[Paladin54]

A week from tomorrow, I will be meeting with Dr. Strauss, one of the translators of the TNIV and author of the new book, "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions". My Theology teacher and I are going to meet with him for an hour so I can have my "questions" answered by an expert on translation. I will also read his 170 page book during the next week to understand his thinking better and analyze how I can reach him.

Dr. Strauss is said to be more qualified to talk about the different Bible versions than Dr. James White, and unlike Dr. White, does not hold grudges against King James Only Advocates.

1. Please pray that I will speak with meekness and grace but also with convicting Biblical logic. The Lord's will be done.

2. I have not read any of the TNIV, but I know of its gender inclusiveness, but my question is: Do you know of any new corruption in the TNIV apart from those found the the NIV? I will, of course, be studying the text of the TNIV and compare it with the NIV and the King James Bible, but I wanted to invite all the help I can get.

And if there's any argument that you think will be particularly effective, please, have at it.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Dr. Strauss, one of the translators of the TNIV ... Do you know of any new corruption in the TNIV apart from those found the the NIV?

Hi Paladin,

Please keep in mind that it does not sound that they are setting up this meeting to learn anything from you, rather to try to convince you that there is no pure Bible that you can hold in your hands and read and believe as God's pure and perfect word. And they are enlisting for this purpose a person who is a hired gun of the MVIC, the modern version industrial complex, whose income and position and status as a modern-day textual pharisee (the leaven of the pharisees .. "our position and skills make us the mouthpiece and interpretor and translator of God, the ploughman must come to us to know God's word") are dependent upon the false argument that there is no pure Bible in the world.

Yes, the TNIV added its own new corruptions beyond the gender issues. Please understand that we don't spend time looking for these, finding them only when we bump into them en passant. With all the modern versions the basic playing field is the same, the differences are only of the final degree of corruption. Comparing two modern versions is like comparing piles of sludge, it is not a very pleasant business, generally not edifying.

Similar goes for the books by the cornfuseniks attempting to attack the word of God. Once you have gotten their standard drift, I see little point in reading whole books. Even for a review it is distasteful, and I would question whether you need to know all the specific sludge details to defend the majestic word of God.

Since you asked, here is the TNIV adding an additional corruption to the New Testament text.

Mark 1:41 (KJB)
And Jesus, moved with compassion,
put forth his hand,
and touched him,
and saith unto him,
I will; be thou clean.

NIV
Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"

TNIV
Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"

Here, the TNIV took the absurd and corrupt 'harder reading' and tried to make it a smidgen less ugly with "indignant" instead of "moved with anger" the Revised English Bible reading that is more literal to the ultra-minority corruption.

This version change is based on an corruption favored by the atheist Bart Ehrman who wrote "A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus". The corruption is in very few western MSS, 6th century and on. On the textcrit forum the source being simply a Latin copyist error that got into Bezae was discussed by Jim Snapp and Malcolm Robertson. However, precisely how a corruption gets into a text filled with errors like Bezae (or Vaticanus or Sinaiticus) is not particularly important.

This corruption is against absolutely overwhelming MSS evidences and against the internal consistency of the word of God, similar to the modern versions having Jesus as a liar in John 7:8 by declaring he is not going to the feast.

Under their false modern textcrit paradigms the original word of God is actually supposed to be 'harder' and less consistent. Under their false paradigms fabricated NT blunders and errors can be put into the versions based on a very few MSS. And these blunders are of course strongly used by the skeptics and islamists and anti-missionaries and liberals and critics and others to attack the Lord Jesus Christ. The befuddled "evangelicals" don't even realize they have bit into a poisoned apple, they have grown their own hemlock. So the skeptics and all are able to attack the "Bible" as being not the pure word of God, since the versions of the Christian apologists are filled with these blunders. The versions being put out by the TNIV translators and all the other modern-versionists reeks with such corruptions.

Returning to the compassion of the Lord Jesus Christ .

