hyper-critical? :sorry:

It goes with the territory.

PaladinValer

13th February 2006, 08:49 PM

The NIV is sacramentarian, Higgs.

It is why I utterly refuse to read it

higgs2

13th February 2006, 08:56 PM

The NIV is sacramentarian, Higgs.

It is why I utterly refuse to read it
So I guess I need a refresher, does sacramentarian meant against sacraments? In what way is the NIV sacramentarian? I probably have heard this before but I can't remember.

Do you use "The Message" as a doorstop? Just curious.

higgs2

13th February 2006, 08:57 PM

higgs2

13th February 2006, 08:58 PM

I have to say that not having the deuterocanonical books is a big drawback for use by Episcopalians.

gtsecc

13th February 2006, 09:05 PM

I have to say that not having the deuterocanonical books is a big drawback for use by Episcopalians.
Exactly, it prevents the use of the Daily Office.

PaladinValer

13th February 2006, 09:13 PM

TomUK

13th February 2006, 09:22 PM

1. There is no Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek equivalents to English "thee and thou" speech.
2. Sacramentarian means, basically, "non-sacramental." Since Anglicanism is a sacrament-honoring church, the NIV is a very poor match.

The sacraments are all present- the only thing missing is that the real presence of Our Lord in the eucharist is not overtly emphasised.

AveMaria

14th February 2006, 03:24 AM

I'm not particularly fond of the NIV either - as others have said, one of my big objections is stylistic. The flow of the language feels choppy and stilted to me, and I'm a writer, so it's very distracting.

That, and I will admit, it's hard for me to take it serious when there's probably a dozen 'flavors' of Study NIVs on the bookstore shelf: the Student's Study Bible, the Woman's Study Bible, the Newlywed's Study Bible, etc. The whole gimmicky-marketing of the various study bibles is a big turn off.

I've seen other translations done that way, but it does seem to be mostly NIVs.

ContraMundum

14th February 2006, 01:50 PM

I like the NIV. I don't think it's overly sacramentarian but I can see why our own PV thinks so.

Look, folks, I must admit that I have not moved on from the KJV. I use it. I like the NKJV too. I have an NIV that I use on occasion- because some of the OT books are very well translated as far as I can tell and I think they're worthy of reading.

The main reason I haven't grown out of the KJV/NKJV family is that I still believe the whole textual superiority argument- even though modern seminaries abandoned that some time ago. (But it's coming back, I think). You guys know me, I'm "Contra" after all.

Naomi4Christ

14th February 2006, 06:22 PM

Sacramentarian means, basically, "non-sacramental." Since Anglicanism is a sacrament-honoring church, the NIV is a very poor match.

There you go then - it's obviously a perfect match for the evangelical wing.

gtsecc

14th February 2006, 06:27 PM

There you go then - it's obviously a perfect match for the evangelical wing.

What if Christianity is sacramental?
Do Evangelicals believe Christianity is not sacramental?
Is there any writing in the first 1,500 year history of the faith, where a group claims to be Christian, and also non-sacramental?

I think a good case could be made that a non-sacramental parish, while they may hold property jointly with the Church, has theologically confessed a position not compatibly with Christianity or at least one which denies they way in which we see our connection to other parishes.

If you are non-sacramental - haven't you excommunicated yourself?

Naomi4Christ

14th February 2006, 06:39 PM

We'll take our chances

TomUK

14th February 2006, 07:16 PM

What if Christianity is sacramental?
Do Evangelicals believe Christianity is not sacramental?
Is there any writing in the first 1,500 year history of the faith, where a group claims to be Christian, and also non-sacramental?

I think a good case could be made that a non-sacramental parish, while they may hold property jointly with the Church, has theologically confessed a position not compatibly with Christianity or at least one which denies they way in which we see our connection to other parishes.

If you are non-sacramental - haven't you excommunicated yourself?

*Tom repeats his post above*

The NIV is fully sacramental (and that's for the full 7 scaraments, btw). If you don't agree with how the NIV represents and interpets the sacraments... well that's neither here nor there!

ContraMundum

14th February 2006, 10:50 PM

What if Christianity is sacramental?
Do Evangelicals believe Christianity is not sacramental?

There you go then - it's obviously a perfect match for the evangelical wing.

...We'll take our chances

Last I heard, all the evangelicals in the Anglican Communion administered and received grace from the sacraments.

Perhaps Naomi4Christ is using some kind of hyperbole???

Naomi, don't they baptise, have Holy Communion, confess their sins and recieve absolution, get confirmed, get married, pray for the sick and annoint them and have clergy ordained by the Bishops in your church?

