The Error of using the NIV to prove your doctrines

[Moriet]

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/content/NABV/nabv_comparison2.html
http://hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html
http://hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_nasb.html

This is a little Q & A session using only your NIV

http://hissheep.org/kjv/niv_bible_test.html

Can God lie?

http://aliveinchrist040801.tripod.com/confused.htm

Removing Jesus' name from Scripture?

http://www.scionofzion.com/niv_hates.htm

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I have found errors in ALL of the different bibles; thats why it is so important to study in depth the different subjects.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
All bibles contain error. They come from various sources. Some are due to manuscript variation and others due to bias or lack of accuracy. The NASB, like the KJV does not always separate Hell into Hades and Gehenna.
But if you are to criticise bibles and say words are left out by comparison with another version then that evidence must include the manuscript evidence. The translators should be held responsible for error if it can be shown that they have deviated from the manuscripts, because there are a variety and some contain words that others omit.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
The NIV does deviate from the manuscripts.

[epistemaniac]

not necessarily…. it follows a different translation methodology, eg dynamic equivalency…. and since its not word for word, it cannot be criticized for not setting out what it never intended to do in the first place….

now this is curious, and it such an excellent clear and obvious technique that Nick uses, I simply must point it out…. Nick says

Quote

But if you are to criticize bibles and say words are left out by comparison with another version then that evidence must include the manuscript evidence. The translators should be held responsible for error if it can be shown that they have deviated from the manuscripts, because there are a variety and some contain words that others omit.

But note, he says in his VERY NEXT POST:

Quote

The NIV does deviate from the manuscripts.

Now isn't this interesting? Here is a great example of Nick demanding that others do what he is not himself apparently willing to do. It seems that Nick is allowed to “play” by different rules then he wants to let everyone else play by ehhhh?

blessings,
ken

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
NIV translates
Jn12.40 as
” 41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.”

In which manuscript is the name JESUS found??

NONE

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
Rev 11
6These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

Which manuscripts have MEN?

NONE

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 10 2008,16:59)

Hi E, NIV translates Jn12.40 as ”  41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.” In which manuscript is the name JESUS found?? NONE

Hi NH

Well then who did Isaiah see?

Did he see the Father?

In the year that king Uzziah died “I saw also the Lord (YHWH) sitting upon a throne“, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Isa 6:1

John by the Spirit rightly saw Jesus as the one whom Isaiah saw, for John also writes…

“No one has ever seen God“, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18

So you believe Isaiah saw God the Father?

But John disagrees with you as well as Jesus…

“Not that any man hath seen the Father“, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. John 6:46

Was John contradicting himself? I think the NIV has it right, and you live with contradictions.

Of course as all Arians do, they claim the scriptures are in error while they themselves have it right.

When the scriptures disagree with their own manmade doctrines then they cry “corrupt manuscripts”.

This way they can believe what they want.

Exalting themselves and their own carnal understanding against that which is written, making themselves a plumb line for truth instead of the inspired writings of the Apostles which was given to them by the Holy Spirit.

But this is exactly what was prophesied in these last days.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, WHICH IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE DISTORT, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION“. 2 Peter 3:16

WJ

[seekingtruth]

I study from many versions, but have found that it is the whole of scripture which helps me to identify which translation is the best on any particular verse from the various versions. To clarify, many different teachings can be supported by selecting verses which can be interpreted to support a position but if these require accepting conflicts elsewhere then your probably not on the right track.

My opinion – Wm

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Jesus is not written in the manuscripts.
Many such as yourself would like it there.
We do not add to what is written do we?

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 10 2008,16:59)

Hi E, NIV translates Jn12.40 as ”  41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.” In which manuscript is the name JESUS found?? NONE

The NASB, the KJV, the RSV, the ASV… they ALL make interpretive decisions concerning supplying words the translators felt as being there, but unstated. All translations do this, in many cases this is indicated by the presence of the word in italics…… in any case, the real problem you have is not with words appearing in the English text that may not be in the Greek text, because if that was the real problem you would have to protest each and every English word that is supplied by the translators that is not in the Greek, and there are a great many of those, as a simple glance at an interlinear translation will attest….. but, you do not do that. You do not complain about all the other words added by translators because they may not disagree with your theology. In this case, if John really was saying that Isaiah saw Jesus in the temple, the ramifications would totally annihilate your denial of the deity of Christ.