The true reading - "And Jesus, moved with compassion" is supported by hundreds or even thousands of Greek MSS (even the huge number of hand-copied Byzantine and the few Alexandrian MSS agree) including about a dozen uncials. Also agreeing are most of the Old Latin, the Vulgate and the Syriac and the Coptic and more. And, according to the apparatus, Basil and Ambrose. All of these date back way to way before the very few MSS with the anger management problem.

This variant is truly a fine example of the textual lunacy of 'modern scientific textual criticism'. Thus it comes up in the sandbox of textual corruptions by folks like Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace. Apparently, to add to the total textcrit disaster, Ehrman would likely know and use an earlier paper (and did not give credit or note) by Mark A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University, 1999).

Also folks from the TNIV translators crew did not even properly represent the issues involved and gave out totally false information that they weren't going from the minority variant. Their representative claimed in writing that they were going with a different sense of translation than "compassion" using the standard majority Greek. However that was later proven to be totally false by their own text-notes.

Here is a bit more. Even some of the textcrits can occasionally speak sensibly. "D" is Codex Bezae.

http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/t...mark_1_41.html
Peter Kirk
The "anger" reading is supported by only ONE of the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the NT, Codex Bezae, and by just four of the large number of Old Latin MSS (one of which is the Latin text in the very same Codex Bezae). This is the group of Greek and Latin manuscripts which make up the "western text" of the New Testament, a text which differs radically from the accepted text in very many places, especially in Acts.... This is linked to a long-standing textual controversy about "Western Non-Interpolations" in the NT text, a theory of the 19th century scholar Hort now rejected by most scholars but recently defended by Bart Ehrman.

The next two points are correct by Michael Marlowe, however understand that the same situation of scribal incompetence exists with their own fav MSS Vaticanus and Sinaticicus, as Dean John Burgon demonstrated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1505
Michael Marlowe
I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators.. we need to remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1515
Michael Marlowe
the obvious inferiority of D as a witness to the original text. In this MS we have the accumulated results of several generations of "western" incompetence, and who can really give an adequate explanation for all of its problems now?

Jim Snapp and Malcolm Robertson and others discussed explanations of the copyist blunder. One example.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/1528
Mark 1:41 and the Latin Text

However, why anyone would care precisely how a blunder got into the text is a bit of a mystery. This is their sandbox, their playground.

Rather than read and believe and study and learn the word of God, defend and appreciate and love God's word, their dissections and conjectures and convolutions and fabrications of errors are all usually attempting to either create or justify corruption. However occasionally one of the folks enmeshed in that world will show the idiocy of the various theories. Jim Snapp has done similarly with the textual studies of the ending of Mark, which the textcrits claim to believe is only the corruption of man, yet is in their versions. (Yes, that is supremely hypocritical considering the warnings in God's word to adding to his word, however they really have no "beliefs" only mental rebellions and imaginings and strongholds.) Jim Snapp has shown the overwhelming evidence for the ending of Mark over the centuries, although Dean John Burgon's work more than a century ago should easily be more than sufficient to see the truth of Mark's beautiful and powerful ending for anyone with a sound man and a heart for God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Palladin, my heart is with you in the days ahead, more to simply be strengthened in God's word, that is our real need, than to have any great plans for this proposed meeting.

Shalom,
Steven

[George]

Originally Posted by Paladin54

A week from tomorrow, I will be meeting with Dr. Strauss, one of the translators of the TNIV and author of the new book, "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions". My Theology teacher and I are going to meet with him for an hour so I can have my "questions" answered by an expert on translation. I will also read his 170 page book during the next week to understand his thinking better and analyze how I can reach him.

Dr. Strauss is said to be more qualified to talk about the different Bible versions than Dr. James White, and unlike Dr. White, does not hold grudges against King James Only Advocates.

1. Please pray that I will speak with meekness and grace but also with convicting Biblical logic. The Lord's will be done.

2. I have not read any of the TNIV, but I know of its gender inclusiveness, but my question is: Do you know of any new corruption in the TNIV apart from those found the the NIV? I will, of course, be studying the text of the TNIV and compare it with the NIV and the King James Bible, but I wanted to invite all the help I can get.