If you're Anglican, the answer is yes. Guess what? You're a sacramental Christian.

...and we love you.:groupray:

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 04:31 AM

Last I heard, all the evangelicals in the Anglican Communion administered and received grace from the sacraments.

Perhaps Naomi4Christ is using some kind of hyperbole???

Naomi, don't they baptise, have Holy Communion, confess their sins and recieve absolution, get confirmed, get married, pray for the sick and annoint them and have clergy ordained by the Bishops in your church?

If you're Anglican, the answer is yes. Guess what? You're a sacramental Christian.

...and we love you.:groupray:

Yes, Contra, you are of course right. But given that this thread is yet another poorly veiled dig at evangelicals, I thought I'd give them what they wanted.

We do indeed celebrate both Holy Communion and Baptism. We are just not obsessed by them or use them to separate us from other Christians. We have other focusses to our Christian faith.

As for the other things we mentioned, we do those as well (maybe not the anointing thingy). For us, we don't have a great demarkation between ordained clergy and the laity. In our time of interregnum, it is far more preferable for us to use laity to run the services instead of getting in supply clergy from the deanery.

SirTimothy

15th February 2006, 07:04 AM

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 01:58 PM

Naomi, coming from an Evangelical church in the UK, we've found it strange that in this diocese they expect to have supply clergy in a church. Our church back home just defaults back to the lay readers who run the parish quite ably and have a curate from the deanery come in to celebrate once a month. :)

Timothy

When our vicar left, our parish share (which includes his salary) remained the same. The explanation was that the deanery or archdiocese would provide clergy, if required. I think we've only taken them up on this for midweek communion services.

Other than that, we use members of our own congregation (not even the readers, as they usually do the more traditional service). We have quite a few missionaries in our church family and they are used to the kind of expository preaching that we require. For HC, we have a few members of diocesan staff who are attached to our church family, and they help out. We are also fortunate that our archdeacon is an evangelical, and we can call in one or two favours there too.

Colabomb

15th February 2006, 03:35 PM

I don't get why the NIV gets such a bad rap.

SirTimothy

15th February 2006, 03:37 PM

It's not a great translation. However it's very accessible and easy to use--fantastic for yonger teenagers. I prefer more scholarly and formal language as I've grown older, but I still refer to the NIV when working with 12-14 year olds.

Timothy

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 03:57 PM

I don't get why the NIV gets such a bad rap.

Easy - NIMBY.

SirTimothy

15th February 2006, 04:06 PM

Probably true, Naomi. All translations have problems, thats why I use 5-6 plus greek NT. That 5-6 includes the NIV, by the way. ESV, NRSV, NASB, NIV and NEB are my most comm on with the KJV and the GNB coming in next, and the Message for getting people's attention and an easy read.

Timothy

TomUK

15th February 2006, 04:08 PM

Easy - NIMBY.

I don't follow

AngCath

15th February 2006, 04:10 PM

me neither

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 04:18 PM

I don't follow

Sorry, wrong analogy. I meant to say 'not invented here syndrome'.

AngCath

15th February 2006, 04:19 PM

oh.

gtsecc

15th February 2006, 04:56 PM

Sorry, wrong analogy. I meant to say 'not invented here syndrome'.
I don't follow.

higgs2

15th February 2006, 05:00 PM

I don't follow.

yeah, I don't get it either. :confused:

AngCath

15th February 2006, 05:01 PM

this thread has turned into a chain of confusion!

higgs2

15th February 2006, 05:02 PM

this thread has turned into a chain of confusion!

It might be me, I seem to be confused in a couple of threads. me>>>>>>>:confused:

woman.at.the.well

15th February 2006, 05:07 PM

You know, expurgated is a word I never use in my daily life.

anyone was wondering (as I was too) what exactly the word EXPURGATED means, according to wordreference.com it means to have material deleted.

Now that I know what that word means . . .
I believe it is as complete as possible.

higgs2

15th February 2006, 05:10 PM

anyone was wondering (as I was too) what exactly the word EXPURGATED means, according to wordreference.com it means to have material deleted.

Now that I know what that word means . . .
I believe it is as complete as possible.
Well, it omits the Apocrypha which is a real problem for Anglicans.

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 05:17 PM

Well, it omits the Apocrypha which is a real problem for Anglicans.

Not for evangelicals. We only use the canonical books.

AngCath

15th February 2006, 05:21 PM

Not really a "problem" since all of my favorite translations include the deuterocanon anyway.

higgs2

15th February 2006, 05:22 PM

Not for evangelicals. We only use the canonical books.

Evangelicals who use the daily office need the Apocrypha. I think Evangelical Episcopalians in the US might be a little different than the way your church operates.

