Murdoch's NIV

[Jerry]

There are translations within the Word of God itself. Parts of Genesis and Exodus were spoken in Egyptian and recorded in Hebrew with nothing lost in translation. Then we have many OT Hebrew and Aramaic passages quoted in Greek in the NT with nothing lost. Paul spoke Hebrew in Acts and it was recorded in Greek with nothing lost. We have several Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, recorded in Greek with nothing lost.

If God had no problem declaring these translations as inspired Scripture, why does anyone else doubt it? God is not limited by the language barrier. He inspired His Word, and if it is a faithful translation, it is still inspired and His exact words today.

[John81]

I think the real issue is: Can we get along with each other, maintain doctrinal unity and purity, and have good Christian fellowship having different translations? I say, certainly yes. I think the biggest separational problem is with the people who say "you are either with us or against us" when it comes to the translation issue. I don't believe that extra-scriptural doctrine, like onlyism, (whether one claims to have been given this revelation or not) should be a deciding factor in whether one can fellowship with another. And in my opinion, I likewise don't think extra-scriptural doctrine should be a deciding factor in whether or not someone is in pursuit of or not standing solidly on the truth if they believe or don't believe it (unless that extra-scriptural doctrine is contrary to scripture).

Our pastor is currently preaching from First Corinthians and is dealing with church unity; both unity within the local church, and unity among believers in general. He did an excellent job this morning of preaching the importance of never compromising on the fundamentals of the faith. He also did an excellent job preaching on the importance of not allowing secondary issues to tarnish our love and proper unity between believers.

In his preaching, our pastor pointed out how Paul was very strict in dealing with those who deviated from the fundamentals of the faith while calling for believers to love one another and be unified otherwise.

Scripture says people will know us because we love one another. Is it right and within the bounds of Christian love to deal with someone who has a solid Christian life, testimony and witness, but who uses the NIV as if they are a second or third class Christian or perhaps to even question their Christianity altogether?

Of course, one can discuss the issue of translations in a loving manner but I see most KJB-only folks become very defensive and show little (if any) love in these circumstances.

And, just to set the record straight, I'm not defending or advocating the NIV. Personally, I find the NIV to be one of the least acceptable of the various translations and one of those that I've never cared for and one I was unable to get much from. All of this makes it even more remarkable to me that some men can use this translation and yet be such solid Christians.

[suitman]

There are translations within the Word of God itself. Parts of Genesis and Exodus were spoken in Egyptian and recorded in Hebrew with nothing lost in translation. Then we have many OT Hebrew and Aramaic passages quoted in Greek in the NT with nothing lost. Paul spoke Hebrew in Acts and it was recorded in Greek with nothing lost. We have several Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, recorded in Greek with nothing lost.

If God had no problem declaring these translations as inspired Scripture, why does anyone else doubt it? God is not limited by the language barrier. He inspired His Word, and if it is a faithful translation, it is still inspired and His exact words today.

Interesting thought

could you provide evidence for these instances or perhaps show me where to find them

[Jerry]

I hate the NIV I think its a shoddy job at translation and the texts its translated from are not perfect. I also think that the KJV is the best english bible out there its just that I disagree with the onlyism and the condemnation that people get from IFBS when they are not KJVO.

You don't agree with KJVonlyism - yet you acknowledge that there are corrupt texts. The KJV IS the only translation in English (in common use - yes, there are some precursors to the KJV - which for the most part we would not have a problem with others using) that is solely based on those preserved texts - therefore what other conclusion can someone become but KJVonly (in English)? How can anyone be for corrupt translations?

could you provide evidence for these instances or perhaps show me where to find them

Genesis and Exodus state that Joseph and the Pharaoh's spoke Egyptian, yet we have it recorded in Hebrew. Half of Daniel and part of Nehemiah is aramaic. The rest of the OT is written in Hebrew yet quoted many times in the NT in Greek. In the Gospels you will find the various times Jesus spoke Aramaic words and what their translation is. Immanuel and Psalms 22:1 are quoted in Hebrew in the NT and also translated/transliterated into Greek in the NT. Acts 22-23 contain Paul's conversation in Hebrew (see 21:40 and 22:2) though it is inspired and recorded in Greek.

[suitman]

You don't agree with KJVonlyism - yet you acknowledge that there are corrupt texts. The KJV IS the only translation in English (in common use - yes, there are some precursors to the KJV - which for the most part we would not have a problem with others using) that is solely based on those preserved texts - therefore what other conclusion can someone become but KJVonly (in English)? How can anyone be for corrupt translations?

I did not say they were corrupt I said they were not perfect. I also think that while KJV is a great translation it is not 100% perfect because it has been altered through translation(I might change my mind on this based on the other points you have made). therefore in my mind its imprefect text vs the more imperfect texts. therefore I can honestly say that the KJV is the best english translation but still not perfect and so to condemn the others due to their imperfections is to condemn the KJV aswell.