And if there's any argument that you think will be particularly effective, please, have at it.

Aloha brother,

Brother Avery has some real fine advise, I'd like to add just one more thing and that is: There is one question that I think is "appropriate" for any and all Bible teachers, professors, educators, translators, etc. - and that is:

What is your "FINAL AUTHORITY"? This is the crux of the Bible "Issue". Do any of these men believe in a "Final Authority" (on all matters of faith and practice)? And if they do - What is it? and Where is it? and do they personally possess it?

Very few of these men can answer this question honestly, and will either end up pointing to a pile of existing Greek & Hebrew manuscripts and claim its in there - somewhere; or else they will point to the "Originals" (which are long gone & no longer exist) and claim that "they" (the Original Autographs) are their final authority.

In reality - either way ends up with the "scholar" or "scribe" being his own "final authority", since he has no "Originals", and he can't "find" a "Final Authority" in the mass of manuscripts - although they have been "searching" for over 300+ years trying to "find it".

If they ever did "find" it they would be out of a "Job" - what's chances of that?

I'll pray for you brother, don't be cowed by "knowledge" or "intellect" - Jesus never was, and neither was Paul.

God Bless and keep you,
George

[Brother Tim]

Paladin, I am not a little troubled by your request. I have not had peace when praying. You used the phrase, "so I can have my 'questions' answered by an expert on translation".

Humor me for a brief absurd illustration. Getting answers about translation from one whose example of translation is the TNIV is like asking a brewmaster how milk is produced.

I do not believe that listening to this man or reading his book is going to bring you any good answers, and it is certain that you will not change his views. He has too much invested in what he has done. You also open the door for much doubt. Use your time reading the works of faithful men, not those who have been deceived.

You are a strong young man, as has been evident by your posts, but I fear that nothing good can be gained by meeting with this man.

In my humble, prayerful opinion,

[Renee]

Paladin,

Be sure you put on the whole armor of God. There is great danger in what you are doing. Your zeal is comendable. Do not let a measure of doubt penetrate God's armor.

Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

May Our Heavenly Father keep you under His protection.

You will plese let us know how you fare?

In Christ Love,
Renee

[Paladin54]

Steven, you hit it right on the mark. They are trying to convert me. I'm honored, though, to at least present the case for the Bible, even if it falls on deaf ears, it is my duty to warn them, if they do not listen, that is their curse.

George, that is a great finale in an argument for God's Word, and I guarantee I will use it. That point alone convicts the man to the very soul.

Brother Tim, thank you greatly. I feel the same way, but I have to try! Brother, I used "questions" in my post because I was quoting my teacher, who set this meeting up. He says that my "questions", such as, "What is YOUR final authority?" (objective questions that destroy "intellect" and "logic", so called). I apparently was too much to handle, and he wanted an "expert" on this issue. The ONLY reason I am reading his book is so that he will know that I am after a logical, reasonable answer, not a "blind, emotional, young zealot", as we are often stereotyped.

But, brother, you are right. There is a statistic that every convert hears the gospel seven times before he confesses to Christ, and Jesus, knowing the Jews would reject him, spoke anyway. As did Peter.

And yes, Renee, I will let you all know. At this point it would be rude to cancel, so I think I am led to go. Please, pray.

[Brother Tim]

Paladin, I may have misunderstood one point of your first post, based on your last response.

Is your Theology teacher supporting your position, or is he taking you to the "expert", because he could not answer your questions?

[Debau]

Originally Posted by Paladin54

it is my duty to warn them, if they do not listen, that is their curse.

Paladin (there goes that song in my head again!),
This man has already weighed the evidence and has rejected the truth. I would heed these words.

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Mat 15:14

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48

Shake off the dust of your feet after your meeting. You won't sway him. He's already covenanted for 30 pieces of silver.
.

[Paladin54]

Brother Tim, it is because he wanted to have an "expert" answer my questions. While he couldn't answer my questions, he is intrigued....and wants his faith in the NIV reinforced.