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 05:23 PM

Evangelicals who use the daily office need the Apocrypha. I think Evangelical Episcopalians in the US might be a little different than the way your church operates.

The Church of England Daily Office does not require the non-canonical books.

gtsecc

15th February 2006, 05:26 PM

The Church of England Daily Office does not require the non-canonical books.
Can you support your assertion of calling them "non-cannonical?"

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 05:27 PM

Please, I may be brilliant and all that, but I didn't come up with this concept

TomUK

15th February 2006, 05:27 PM

Sorry, wrong analogy. I meant to say 'not invented here syndrome'.

Sorry Naomi, but i've still confused! :confused:

EDIT: *note to tom - refresh the page before replying to a post!*

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 05:29 PM

What I mean is that the NIV is not liked on this forum because it is not what most people are used to.

higgs2

15th February 2006, 05:29 PM

The Church of England Daily Office does not require the non-canonical books.
Oh. Well maybe it's more important to ECUSA Episcopalians that Church of England Anglicans. Lah-di-dah. Even so, I don't care much for the NIV and even if it had the Apocrypha I wouldn't use it for my main bible. I am very fond of my Oxford Edition NRSV. :)

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 05:30 PM

Isn't it wonderful that the International Bible Society UK (the group that sponsor the NIV bible) is led by a Church of England clergyman?

gtsecc

15th February 2006, 05:31 PM

Common Worship includes some in the second week of January:

THE EPIPHANY
The readings appointed for 7–12 January are not used beyond the Saturday after 6 January.
Jan 7–12
7
Baruch 1.15–2.10 or Jer 23.1–8
Isaiah 63.7–end

8
Baruch 2.11–end or Jer 30.1–17
Isaiah 64

9
Baruch 3.1–8 or Jer 30.18–31.9
Isaiah 65.1–16

10
Baruch 3.9–4.4 or Jer 31.10–17
Isaiah 65.17–end

11
Baruch 4.21–30 or Jer 33.14–end
Isaiah 66.1–11

12
Baruch 4.36–5.end or Mic 5.2–end
Isaiah 66.12–23

gtsecc

15th February 2006, 05:32 PM

Please, I may be brilliant and all that, but I didn't come up with this concept
I never said you came up with it, I merely said you asserted it, and could you back it up?
I suppose you can't.

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 05:32 PM

Oh. Well maybe it's more important to ECUSA Episcopalians that Church of England Anglicans. Lah-di-dah. Even so, I don't care much for the NIV and even if it had the Apocrypha I wouldn't use it for my main bible. I am very fond of my Oxford Edition NRSV. :)

Fair enough. The most important quality of any bible is that it is read, and is not a museum piece on your living room bookshelf with the sole purpose of impressing your visitors.

Naomi4Christ

15th February 2006, 05:33 PM

AngCath

15th February 2006, 05:34 PM

Fair enough. The most important quality of any bible is that it is read, and is not a museum piece on your living room bookshelf with the sole purpose of impressing your visitors.

YES, find a Bible and READ IT.

higgs2

15th February 2006, 05:36 PM

Fair enough. The most important quality of any bible is that it is read, and is not a museum piece on your living room bookshelf with the sole purpose of impressing your visitors.
Oh sure, I agree with that.

But I do have to add that I can't imagine using a bible on my bookshelves to impress visitors, but maybe I don't get the same kind of visitors as some. :D

I actually try to stow the toys away in the toy bins and clear off the dining room table when I'm trying to impress visitors. :D

gtsecc

15th February 2006, 05:40 PM

Note that canonical books are all given too.
But, the NIV, which you are probably reading right now - does not contain all the canonical books.

woman.at.the.well

15th February 2006, 06:32 PM

Apocrypha and what Christians believe and why we believe, for those interested:

http://members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html

higgs2

15th February 2006, 06:37 PM

Apocrypha and what Christians believe and why we believe, for those interested:

http://members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html

The link does not work.

pmcleanj

15th February 2006, 07:27 PM

Apocrypha and what Christians believe and why we believe, for those interested:

http://members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html
This is a little sweepingly worded, do you not think? After all, we here in STR are Christians, and patently from this thread we have a variety of differing beliefs about the Apocrypha (including for some, the belief that "Apocrypha" is a pejorative term that should be replaced by "deuterocanon". So what you have linked is what some Christians believe.

The webpage that this link targets makes some debatable historical claims. They are partly true, but they do not give the additional information that would lead to a full understanding. For example, it says that originally the deuterocanonicals were originally considered non-canonical and became accepted as canonical "slowly over the years". That's not consistent with the history of how the Septuagint has been used.