So in order to be consistent, you need to go through and document each and every English word that appears in the English text that does not appear in the Greek and Hebrew. The one thing you cannot do is accuse the NIV translation committee of “adding to God's word”, because EVERY English translations adds words that are not in the original language. If you want to dump the NIV for this, you will have to dump all the other English translations as well.

In any case, while you were not man enough to admit your original error, and btw, what is it about you that makes you unable to say “sorry about that, I was wrong….”….are you constitutionally unable to write out those words?? …. anyways, psychology aside, you did the next best thing and at least gave a reason as to why you disagree with the NIV, and I appreciate that. That reason was not a good one, as I have shown above, but at least you tried.

blessings,
ken

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
JESUS is not a little interpretative word.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 11 2008,14:26)

Hi E, JESUS is not a little interpretative word.

I never said it was. But then again, that is not the point. You dismissed the NIV for adding a word not in the text, when many scholars feel that Jesus, or “Christ” is clearly being referred to. In any case, no matter what word we are discussing, according to your own principle of what makes for a good translation and what doesn't, you will have to dismiss all English translations because they all “add to God's word”.

In any case, there is good reason to have supplied the word “Jesus”, you may not agree with it, but since all other translations supply words not in the text, it is perfectly fine for the NIV to do so as well… but here are some reasons why adding it seems reasonable…

As far as John in particular goes;
“Notes for 12:41
88 tn Grk “his”; the referent (Christ) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The referent supplied here is “Christ” rather than “Jesus” because it involves what Isaiah saw. It is clear that the author presents Isaiah as having seen the preincarnate glory of Christ, which was the very revelation of the Father (see John 1:18; John 14:9).
sn Because he saw Christ’s glory. The glory which Isaiah saw in Isa 6:3 was the glory of Yahweh (typically rendered as “Lord” in the OT). Here John speaks of the prophet seeing the glory of Christ since in the next clause and spoke about him, “him” can hardly refer to Yahweh, but must refer to Christ. On the basis of statements like 1:14 in the prologue, the author probably put no great distinction between the two. Since the author presents Jesus as fully God (cf. John 1:1), it presents no problem to him to take words originally spoken by Isaiah of Yahweh himself and apply them to Jesus.
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Jn 12:41). Biblical Studies Press.

“Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ (lit. ‘his’, but the most natural antecedent is Jesus; but see below) glory and spoke about him. In the niv (and most modern versions), this has two effects:
(1) It means that in his vision Isaiah saw (the pre-incarnate) Jesus. But there is a slightly different possibility. Targum Jonathan (an Aramaic paraphrase) to Isaiah 6:1 reads not ‘I saw the LORD’ but ‘I saw the glory of the LORD’, while the Targum to Is. 6:4 reads not ‘the King, the LORD of hosts’, but ‘the glory of the shekinah of the King of the ages, the LORD of hosts’. It may not be necessary to appeal to the Targum; even in the Hebrew text Isaiah 6:3 already speaks of God’s glory. If instead we are to take the pronoun, as in niv, to refer to Jesus’ glory, then John is unambiguously tying Jesus to Yahweh, the LORD of hosts, the Almighty—Isaiah saw Jesus in some pre-incarnate fashion. It is not the ascription of deity to Jesus that makes this a strange rendering, for such an ascription is commonplace in early Christianity, sometimes allusively and sometimes (especially in this Gospel) most explicitly (cf. 1:1, 18; 17:5; 20:28). What is remarkable, on this rendering of the passage, is the statement that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory. This may be no more than the conclusion of a chain of Christian reasoning: if the Son, the Word, was with God in the beginning, and was God, and if he was God’s agent of creation, and the perfect revelation of God to humankind, then it stands to reason that in those Old Testament passages where God is said to reveal himself rather spectacularly to someone, it must have been through the agency of his Son, his Word, however imperfectly the point was spelled out at the time. Therefore Isaiah said these words because (a stronger reading than ‘when’, av) he saw Jesus’ glory.
Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (449). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans.

