Niv Is Better Than The Kjv

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Where is the Messiah, Apr 4, 2014.

  1. I found this to be an interesting article, and thought I would share.

    What you have read at was written by someone who adamantly advocates the KJV over the NIV. There even are claims that the NIV is a "perversion" of the Word of God.

    Yet I can show you many cases of how it actually is the KJV that differs more from the Greek text, in the New Testament, than the NIV does. Below, I will comment on four such examples, which I have copied and pasted directly from the web page that you brought to my attention.

    Incidentally, I use the Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, ninth printing 1986, although there are various source texts that are used for various Bible translations. In the one I use, one sentence in the Introduction states, "The text is based on a comparison of the texts edited by Tischenforf (1869-72), by Westcott and Hort (1881), and by Bernhard Weiss (1894-1900)."

    1) I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"!"He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

    Here is 1 Timothy 3:16 in the Greek:

    [​IMG]This is the direct translation, from the Greek, of that portion of 1 Timothy 3:16: "And confessedly great is the mystery of piety: Who was manifested in flesh...."

    The Greek word Hos ([​IMG]) is the word "Who" or "Which"; it is not correctly translated as "God." The NIV's choice of "He" is closer to "Who" (in the Greek) than the KJV's choice of "God." But even if the reader does not make the connection, there is a footnote reference for that word that reads, "Some manuscripts God." So the NIV even points out that other versions (such as the KJV) read "God," even though it is not in the original Greek.

    Furthermore, verse 15, the verse just previous to verse 16, reads this way:

    If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.(1 Timothy 3:15)Clearly, Paul was talking about God. Most people who read verse 16 in the NIV and wonder whom "He" is automatically would back up one verse to see whom Paul is calling "He" and see, in verse 15, that it is God. In doing so, readers also would be gaining more information and knowledge about God and His household, the Church.

    The critic of the NIV has removed verse 16 from the framework and context of the whole passage, isolated it, judged it by his austere standards, and attempted to slaughter it. Yet, the verse remains alive and well for anyone who is perceptive and wise enough to read the entire written section within which it is contained.

    It should be pointed out that there are New Testament passages indicating that Jesus is God, in the original Greek, for which the NIV provides a better rendering than the KJV. One example is John 1:18 (along with which I will include verse 17):

    [​IMG]This is the direct translation, from the Greek, of John 3:17,18: "Because the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ became. God no man has seen ever; [the] only begotten God the [one] being in the bosom of the Father, that one declared [him]."

    Here is how the KJV and NIV, respectively, translate verse 18:

    No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18—KJV)

    No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, a,b who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (John 1:18—NIV)The NIV includes further footnoted information:a Or the Only Begotten
    b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) SonFrom verse 17, it is clear that the person about whom the passage is speaking is Jesus Christ. In verse 18, the Greek shows that it is the "only begottenGod" who declares the Father, so the original Greek text specifies that Jesus, who is God, is the one who does this. Likewise, the NIV, referring to Jesus, says that "God the One and Only" is the one who makes the Father known.

    On the other hand, the KJV indicates that it is the "only begotten Son," not the "only begotten God," who declares the Father. A reader might infer that Jesus, the Son, is God; but the KJV does not say so explicitly.

    The NIV teaches in this case, as well as in abundant other places, that Jesus, without question, was God manifested in flesh. Was Jesus God? In reading the NIV, there should be no question that He was and is.

    2) LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth.

    Here is Luke 2:33 in the Greek:

    [​IMG]This is the direct translation, from the Greek, of Luke 2:33: "And was the father of him and the mother marvelling at the things being said concerning him."

    Again, the NIV's translation, "child's father," is a more correct translation of the Greek than the KJV's translation, "Joseph." There is not some conspiracy by whoever wrote the NIV, nor by the Catholic Church, in wanting to mislead people into thinking that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. If anyone believes in Jesus' virgin birth by Mary, whom they exalt very highly, it is the Catholic Church (which is not to say that I agree with all of the tenets of the Catholic Church because I do not).

    The KJV is correct in identifying Joseph as being the person to whom that verse refers. However, it is incorrect in it's exact translation from the Greek. Interestingly, all but the KJV and NJKV omit the word "Joseph" in Luke 2:33, and that is because "Joseph" is not in the original Greek. Even in the NKJV, there is a notation that NU Text reads "And His father and mother." So, as far as I have seen (although I did not search every possible translation from the Greek), the KJV is alone in using the word "Joseph" in that verse and in not explaining to the reader that in the Greek, from which it was translated, that word is not there.