It also uses circular reasoning; for example discounting the deuterocanonicles because they date to "a time in which direct revelations of the Word of God had ceased" -- a claim which itself rests on the presumption that the deuterocanonicles are not inspired!

It also uses imprecise language that tends to mislead, such as implying that "deuterocanonical" means "hidden". It really means "according to a second rule".

"According to a second rule" is exactly how Anglicans traditionally view these scriptures. There is one rule for the primary canon: that it be sufficient and necessary for formulating doctrine; and a second rule for the deuterocanon: that it is read for moral instructio and example.

gtsecc

15th February 2006, 07:30 PM

The link does not work.
yeah, but I got it working.
It basically says God inspired the jews to correctly only include the shorter canon. here si the quote
These books were not a part of the Masoretic Text (which are copies of the collection of God inspired Hebrew text that the Jews themselves considered canonical),

While God was inspiring the Jews on which OT books to include, why didn't he inspire them to include the Gospels? ^_^

higgs2

15th February 2006, 07:40 PM

yeah, but I got it working.
It basically says God inspired the jews to correctly only include the shorter canon. here si the quote

While God was inspiring the Jews on which OT books to include, why didn't he inspire them to include the Gospels? ^_^
oh, a reformed website (I typed it in). I have to agree with Pamela, the statements about this site are pretty sweeping.

whatever.

good question btw :D

ContraMundum

17th February 2006, 01:01 AM

It also uses circular reasoning; for example discounting the deuterocanonicles because they date to "a time in which direct revelations of the Word of God had ceased" -- a claim which itself rests on the presumption that the deuterocanonicles are not inspired!

Perhaps the link is referring to the Jewish idea that the Holy Spirit prophetically left Israel for the preceeding 400 (?) years before "CE". I seem to remember being taught that when I was a young boy. I guess it correlates to the fact that there were no prophets in Israel for centuries, until John the Baptist. Things written or canons compiled in that time can be regarded as less inspired (or not at all, according to some Jews) and are thus not taken to be as authoratative.

I'll have to look into that a bit more.

"According to a second rule" is exactly how Anglicans traditionally view these scriptures. There is one rule for the primary canon: that it be sufficient and necessary for formulating doctrine; and a second rule for the deuterocanon: that it is read for moral instructio and example.

Excellent.

ContraMundum

17th February 2006, 01:07 AM

It also uses imprecise language that tends to mislead, such as implying that "deuterocanonical" means "hidden". It really means "according to a second rule".

Oh...one more thing. I think the author of that article is right about "Apocryphal" coming from the Greek for "hidden" (but he doesn't elaborate on term properly), and you are right about the term "deuterocanonical".

I don't think the term "apocrypha" suits the books at all. There's nothing hidden about them.

EvAnglican

17th February 2006, 01:45 AM

I don't think the term "apocrypha" suits the books at all. There's nothing hidden about them.

The Apocrypha and the Deuterocanon are not one and the same. The Apocrypha contains additional books (Pseudoepigrapha) and are also deuterocanonical.

They are called the Apocrypha after the book of Second Esdras which contained hidden mysteries and knowledge disclosed by God to Ezra the seer.

ChessCastle

17th February 2006, 04:17 AM

Oh. Well maybe it's more important to ECUSA Episcopalians that Church of England Anglicans. Lah-di-dah. Even so, I don't care much for the NIV and even if it had the Apocrypha I wouldn't use it for my main bible. I am very fond of my Oxford Edition NRSV. :)

I was just considering an Oxford Edition NRSV. Thanks for the recommendation, I think I'll pick it up.

CC

higgs2

17th February 2006, 04:19 AM

I was just considering an Oxford Edition NRSV. Thanks for the recommendation, I think I'll pick it up.

CC
Oh I just love mine! The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Let us know how you like it!

AveMaria

17th February 2006, 05:25 AM

Oh I just love mine! The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Let us know how you like it!

I gave my mother one for Christmas last year, she loves it. ( I'm more partial to the New Jerusalem, myself)

Colabomb

17th February 2006, 11:58 AM

I was just considering an Oxford Edition NRSV. Thanks for the recommendation, I think I'll pick it up.

CC
I just got a cheap paperback version of the NRSV, and even though I am a huge Ol' Conservative....

I really don't get the big deal other conservatives make about it.

karen freeinchristman

17th February 2006, 12:17 PM

even though I am a huge Ol' Conservative....

Cola, I wonder if you could tell me what the difference is between a conservative and a fundamentalist? :confused:

AngCath

17th February 2006, 02:03 PM

Just guessing but I'd say a conservative could still hold to Scripture, Tradition and Reason (probably an emphasis on Scripture though) while a Fundamentalist probably does not hold to Tradition or Reason except in a nominal sense.

higgs2

17th February 2006, 02:06 PM

I just got a cheap paperback version of the NRSV, and even though I am a huge Ol' Conservative....