Genesis and Exodus state that Joseph and the Pharaoh's spoke Egyptian, yet we have it recorded in Hebrew. Half of Daniel and part of Nehemiah is aramaic. The rest of the OT is written in Hebrew yet quoted many times in the NT in Greek. In the Gospels you will find the various times Jesus spoke Aramaic words and what their translation is. Immanuel and Psalms 22:1 are quoted in Hebrew in the NT and also translated/transliterated into Greek in the NT. Acts 22-23 contain Paul's conversation in Hebrew (see 21:40 and 22:2) though it is inspired and recorded in Greek.

thanks I'll be sure to look these up

[Jerry]

The other translations are not rejected because they are "imperfect" or because things might have been lost in translation. They are rejected because they are based on corrupt/tampered texts, because words/phrases/verses are added or taken away (when compared with the KJV and the Received Texts), because the meaning is changed in countless places, and because there are contradictions within themselves. Regardless of how "well" you may think they are translated or not translated - the issue is as much what they contain as how they are translated.

P.S. Paraphrases and dynamic equivalency translations put man's opinions above the words God actually gave. God inspired literal, actual words - not ideas or concepts - therefore to change those words (in a way that changes meaning - not referring to using different/more modern words instead) is playing loose with God's Word and giving the people something other than what God gave us.

[suitman]

The other translations are not rejected because they are "imperfect" or because things might have been lost in translation. They are rejected because they are based on corrupt/tampered texts' date=' [b']because words/phrases/verses are added or taken away (when compared with the KJV and the Received Texts), because the meaning is changed in countless places, and because there are contradictions within themselves. Regardless of how "well" you may think they are translated or not translated - the issue is as much what they contain as how they are translated.

well then I have this question because it was this that convinced me last time that KJVO isn't right

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.#

I know this phrase is not wrong as all it teaches is the trinity which is a right doctrine but is it in the recieved texts?

P.S. Paraphrases and dynamic equivalency translations put man's opinions above the words God actually gave. God inspired literal, actual words - not ideas or concepts - therefore to change those words (in a way that changes meaning - not referring to using different/more modern words instead) is playing loose with God's Word and giving the people something other than what God gave us.

Translation is a bit trickier than that for if we were to translate every word exactly and literally the bible in english would make no sense as different sentence structure and word definitions vary greatly between the languages.

[John81]

Jerry (and/or anyone, really), this may be off-topic, but I was wondering about your position on the differences between some of the KJBs. From what I understand, these differences mostly amount to the use of a slightly different word or a different spelling of some words, or even between some words being capitalized in some and not in others.

The reason I ask is because I've noticed a growing "movement" among some KJB-only folks proclaiming that certain KJBs are "frauds", "fakes", "counterfits", or even considered "corrupted" because of these (what I believe are) publishing differences.

Off hand (meaning without looking this up right now) Matthew 4:1 is the only "proof text" I remember as being one they use because in some KJBs the word "spirit" is written with a small "s" (as in, spirit); while in other KJBs, it's written with a capital "S" (as in Spirit).

Likely as not, at least some of you know what I'm talking about and are somewhat familiar with the other differences they site.

Anyway, I would like to know what you think of this and perhaps even why you think this is becoming such an issue among some KJB-only folks...meaning, why do some KJB-only folks now proclaim to be not only KJB-only, but SPECIFIC KJB-only.

Is there a "better" than others KJB or a "best" KJB?

Thank you.

[Jerry]

Formal Equivalency is the attempt to carry across the exact meaning of the original languages into English or another language. Dynamic Equivalency is not an attempt to bring across the exact wording (as much as is possible), but an attempt to give the "ideas or thoughts" of the original writers. Wiithout their exact words, we have no idea what they thought!

1 John 5:7 is in various TR manuscripts. It might not be in everyone, but there is overwhelming proof that it is part of the original text. Consider 2nd century Lexicons and translations into other languages that have it - as well as exact quotes from the early church fathers - which show that it was not made up or inserted into the text. Basically, those who teach it was not part of the original text are those in support of the critical texts and its changes - plus, some of those who helped put the critical text together were Unitarians, therefore they were for the removal of that verse.

[Jerry]

John, for the most part, it is just a dangerous rabbit trail that some are getting caught up in. There are some cults that are printing their own KJV's - and messing with the text. And some of the worst (ie. questionable) spelling or capitalization changes are by Thomas Nelson (publishers of the NKJV) - so I would be wary of their KJV's. Also, even if they do not change the actual text, they are printing some of the same footnotes in their KJV's that they have in their NKJV's (ie. questioning the text and causing confusion).