    Notice these other verses in Luke chapter 2 of the KJV:

    Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (Luke 2:41)

    And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.(Luke 2:48)
    In the first case, it is implied that Joseph was one of Jesus' parents. In the second case, even Mary implies, to Jesus, that Joseph is His father. So for those who argue that the KJV always and invariably indicates that Jesus is the Son of only God the Father (as I have heard some KJV advocates claim), and notthe son of Joseph, these appear to be at least two exceptions in the KJV itself.

    For someone learning about Jesus for the first time, and reading the KJV, both of these verses, all by themselves, would seem to imply that Jesus was the son of Joseph rather than the Son of God. Of course, believers understand that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph; but new readers might get thewrong impression, from the KJV, in these particular cases.

    Also, for someone reading the first three chapters of Luke, in any version of the Bible, and translated from any Greek text, it should be crystal clear (for instance, in Luke 1:27-32) that the text states that Jesus was born of a virgin and was the Son of God. Due to all of this, I find it an irrelevant and immaterial argument for anyone to focus on Luke 2:33, "nitpicking" and "splitting hairs" about the fact that the KJV is unique in not implying that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, and attempting to discredit other versions which, in their opinion, insinuate that he was.

    Incidentally, I absolutely do believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. He is both the Son of Man and the one and only Son of God. (See also If Jesus was God, why did He say the Father was greater than He and knew things He didn't? and In John 3:16, isn't "only begotten" Son in the KJV the correct translation, whereas "one and only" Son in the NIV is an inaccurate translation?) Also, although Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, He was Joseph's legal son, which was significant and important. (See Is Jesus a descendant of both David and Solomon?)

    3) COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"

    Here is Colossians 1:14 in the Greek:

    [​IMG]This is the direct translation, from the Greek, of Colossians 1:14: " whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of the sins."

    In the original Greek, the phrase "through his blood" is not there. Some versions, such as the KJV, have added it, probably taking it from Ephesians 1:7. The NIV even includes a footnote reference here that reads, "A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood."

    Thus, the KJV adds something to the original word of God. Even if what it adds is a true statement, it is better to let the Word of God speak for itself and not add nor take anything away from it.

    The NIV, on the other hand, translates the original text more accurately. Furthermore, with the footnote reference, it certainly does not abandon the principle that redemption is obtained only through the blood of Jesus, which is absolutely true.

    4) The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!

    Here is Mark 1:2,3 in the Greek:

    [​IMG]This is the direct translation, from the Greek, of Mark 1:2,3: "As it has been written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold I send the messenger of me before the face of you, who will prepare the way of you."

    In advocating the "correctness" of the KJV, the claim is that the reference to the prophet Isaiah should not be there. This is absolutely FALSE. In the Greek above, the fifth word in Mark 1:2 ([​IMG]) is translated "Isaiah." If the word Isaiah actually is in Mark 1:2 in the Greek text, then it is incorrect to remove it, as the KJV does.

    In the NIV, a footnote reference after Mark 1:2 points to Malachi 3:1, and a footnote reference after Mark 1:3 points to Isaiah 40:3. Those are the two prophets, Malachi and Isaiah, to which the KJV refers when it reads, "As it is written in the prophets...." However, the KJV fails to make this connection, whereas the NIV is clear about the connection. Here are those two referenced verses, by the prophets, in the NIV:

    "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)

    A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD a; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God" b. (Isaiah 40:3)In Isaiah's passage, the NIV includes further footnoted information:
    a Or A voice of one calling in the desert: "Prepare the way for the LORD"
    b Hebrew; Septuagint make straight the paths of our GodThe NIV abounds in footnoted text, making sure that the reader is informed about all available interpretations and information. For instance, in the New Testament, there are countless references to Old Testament verses. This is vitally important in understanding how Christianity is the clear, natural, and unmistakable progression and unveiling of Judaism. On the other hand, I never have seen a KJV with any footnotes.

    People who use a hostile and antagonistic approach to promote a point of view (as Terry Watkins does in his "New International Perversion" commentary) often do so either 1) because they are completely ignorant of the facts and/or 2) because they want to elicit an emotional reaction (usually rage) in their readers/listeners to gain support for their views.

    Usually, they have "grown up" accepting something to be true or proper. They are comfortable with their viewpoint, which generally is accepted by others close to them as well. They typically have no interest in changing the way they think, even if evidence to the contrary is presented to them. Furthermore, they will employ any means to defend their position, because they cannot stand to be wrong and are intolerant of what other well-informed and well-meaning people believe. For instance, many people who embrace the "pre-tribulation" view of the Rapture and the "young-earth" view of Creation are like this.