I really don't get the big deal other conservatives make about it.
Don't they like it?

TomUK

17th February 2006, 02:19 PM

Don't they like it?

If it wasn't gender neutral the they would love it!

AngCath

17th February 2006, 02:19 PM

but much of the Greek is gender neutral!

karen freeinchristman

17th February 2006, 03:29 PM

but much of the Greek is gender neutral!

yeah! Go AngCath... Go AngCath... Go AngCath!!! :thumbsup:

:sorry:

ufonium2

17th February 2006, 03:57 PM

I grew up with the NIV, with the Student Bible study notes. The notes for the whole book of James were basically refutations of the book from a faith-alone perspective. They even quote Luther in the notes, and I seem to remember that he once stated the book should be removed from the canon. So he would seem an odd source for study notes on James.

Also, the NIV translates the same Greek word two different ways. If it's in a positive context, they translate it as "teaching." If it's in a negative context, "tradition." That's a little heavy-handed, if you ask me.

Fish and Bread

17th February 2006, 04:12 PM

Cola, I wonder if you could tell me what the difference is between a conservative and a fundamentalist? :confused:

A Christian conservative is an otherwise fairly average guy who happens to carry around a bible a lot and doesn't approve of women ministers or homosexuality. A fundamentalist is a guy who goes to church in a little shack in the woods and drinks poison and handles snakes because the bible says these things can't find harm a Christian, forces his wife to be submissive and wear a head covering, and curses those evil Darwinists. ;)

Illustrated in graph form:

Liberal Conservative ---------------------------Fundamentalist

karen freeinchristman

17th February 2006, 04:14 PM

A Christian conservative is an otherwise fairly average guy who happens to carry around a bible a lot and doesn't approve of women ministers or homosexuality. A fundamentalist is a guy who goes to church in a little shack in the woods and drinks poison and handles snakes because the bible says these things can't find harm a Christian, forces his wife to be submissive and wear a head covering, and curses those evil Darwinists. ;)

Illustrated in graph form:

Liberal Conservative ---------------------------Fundamentalist

Thanks, John! :)

AngCath

17th February 2006, 05:12 PM

Lol :)

Iosias

18th February 2006, 04:29 PM

The NIV is based upon a corrupted Greek text. You should read Dean John Burgeon on this issue.

Naomi4Christ

18th February 2006, 04:59 PM

The NIV is based upon a corrupted Greek text. You should read Dean John Burgeon on this issue.

The preface of the NIV begins:

"The New Internation Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts."

Sounds like a good approach to me...

Iosias

18th February 2006, 05:11 PM

The preface of the NIV begins:

"The New Internation Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts."

Sounds like a good approach to me...

Sounds like but is not actually the case. The NIV was based upon the Majority Text which was based upon newly discovered manuscripts. One was found in the Vatican and is known as the Vaticanus and the other is known as the Siniaticus. These disagree with the Recieved Text over 2000 times in the Gospels alone and they even significantly disagree with themselves over 3000 times.

Have a read of these articles:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/onlinearticles.asp

PaladinValer

19th February 2006, 12:58 AM

Inferior texts? Oh, you mean the KJV! :D

Sorry, but we Anglicans accept officially the RV, RSV, NRSV, etc, as AVs. The entire meaning of Authorized Version applies to a translation that befits use in official rite, ritual, and liturgy. It means nothing else.

ContraMundum

19th February 2006, 01:42 AM

Inferior texts? Oh, you mean the KJV! :D

The KJV has an excellent text. The tide is turning once again to accept the TR. (though no one is saying the TR is perfect on its own)

Sorry, but we Anglicans accept officially the RV, RSV, NRSV, etc, as AVs.

PV, why do you always insist that we what you believe is what all Anglicans must also believe? The KJV is still authorized by "we" Anglicans and has historically been in use in Anglicanism more than any of the modern translations. It is still the among the best, and is superior to the RV, RSV, NRSV and other gender-inclusive and liberal biased translations. Incidentaly, the NIV is also superior to those versions.

ContraMundum

19th February 2006, 01:45 AM

Sounds like but is not actually the case. The NIV was based upon the Majority Text which was based upon newly discovered manuscripts. One was found in the Vatican and is known as the Vaticanus and the other is known as the Siniaticus. These disagree with the Recieved Text over 2000 times in the Gospels alone and they even significantly disagree with themselves over 3000 times.