“First, v. 41 says Isaiah said this because “he saw his [Jesus’] glory and spoke of him.” The Fourth Evangelist believes Isaiah’s vision of the heavenly throne room (Isa 6:1–13) included a view of Christ. This is a Christianization of a reading of Isaiah 6 like that in the Targum on Isaiah where in 6:5 Isaiah declares he has seen not the King, the Lord of hosts, but “the glory of the shekinah of the King of the ages,” and in 6:1 he says, “I saw the glory of the Lord.” For John, Jesus is the tabernacling of the divine glory (1:14; cf. 11:4, 40). So if Isaiah saw God’s glory, he must have seen Christ. Isaiah’s words, moreover, refer to the events of Jesus’ time (cf. 1 Cor 9:9–10).
Talbert, C. H. (2005). Reading John : A literary and theological commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. Originally published: New York : Crossroad, 1992. (Rev. ed.). Reading the New Testament series (186). Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.

John 12:41
Because he saw his glory (ὁτι εἰδεν την δοξαν αὐτου [hoti eiden tēn doxan autou]). Correct reading here ὁτι [hoti] (because), not ὁτε [hote] (when). Isaiah with spiritual vision saw the glory of the Messiah and spoke (ἐλαλησεν [elalēsen]) of him, John says, whatever modern critics may think or say. So Jesus said that Abraham saw his day (8:56). Cf. Heb. 11:13.

Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Jn 12:41).

blessings,
ken

[NickHassan]

HI E,
Despite your cry that it it is justified you are only revealing the same bias as the authors.
Do not add to what is written.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 11 2008,11:41)

Hi WJ, Jesus is not written in the manuscripts. Many such as yourself would like it there. We do not add to what is written do we?

HI NH

Ahh, BUT YOU DO ADD TO WHAT IS WRITTEN, for you say that John's reference to Isaiah seeing the Lord is God the Father when the scriptures clearly teach no man has seen the Father.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 11 2008,15:27)

HI E, Despite your cry that it it is justified you are only revealing the same bias as the authors. Do not add to what is written.

Hi NH

It is you who has the bias against what is written.

WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Jesus is not written there so to not cloud the meaning you should not put it there or truth has no integrity.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 11 2008,15:27)

HI E, Despite your cry that it it is justified you are only revealing the same bias as the authors. Do not add to what is written.

N, despite your cry that it is not justified you are only revealing different biases than the authors.

Since all all translations add to God's words, what translations are correct? Nicks Version?

So stop evading the issues N, and respond directly to the point, you know fully well that all English translations supply words not in the text/original language. In fact it is nearly impossible not to, as attempting to read any interlinear shows. If you are to be consistent in rejecting translations that do this, you must reject all English translations. But you don't. You can't.

Therefore you reveal your own biases, so don't act like you don't have them, because everyone has biases. I have a Trinitarian bias, you have an antitrinitarian bias. Which bias is the best bias to be biased with is the question. Clearly the Trinitarian is. It makes the most sense out of the whole counsel of God.

blessings,
ken

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
If Jesus is not written in the manuscript it should not be added to the text.
That is basic lack of intergrity on the part of the translator.

Jesus does not have his own private throne and angels in heaven does he?
If so then where is that of your third trinity member?
I thought they were one god in your view, not three?

[david]

Quote

The Error of using the NIV to prove your doctrines KJV vs. The newer translations

I'd like to point out that at Luke 17:20,21, both the NIV and the KJ versions mentioned here, have alternate translations mentioned in the margin/footnote.
The alternate translation matches what almost all modern translations give: “in your midst” or “among you.”

I think that the KJ is a highly influential Bible. People tend to think it is the original Bible or something. It's not even the original English Bible. If I remember, there was English Bible's 200 years earlier. But, because it is so old, it has become influential and people prefer tradition over truth, often. This one and only one scripture that the KJ and the NIV translate as God's kingdom being within the hearts of the pharisees has greatly confused so very many people as to what God's kingdom is.

It is only one scripture, in a couple of Bibles (with alternate renderings), and yet that belief has inflitrated so many minds, despite what the vast majority of scriptures say about God's kingdom.

[Author]

Posts