    Countless verses in the KJV begin with the word "and"; reading a protracted chain of such verses in a row is like reading one exceedingly lengthy sentence, which often will contain several punctuationally incorrect comma splices. This can result in less comprehension of what was just read because the human brain better organizes single ideas rather than an entire collection of ideas put together as a unit. Millions of Christians have become accustomed to these drawn out groupings of verses that are commonplace in the KJV, even though modern English does not read that way at all.

    KJV users also have become familiar with common phrases and passages from the KJV that they have read, and have heard being read, most of their lives. They have become "cozy" with words such as "thee," "thy," "thou," "ye," "shalt," "wilt," "hath," "hast," "hence," "thence," "goeth," "cometh," "exorteth," "saith," "heareth," and "repenteth." They even have come to associate such words with religiosity and holiness, if not with "genuine" and "authentic" Christianity—even though many of the words and terms in the KJV reflect the language of England during the early 17th Century, not the language of the early Christians in Israel in ancient times. In the minds of many of these people, anything (such as the NIV) that "threatens" or "conflicts with" their devotion and loyalty to the KJV needs to be assaulted and bashed.

    The person who wrote the page at referred to the NIV as a "perversion" and as being full of "lies." Even if I didn't feel the way that I do about the NIV, I still would be utterly and totally appalled at that type of hostile and distasteful language, especially coming from a Christian. And he certainly is not the only one who does this. For decades, I have heard many, extolling the "virtues" of the KJV, who have attacked and slashed the NIV to shreds.

    There is no translation of the Bible, from the Greek, that is entirely correct. None exists; at least, I am unaware of one. I am quite willing to acknowledge that there are some phrases in the KJV that reflect, more accurately and better than other translations (including the NIV), the wording and meaning in the original Greek. Overall, though, I have found that the NIV surpasses the KJV in doing this. Plus, many have agreed with me that the NIV has an easier flow when reading it, due to its sentences of normal length and its modern English, than does the KJV with its tediously long sentences and its old "King's English."

    Many people, after having read my Bible commentaries containing abundant NIV references to verses and passages, have emailed me and told me that they never had realized how "easy" the Bible is to read. Many of them have commented that, once they saw how straightforward and uncomplicated is the text in the NIV Bible, they have chosen to read the Bible, from cover to cover, for the first time ever. For that reason, along with the other reasons I have stated, I much prefer the NIV over the KJV. As such, I have chosen to utilize the NIV in the references included in my Bible commentaries. And any attempts to coerce or belittle me into using the KJV instead will be futile and ineffective.​
    MMurphy likes this.
  2. Why do we argue over translations at all when they are not the issue, but rather the Truth of God? "4 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." 2 Timothy 2:14. For the Word is Christ. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was with God in the beginning." John 1:1. God has written the Word on the hearts of His Children. "“This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Hebrews 10:16.

    Understanding does not depend on translation, but on the Spirit. "The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c]14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." 1 Corinthians 2:10b-14.
    guest4, Big Moose and Candelario Mario Villa says Amen and like this.
  3. I don't think where is trying to start a debate just to cause division... I know this is a issue he has been considering and trying to come to some conclusions on. It is an important issue and goes to the very heart of the gospel. Did Paul make an absolute statement in Rom 8:1? Or did he place a condition upon this greatest of truths? Are the older text better? I believe they clearly are. As far as a translation on that which is agreed upon in the text? I believe it is to every believers advantage to study the Greek and to seek the best possible understanding of the truth of Gods word. It is not bad or contrary to Gods Will, to seek the truth as long as we do it in honesty and godliness.
    guest4, Big Moose and Where is the Messiah says Amen and like this.
  4. Debates are healthy. I think it encourages us to dig deeper into the Word. Now arguing on the other hand, yes that is something some of us need to work on, and creating an argument is not my intentions.

    I've read discussions on this forum as to which translation is best. In my opinion, I think most translations will do, in regards to sharing the gospel. But there are those that believe the KJV is the absolute best, and I wanted to share information that supports the NIV.

    Anytime I'm studying the bible, I always read as many translations as possible, and different commentaries too. Especially when you can get it all online for free. :)
  5. ________________________________________

    Very well put, Beloved. I also like the idea of using more than one translation: one gets a better perspective of what is sound doctrine. I enjoy the KJV best, but I like Tressa's comment, that we should read the scriptures depending on the Holy Spirit.
    I also use another translation: it is in Spanish. So this are my two eyes that give me a good perspective: and as I submit to the Holy Spirit, it is so much better.