Have a read of these articles:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/onlinearticles.asp

There's a lot of really bad teaching kicking around defending the KJV. I recommend caution.

Also, it's debatable whether or not the variations between the manuscripts influence the theology of the Bible.

Just my two cents.

DeaconDean

19th February 2006, 01:50 AM

Let's examine two passages of scripture, one from the KJV, and one from the NIV and see which one is correct:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." 1 Cor. 7:1 (KJV)

" Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." 1 Cor. 7:1 (NIV)

Which is correct, not to touch a woman meaning have sex, or not to marry?

ContraMundum

19th February 2006, 01:55 AM

but much of the Greek is gender neutral!

...much of the Greek regarding what?

Regarding gender-related issues and statements, the Greek is NOT gender neutral, ever. Anyone trying to tell otherwise is not on the level.

PaladinValer

19th February 2006, 02:25 AM

The TR text consists of 12 texts no later than the 11th century which required the retrograde translation from Latin because a portion of Revelation was missing!

It disagrees many, many times over with the real Majority Texts.

Furthermore, what is called the "Minority Text" today was the true Majority Texts for the first 700 years of Christian history. The Dead Sea Scrolls show how accurate the Septuagint is!

The KJV was excellent for its time, but modern knowledge shows it to be a terrible choice today.

erin74

19th February 2006, 02:31 AM

...much of the Greek regarding what?

Regarding gender-related issues and statements, the Greek is NOT gender neutral, ever. Anyone trying to tell otherwise is not on the level.

I'm glad you said that because that was my uneducated understanding of Greek. I thought, if anything, it had more gender language than english.... I know dh has talked to me about it... but since I don't fully understand it I don't always remember what he says about Greek correctly.

I have an NIV mainly because that is what most of the people in the churches I have attended have (cost makes it difficult to replace pew bibles with any kind of regularity). I also have an ESV that I use pretty regularly. It is a better translation (particularly the new testament), but is a bit cumbersome language wise.

My NIV pet hate - red letters - but boy is it hard to find a small bible without them - I've been looking for a while. I want one with a little flap so it doesn't get damaged in my bag, and is easily portable (aka small), and no red letters. Preferrably NIV or ESV - so if you find one let me know! Oh and I do like the cross references. I'd almost put up with the red letters rather than go without cross references - they are just plain handy. Oh and no deutercannon (is that the right spelling).

One of our old mininsters was an NRSV fan (I don't mind it but prefer the ESV). He called it the New Really Suave Version, as opposed to the New (can't remember his N word) Inaccurate Version.

The ESV nickname I like the most - Eastern Suburbs Version - but that is mainly in reference to a particular anglican church in sydney so most won't appreciate that one. Ethiopian Singalong Version is fun, but not nearly so accurate a pun.

EvAnglican

19th February 2006, 02:34 AM

One of our old mininsters was an NRSV fan (I don't mind it but prefer the ESV). He called it the New Really Suave Version, as opposed to the New (can't remember his N word) Inaccurate Version.

I've heard, from one of our vicars, the NIV described as the Nearly Infallible Version. We replaced our RSV pew bibles shortly after that. :)

DeaconDean

19th February 2006, 02:47 AM

Greek text gender neutral? Where did that come from? If you would study Greek 1 the first thing they teach right after the alphabet is how to determine if the word is masculine, feminine, or neutral. Singular or Plural. And how to determine which case it is in:nominative, genetive , dative, accusitive, voccative. Whether it is Present Active Indicitive, whether it is noun of the second declension, whether it is attributive or Predicate, whether it is a demonstrative or reflex pronoun, whether it is a preposition or a compound verb. These are just some of what you have to look for when translating Greek into English.

Fish and Bread

19th February 2006, 02:49 AM

I've heard, from one of our vicars, the NIV described as the Nearly Infallible Version.

Wow, the range of opinions that are out there when it comes to bible translations is amazing sometimes! :)

EvAnglican

19th February 2006, 02:50 AM

Wow, the range of opinions that are out there when it comes to bible translations is amazing sometimes! :)

I agree!

SirTimothy

19th February 2006, 06:53 AM

Contra and DeaconDean are both correct about the non-gender neutrality of greek. HOWEVER, much like ye olde english, greek used the masculine plural forms for both men and women. Translating Αδελφοι (lit. brothers) as 'brothers and sisters' is taking no liberty with the text, as it more comes over as 'brethren' from old english, which is of course a masculine word which is gender-inclusive. The problem is of course that being gender-inclusive isn't Politically Correct in any shape or form, so gender-inclusive language is more a genuflection in the direction of being PC more than anything else. I don't object to that in actuality, but I can understand people who do.

