Why are there no "NIV-Onlyists?"

[bar Jonah]

Not only that, Ian, but in the KJV translation, it rightly speaks of Christ's faith being unto us, whereas the NIV claims it's the believer's faith in Christ that is the subject of the matter. STARKLY and seriously different message!

[themuzicman]

From reading the greek, I find that the KJV is in error, here, not the NIV. The NASB says:

Scripture Verse:

even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

And even "for" isn't quite as literal as "to", but "upon" is off base, and adding a 2nd preposition is flat out adding to the text, IMHO.

[Ian Potts]

Yes the KJV is one of the few translations to translate such verses as Romans 3:22 as "by faith OF Jesus Christ" rather than "by faith IN Jesus Christ" which most modern versions have altered it to. I know the Greek gentive can be rendered different ways but context shows how it should be translated and I believe it is Christ's faith being spoken of here. It should be translated "OF".

[themuzicman]

(There's actually a good reason later translations, even the NASB, don't use "of" and "upon" in Rom 3:22. They aren't good greek.)

[Ian Potts]

From reading the greek, I find that the KJV is in error, here, not the NIV. The NASB says:

Scripture Verse:

even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

And even "for" isn't quite as literal as "to", but "upon" is off base, and adding a 2nd preposition is flat out adding to the text, IMHO.

This comes down to the Greek text the translations are based on Michael. First rule of good translation is to start with the right original Greek text. The Westcott and Hort version removes this clause, the Textus Receptus, rightly, has it in. It isn't a case of the KJV ADDING, but of W&H TAKING AWAY, and all the versions based on their text falling into the hole they dug for others.

[Faramir]

The NIV is nice in that it helps to resolve some of the idioms you find left in place in other translations. As long as you realize that it's a dynamic equivilence, and not a formal translation, it can be a useful tool.

Just keep in mind its purpose.

Michael

Great point. That is an excelent use for the NIV. It is a good suplement to a good word for word translation.

So the slogan should be:

The NIV best back up bible on the market.

[themuzicman]

I'd like to invite you over to the Coach's corner, for the KJV Only debate. I think it would be interesting for all. Jaltus has had a standing challenge for about 2 years (yes, even pre-Tweb), and I'm sure he would be glad to debate this with you.

TR is interesting, but it hadn't undergone the textual criticism that later versions underwent, and we have a MUCH better understanding of the original in the NA27 than the KJV translators did in the TR.

Just because it doesn't fit one's theology doesn't mean we should reject a better understanding of the original.

Michael

[Ian Potts]

Just because it doesn't fit one's theology doesn't mean we should reject a better understanding of the original.
Michael

I reject these other Greek manuscripts not because of doctrinal bias, but because the presuppositions upon which their accuracy is based are wrong ie. "that older is better". It isn't. Fauly manuscripts got put to one side, unused, because the early church rejected their accuracy, so they 'survived' longer. The accurate manuscript originals were used much more and therefore didn't survive - they got worn out from use. Only copies survive which are dated later than some faulty manuscripts.

Just look at your own Bibles. If one is well used it gets creased, ripped, faded, worn out. An unused translation which you have but dislike as being less accurate gets left on the shelf, pristine. Which is most likely to still be around in 500 years time? The faulty, unused version.

[themuzicman]

Well, it's fairly clear to textual scholars that the later compilations of the greek NT (W&H and NA27) are superior in accuracy to the TR, to the tune of over 99 percent, with no theological issues remaining in the technicalities.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

I reject these other Greek manuscripts not because of doctrinal bias, but because the presuppositions upon which their accuracy is based are wrong ie. "that older is better". It isn't. Fauly manuscripts got put to one side, unused, because the early church rejected their accuracy, so they 'survived' longer. The accurate manuscript originals were used much more and therefore didn't survive - they got worn out from use. Only copies survive which are dated later than some faulty manuscripts.

Just look at your own Bibles. If one is well used it gets creased, ripped, faded, worn out. An unused translation which you have but dislike as being less accurate gets left on the shelf, pristine. Which is most likely to still be around in 500 years time? The faulty, unused version.

Wow, now there's a contrived way of explaining it away, that I've never heard before.

Yes, the issue has nothing to do with the RCC burning older and more complete manuscripts for heat in monastaries.

[Amazing Rando]

Funny, i was going to say the NASB is clunky ; but no, it is more accurate than the NIV, which goes for expressing thoughts, rather than the actual words, and so is paraphrastic at times.

I know the NIV has it's problems, and I'm told that the NASB is pretty much the most literal translation in wide circulation today, but for me at least, it's really hard to read. Thus, I read the NIV for my own devotions, but when I have questions about certain concepts or words, I take a look at the RSV.

When I'm just reading for inspiration or pleasure, I don't want awkward language and unusual sentence struction confounding things.

[Ian Potts]

Wow, now there's a contrived way of explaining it away, that I've never heard before.

Yes, the issue has nothing to do with the RCC burning older and more complete manuscripts for heat in monastaries.

I realise you're being sarcastic here RI but could you clarify exactly how you view this?

Are you meaning that my point is one that you HAVE heard before but reject, or that you truly haven't heard before? And are you saying that you think the older manuscripts WERE burned by the RCC or not?

I don't honestly believe my point to be contrived. But there are probably several reasons for ACCURATE older manuscripts no longer existing. I'm merely pointing out that for some to take certain older manuscripts and point to their age as if that proves their accuracy is not a solid argument.

[themuzicman]

Ian,

This has been a debate that we've been wanting to get into the wrestling ring for a while, now. Do you wish to take the KJVO position?

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

He'd be a more worthy adversary for Jaltus than Ed Jones I believe.

[themuzicman]