    (No: I will not write in Spanish and give my translation)
    Where is the Messiah likes this.
  6. 100% agree with this.

    Right now I have a college study bible, life application one, and a Romanian bible. But am always double checking verses on sites like If anyone knows where I can purchase a Hawaiian bible, I'd be ridic happy.
  7. #7 Huntingteckel, Apr 5, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014
    You probably just opened yourself up to a bunch of insults. I love it.

    Unfortunately, I don't know any biblical Greek yet so I can't check up on some of this myself. It's a good post though. I believe that most translations have their strengths and weaknesses. I mainly read out of the NASB, but I keep my NLT nearby. I also study out of the ESV Study Bible. America is blessed to have easy access to so many versions of the Bible.

    Does anyone know a good Greek bibles with English translation (I'm drawing a blank on the correct word)?

    PeaceLikeaRiver, Heart_for_Christ and Where is the Messiah says Amen and like this.
  8. I have a Majority text (interlinear) with footnotes from Thomas Nelson I would not trade it for all the tea in China:D
    guest4 and DavidG say Amen and like this.
  9. That's a lot of tea you would be missing out on.
    Heart_for_Christ and DavidG say Amen and like this.
  10. I love tea so that must be a wonderful bible. Thanks for the recommendation. When I get a job I'll have to pick it up.
    PeaceLikeaRiver, Heart_for_Christ and Where is the Messiah says Amen and like this.
  11. I don't drink much tea. I like it because it has both text and the scholars translation of the actual Greek along with the you can get a real good understanding of the difference and I really like the independent translation of those who wrote this bible. They have a lot of footnotes explaining the Greek and its been a foundation of all my study since I got it.
  12. I love green tea.

    I just downloaded E-Sword for my computer and phone. I don't know why I didn't do that before today. It's awesome!
  13. ALL translations are flawed. Not one is better than another.
  14. You're saying The Message is equally as flawed as the ESV or NASB?
  15. all scripture translations are flawed in places .. yet scripture itself is not ..
    (except in one place I found where a scribe did add to scripture (the mss) concerning a prophet)
    sometimes one translation is better then the other ..
    I do NOT like when a translator paraphrases .. nor do I like when a translator adds words NOT in scripture besides "connecting words" ..
    even a comma put in the wrong place or not added can change the context ..
  16. behold the power of a comma added to change the context ..

    Mar 15:40
    There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome.

    Mar 15:40
    There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses and Salome.

    the first (with comma added) is enumerating 3 women ..
    the second (without comma added) is enumerating 2 women ..
    (Salome like James and Joses are used only to identify Jesus' mother)
  17. Of course they are all flawed. No translation from another language can be perfect, but I do think some translations are superior to others. I do read less literal translations when I need a break from my NASB, but for the most part I want what I'm reading to be as close to the real thing as possible.

    Since we don't have the original manuscripts there's no way to tell how much was added or taken away. Although, through comparing earlier manuscripts with more recent ones I'm sure we can find at least a few places where things were added.
  18. So you rely on the NIV translators. Let’s see if they are trustworthy…

    First issue is that it is based on the Westcott/Hort critical text as their default text…this CT version is a hodge-podge eclecticism not a direct translation of any of the Alexandrian texts but a mix and match as they decided between themselves mostly from two texts (Sin and Vat) which vehemently disagree with one another.

    Secondly, it has a built in bias being primarily translated by the National Association of Evangelicals (whose President at the time, that approved the translation, was exposed as having a relationship with a homosexual prostitute for quite a long time).

    So…these translators were not objective because as we know, they favored a “Standard Evangelical Doctrine” and thus reworded portions of text from the original Greeks to support their doctrine…

    Now though no modern translation is totally reliable here are some of the problem factors many with the NIV translation:

    The earliest fathers quote Genesis 2:7 in agreement with the Majority Text and say “"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

    While the NIV Translators (from now on the NTs) change the text to say

    but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for when you eat of it you shall surely die"

    Imposing an assumption as to what “in the day” means…(thus they have taken away from the word here)

    Again in Genesis 2 they are confused by the second set of animals created after Adam, and thus add the word “had” which is not in the text…they ADD assuming these are the same creatures of Genesis 1 (which automatically makes the Bible contradict itself, though they were blind to this)

    'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

    This “Had” is not even in the corrupted heavily edited Sin or Vat…they made it up…they implanted their view all though the translation…this set of animals comes after Adam the other before Adam the Scriptures offer no reason to confuse the two sets of animals…

    Then in Genesis 15:2, they render Adoni YHVH, the covenant name of God, usually translated ‘Lord GOD’, as ‘Sovereign LORD’. Thus hinting at a meaning they more fully implant later which agrees with and allows them to preach their view of what being “Sovereign” means.