Timothy

ContraMundum

19th February 2006, 11:12 AM

Standard modernist paradigm- we know better than those before us. We're getting smarter, faster and stronger.

Christian paradigm- we know less than those before us, we're getting dumber, slower and weaker.

The TR text consists of 12 texts no later than the 11th century which required the retrograde translation from Latin because a portion of Revelation was missing!

Who told you that?

Q- if the text is old, does that make it true? If paper and papyrus wears out with use, then which texts would survive? The ones used or the ones less used?

It disagrees many, many times over with the real Majority Texts.

What's a "real" majority text as opposed to a "fake" majority text PV?

Furthermore, what is called the "Minority Text" today was the true Majority Texts for the first 700 years of Christian history.

Can you prove that statement? Ancient lexicons and the writings of the Fathers agree more with the Byzantine and TR, than with what you call the "true" majority texts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls show how accurate the Septuagint is!

Can you prove that statement? Can you prove that the LXX was even canon before Christ? Did the Dead Sea Scrolls come from the Orthodox Jews or the heterodox sect of the Essenes? Good luck.

Naomi4Christ

19th February 2006, 11:15 AM

:thumbsup: Contra

ContraMundum

19th February 2006, 11:16 AM

One of our old mininsters was an NRSV fan (I don't mind it but prefer the ESV). He called it the New Really Suave Version, as opposed to the New (can't remember his N word) Inaccurate Version.

My dad, a Pentecostal Pastor, calls the NIV the "Necessary In Vineyard" version, a comment directed ot the Vineyard movement. A friend of mine calls it the "Non Inspired Version".

I like it so I just call it the "No, It's Vindicated" in response.

The ESV nickname I like the most - Eastern Suburbs Version - but that is mainly in reference to a particular anglican church in sydney so most won't appreciate that one. Ethiopian Singalong Version is fun, but not nearly so accurate a pun.

That's funny.

PaladinValer

19th February 2006, 11:44 AM

dStandard modernist paradigm- we know better than those before us. We're getting smarter, faster and stronger.

Never said I agreed with that now did I? Since it is pretty common knowledge that I prefer the NRSV, what textual-type do I then prefer?

Answer: Eclectic.

Thats a big strike one. Next time, please think more logically before accusing me of something I am not.

Christian paradigm- we know less than those before us, we're getting dumber, slower and weaker.

That's an opinion. Strike two.

Who told you that?

Look it up.

http://www.revneal.org/

In Writings, In Papers

"Latin Manuscript Evidence Concerning 1 John 5-7."In Writings, In Articles

"Bible Versions- The KJV"
"Bible Versions- Worshiping the KJV"
"Bible Versions- Additions and Substractions"
"Bible Versions- Choosing a Translation"If you want additional sources, ask.

Q- if the text is old, does that make it true?

This goes off the illogical assumption that I believe older=better. This is an utter Straw Man.

If paper and papyrus wears out with use, then which texts would survive? The ones used or the ones less used?

This assumes that the one type is better than another type. The ones most used aren't necessarily older or better, and the ones used rarely aren't necessarily news or worse.

What's a "real" majority text as opposed to a "fake" majority text PV?

I said nothing about real or fake. Straw Man once again. Read what I said and don't inject your own additional overreadings of what I supposedly say to you it seems into it.

Can you prove that statement? Ancient lexicons and the writings of the Fathers agree more with the Byzantine and TR, than with what you call the "true" majority texts.

Can you prove that? I see as much proof of this that what I gave.

Can you prove that statement?

http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

Can you prove that the LXX was even canon before Christ?

Never implied that I believed that nor did I state outright that I said that. This is another Straw Man.

Did the Dead Sea Scrolls come from the Orthodox Jews or the heterodox sect of the Essenes? Good luck.

Who cares whether the Essenes were heterodox at all or not? I don't. Judaism isn't the true religion; Christianity is. And if the Christian Canon agrees more with those manuscripts that the Essenes used than what you term "orthodox Jews," then sobeit.

Naomi4Christ

19th February 2006, 11:46 AM

:D :cool: ^_^

ContraMundum

19th February 2006, 12:23 PM

Never said I agreed with that now did I? Since it is pretty common knowledge that I prefer the NRSV, what textual-type do I then prefer?

Answer: Eclectic.

Thats a big strike one against one. Next time, please think more logically before accusing me of something I am not.

OK, so now I'm illogical, as well as dumb.

It's pretty clear to me that you are in fact influenced greatly by modernist prolegomena. I've gleaned that from a whole array of posts of yours.

That's an opinion. Strike two.