[suitman]

^well I'll be looking into what you have said to make sure its right.

thanks for answering :smile

Jerry (and/or anyone, really), this may be off-topic, but I was wondering about your position on the differences between some of the KJBs. From what I understand, these differences mostly amount to the use of a slightly different word or a different spelling of some words, or even between some words being capitalized in some and not in others.

The reason I ask is because I've noticed a growing "movement" among some KJB-only folks proclaiming that certain KJBs are "frauds", "fakes", "counterfits", or even considered "corrupted" because of these (what I believe are) publishing differences.

Off hand (meaning without looking this up right now) Matthew 4:1 is the only "proof text" I remember as being one they use because in some KJBs the word "spirit" is written with a small "s" (as in, spirit); while in other KJBs, it's written with a capital "S" (as in Spirit).

Likely as not, at least some of you know what I'm talking about and are somewhat familiar with the other differences they site.

Anyway, I would like to know what you think of this and perhaps even why you think this is becoming such an issue among some KJB-only folks...meaning, why do some KJB-only folks now proclaim to be not only KJB-only, but SPECIFIC KJB-only.

Is there a "better" than others KJB or a "best" KJB?

Thank you.

Well I cannot give an opinion but I can tell you sme facts


these are what the others have in comparisson to the cambrige version(which I have been told by other IFBS is the true version)

1. ?or Sheba? not ?and Sheba? in Joshua 19:2
2. ?sin? not ?sins? in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. ?Spirit of God? not ?spirit of God? in Job 33:4
4. ?whom ye? not ?whom he? in Jeremiah 34:16
5. ?Spirit of God? not ?spirit of God? in Ezekiel 11:24
6. ?flieth? not ?fleeth? in Nahum 3:16
7. ?Spirit? not ?spirit? in Matthew 4:1
8. ?further? not ?farther? in Matthew 26:39
9. ?bewrayeth? not ?betrayeth? in Matthew 26:73
10. ?Spirit? not ?spirit? in Mark 1:12
11. ?spirit? not ?Spirit? in Acts 11:28
12. ?spirit? not ?Spirit? in 1 John 5:8


but looking at these I don't really see the big problem.

[John81]

Thank you Jerry and suitman!

Yes, those listed differences are some I've seen referenced before and to me, at this point anyway, the majority of them seem to be very minor things and seem to be publishing differences rather than "corruptions" or issues to claim "fraud" over.

I recall reading somewhere that Cambridge is best as well. Is this true to any extent? How can one tell if a particular KJB comes from the Cambridge publishing style?

I've a couple KJB study Bibles and in their notes there are sometimes comments like "not in the better manuscripts" or comments about "the best manuscripts don't contain this" and that sort of thing. While such could be a real problem for new or as of yet immature Christians, I can ignore them.

I do, however, dislike the practice of some Bible companies who will have a commentary, notes and what-not made for one version (NIV, for example) and then they end up putting these things designed specifically to go with the NIV into all their other translations.

Truly, it can be difficult to find and buy a really good Bible for yourself and especially for others.

Oh, almost forgot, is this move towards Specific KJB-Only really growing, as it seems to be on the internet, or not? What's the driving force behind this?

[suitman]

Thank you Jerry and suitman!

I recall reading somewhere that Cambridge is best as well. Is this true to any extent? How can one tell if a particular KJB comes from the Cambridge publishing style?

I think if you are to be technical to the extreme then yeah I think it is right in its technicalitys but nothing that can really be used to say the others are corrupt

Oh, almost forgot, is this move towards Specific KJB-Only really growing, as it seems to be on the internet, or not? What's the driving force behind this?

Not in scotland but Maybe in america

[Kubel]

Jerry, could you please re-explain your stand on dynamic equivalence and its use in translations of the Bible? Do you believe that it's appropriate, so long as it doesn't change the meaning or idea of the particular passage, to use dynamic equivalence? Or do you believe that every word should be translated literally, so long as it makes sense in the receiving language?

The reason I'm asking is because it's been brought up here before that the KJV uses dynamic equivalence in several places, with "God forbid" being the most well known example (where neither "God" nor "forbid" was mentioned in the Greek, but instead "may it not be" being the formal equivalent in English).

Now granted, "God forbid" and "may it not be" carry pretty much the same exact meaning and thought, but it is a clear example of where "exact words", as you said, are not followed, but instead, the translators own way of wording it was used.

I hear a lot of KJVO's claim that modern versions are in the wrong because they use dynamic equivalence and don't carry over the exact words of the original inspired scriptures... yet we see the KJV doing it here. Most of those KJVO's claim that it's inspiration or advanced revelation when DE is found in the KJV- but since you reject those doctrines, I'm just wondering what your stand is.

So is it acceptable to not use the "exact words" when translating the word of God?

Sorry if I'm off topic, this thread is covering a LOT of ground .

[Jerry]

Will Kinney has an excellent article to show that God forbid IS actually an accepted (not DE) translation of the underlying Greek words.

God Forbid