    In many other places all throughout they switch “the Lord of hosts” to “the Lord Almighty” and though this IS another name or title for God its inference in the context carries a different meaning altogether.

    In Psalm 23:6 they change “mercy “ to “love” giving the first time readers a whole different understanding compared to the Author’s intent (who is the Holy Spirit…may the lord forgive them)

    Look at Isaiah 9:3 the Greek clearly says You have multiplied the nation and NOT increased the joy but the NTs deleted the word not so that it says “and increased their joy” The total opposite of the inspired word. But your average student misses this subtle opposition entirely.

    Jeremiah 7:22 says "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices,” as it was some 40 days later.

    But the NTs being confused by what they erroneously saw as a contradiction with Exodus 18 and 20 again added to the word of God and say

    For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices."

    Which now makes the story in context incorrect (as to the timeline), making the day He spoke to them the very same day that they left. Absurdity! Contradiction between even other CT versions has been introduced….

    They utterly delete the word “Behold” in many places (ex. Genesis 1:20 and 12:11 and more) thus “taking away”.

    They totally omit John 5:4 (why, who says they may pick and choose what to “take away” when God says they may not do it?) as well as Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and others. They just cut them out as irrelevant or not meaningful but was that really the motive? Hmmm?

    As if this is not bad enough they have taken away over 6,000 additional words not even taken away from their already hodge-podge model!

    In the Lord’s prayer in Luke 11 they totally remove “who is in heaven” “Your will be done, as in heaven so on earth” and “deliver us from evil”…WHAT? The early church fathers documents include these in their quotes from their earlier manuscripts (albeit we no longer possess them). Can we really cut and paste as we see fit? In Matthew 27:35 they take away notice that this was a fulfillment of prophecy (a very important aspect of that verse totally gone)

    “Christ” has been taken out of Romans 1:16; Acts 16:31, and more

    Jesus name has been removed from Matthew 8:2; 2 Corinthians 5:18, and more, and even the word “Lord” in relation to Jesus has been removed in many places. Why?

    Why did they change 2 Samuel 21:19 to make it seem like another killed Goliath inviting accusation of contradiction where none exists in the LXX or the pre-JPS Masoretic (or the Peshitta, or the Byzantine Majority Text, or the Vulgate).

    They change “light bearer” (which is allegedly Satan) of Isaiah 14:12 into “morning star” (which is clearly Jesus in Revelations 22:16)…why? What are they trying to say? Are they meaning to make people misunderstand the text or leave open the possibility our Lord is Satan? Or are they saying Jesus rebelled against Gid and was cast out of heaven? See the confusion these NTs have caused…the undiscipled and unlearned pass right over these issues and make the connectiuons unconsciously believing what they are reading are God’s breathed words…

    They seem to take these liberties, adding to the text in many places, what they think clarifies the text (making it to agree more with their preconceived conclusion) all the way up to and including 1 Peter 4:6 (where they make “the dead” those who are “now dead”.

    Now in light of God’s command not to add to or take away from, they should have at least been faithful to the IMO corrupted Westcott/Hort text they relied on and not corrupted it even further.

    They felt they had the liberty I do not. Their approach was the modern Dynamic Equivalent method which means that to them the alleged thoughts, phrases, or truths expressed in the writings are more important than the actual words, however what we always end up with in these translations is what the translators think were their thoughts, phrases, or truths. This method is notorious for unintentionally (and in the case of the NRSV and the NWT intentionally) implanting the human factor into the text (sometimes choosing obscure never used meanings to most commonly rendered words). So what happens is the translators opinion of what the reader needs to see takes precedence over the actual words and phrases of the inspired text (making themselves lords of the text). One might as well read the NWT as they follow the same approach.

    So my vote? No! They are not trustworthy translators….

    But do as you will…

    In His love

    Brother Paul
  19. Agreed, which can kind of make you wonder about some passages, when you think about how punctuation didn't exist yet (except a very basic form in stage drama, to help actors read their lines) when the original manuscripts were written... even paragraphs and spaces between words were a much later development.

Share This Page