It's a pretty good opinion, as far as I see it, and in fact, most orthodox Christians would agree with me that "the Fathers know best". What you need to reconsile within your own theological world is why the modern texts ("eclectic" or not) don't concur in full with the texts of the Fathers. Eclecticism is not the answer- only the accurate Word is.

No strikes yet.

Look it up.

http://www.revneal.org/

In Writings, In Papers

"Latin Manuscript Evidence Concerning 1 John 5-7."In Writings, In Articles

"Bible Versions- The KJV"
"Bible Versions- Worshiping the KJV"
"Bible Versions- Additions and Substractions"
"Bible Versions- Choosing a Translation"If you want additional sources, ask.

Oh my goodness, you've directed me to Greg Neal's website. LOL!!! :D :D

This is hilarious. Not because of Dr Neal's works, just because you've just made a prophet out of me.

Hey PV, did you have communion from the website?

If I want additional resources, I'll be asking someone else, believe me.

This goes off the illogical assumption that I believe older=better. This is an utter Straw Man.

What do you actually believe, PV? Or is is just our stuff that gets criticised?

This assumes that the one type is better than another type. The ones most used aren't necessarily older or better, and the ones used rarely aren't necessarily news or worse.

Puzzling statement. Argument from silence perhaps?

I said nothing about real or fake. Straw Man once again. Read what I said and don't inject your own additional overreadings of what I supposedly say to you it seems into it.

Ok, then tell us what "true majority text" and the "real majority text" means. Your words, not mine. Don;t blame the listener PV.

Can you prove that? I see as much proof of this that what I gave.

Sure I can. Want to send away for some books?

Who cares whether the Essenes were heterodox at all or not? I don't. Judaism isn't the true religion. Christianity is. And if the Christian Canon agrees more with those manuscripts that the Essenes used than what you term "orthodox Jews," then sobeit.

Well, I think Judaism was the true religion until the Messiah, which is the era of the writing of the DSS. It appears as though you have a few problems here. You have assumed a lot about the canon, when in fact, you are quite off target here. For a start, the DSS have texts which are not in either the LXX or the proper Hebrew canon- so you should not accept the witness of Qumran as equivalent to the definitive canon of the OT. But that's another topic, and I'm sure you don't care what one old pastor tells you on the net anyway- we're just too dumb and illogical for you.

PaladinValer

19th February 2006, 04:48 PM

It's pretty clear to me that you are in fact influenced greatly by modernist prolegomena. I've gleaned that from a whole array of posts of yours.

Oh yes...I'm a "modernist."

If simply denying the Manichean argument of spiritual truth over secular truth makes me a "Modernist," then I'm guilty as charged. I'd rather be a so-called "Modernist" than the other.

Incidentally, illogical doesn't equate to "dumb," as I know many very intelligent people who simply cannot construct sound arguments.

It's a pretty good opinion, as far as I see it, and in fact, most orthodox Christians would agree with me that "the Fathers know best". What you need to reconsile within your own theological world is why the modern texts ("eclectic" or not) don't concur in full with the texts of the Fathers. Eclecticism is not the answer- only the accurate Word is.

The fact that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint then means nothing? Or are the Eastern Orthodox not orthodox enough?

And the TR is the most modern of all majorly used texts, mind you. If any of them would be called "modern," the TR would be it, historically speaking.

Oh my goodness, you've directed me to Greg Neal's website. LOL!!!

This is hilarious. Not because of Dr Neal's works, just because you've just made a prophet out of me.

So just because the man offers Communion via internet, he isn't a valid source? Fallacy of Prejudicial Language and Fallacy of Ad Hominem. His questionable "Eucharist Ministry" doesn't negate the validity of his authority on the subject matter of textual criticism.

Puzzling statement. Argument from silence perhaps?

No, that's a logical deduction.

Ok, then tell us what "true majority text" and the "real majority text" means. Your words, not mine. Don;t blame the listener PV.

Allow me to repeat myself:

"Furthermore, what is called the "Minority Text" today was the true Majority Texts for the first 700 years of Christian history. The Dead Sea Scrolls show how accurate the Septuagint is!"

The bold is was is being now discussed. You, I'll presume mistakingly to give the benefit of the doubt, left out the second part of the bold. Perhaps you didn't read that part the first time also...it matters not now since I have now provided the statement in its context. Since you have it, now you can see why your statements were Straw Men.

Well, I think Judaism was the true religion until the Messiah, which is the era of the writing of the DSS.

Not entirely. The NT made it clear that God allowed many things He normally wouldn't allow in the Torah to allow for the hardness of the Hebrew people. Divorce being one key example. Judaism was salvific until Jesus, but there was technically no true religion in terms of being fully "it with God" until Christianity.