[
FONT="Georgia"][/FONT] The NIV translations were recommended to me by men of Christ, whose opinions I greatly respect. The translations were called into question by others, claiming that phrases and verses were left out. I have researched this question from the NIV point of view, (to be truthful, a limited amount of research)and the general consensus seems to be two fold. ONE: the KJV translated from the Latin Vulgate, which for it's time was the most accurate representation of scripture translation. Since then however, a great number of original documents have been discovered which throw light on the languages used, and the culture which used them. This has allowed a more accurate translation than that offered by the KJV. TWO: There have been discussions back and forth attempting to discredit the NIV, stating that words, phrases, and indeed whole verses have been left out. The explanation given is that in the original languages these texts were written in, did not contain the material in question. I am seriously trying to get a feel for which side of the question I will support, so if there is someone with the qualifications to speak on this subject, please respond.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

The NIV translations were recommended to me by men of Christ, whose opinions I greatly respect.

Proverbs 29:25 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.

ONE: the KJV translated from the Latin Vulgate,

I don't mean to be rude, but if your research came up with this, then you need to start over. The KJV was not translated from the Vulgate.

[Brother Tim]

Rather than having someone repeat much that has been written here already, I would ask that you spend whatever time that is necessary to read through the threads in the "Versions" part of the forum. There is plenty here that will answer your concerns.

Go to "The King James Bible Page" at the top right of this page for links to many articles on the subject by experts, including articles that demonstrate, for instance, the words that the KJB has that most newer translations leave out, and show why it is most likely that they were removed rather than added.

[George]

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

[
FONT="Georgia"][/font] The NIV translations were recommended to me by men of Christ, whose opinions I greatly respect. The translations were called into question by others, claiming that phrases and verses were left out. I have researched this question from the NIV point of view, (to be truthful, a limited amount of research)and the general consensus seems to be two fold. ONE: the KJV translated from the Latin Vulgate, which for it's time was the most accurate representation of scripture translation. Since then however, a great number of original documents have been discovered which throw light on the languages used, and the culture which used them. This has allowed a more accurate translation than that offered by the KJV. TWO: There have been discussions back and forth attempting to discredit the NIV, stating that words, phrases, and indeed whole verses have been left out. The explanation given is that in the original languages these texts were written in, did not contain the material in question. I am seriously trying to get a feel for which side of the question I will support, so if there is someone with the qualifications to speak on this subject, please respond.

Re: PetertheRock,

I know nothing about you - but must warn you to watch out for "respect of persons".

Job 13:10 He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Ephesians 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Colossians 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

1 Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

God doesn't have "respect of persons" - and he doesn't want us to have any "respect of persons" either.

Think and pray about this for a while.

[Brother Tim]

George and others:
I think that it is a fair statement to make that we all have Godly people whom we "respect", that is, hold in high esteem. The intent of the word "respect" is different here than what is shown in the Scripture verses that you used. I won't bother with copying definitions, because I think that it is obvious.

Here are a couple of verses to back me up, hopefully: (thanks to SwordSearcher!)

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Hebrews 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:

2 Thessalonians 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;

2 Thessalonians 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

I would say that this makes it clear that "respect" can be bad or good, depending on the intent.

A warning then to those (us, myself included) who consider themselves qualified to give counsel:

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Matthew 23:8-10 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

1 Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Matthew 15:13-14 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Woe to those pastors and Bible teachers who have given those who looked up to them bad advice concerning the KJB and its "supposed errors". I do not want to be in their place when they face judgment.

[pneuby]

Welcome, Peter. You've a long road ahead, and I'm only a few steps in front of you, LOL. One thing is for SURE. There ARE differences in the myriad of transalations we have. The most glaring are the deletion of words from verses, verses from passages, and in some cases, entire passages from MV (Modern Versions) compared with the AV(Authorized Version, commonly KJV).

Many, such as the NASB, will put {brackets} around a verse for which the translators believe there is some question. There will be a footnote for the bracketed portion, with commentary on the same page, usually at the bottom. The NIV typically deletes the words/verses, with a little asterisk {*} at the end of it directing you to the footnote/s at the bottom. The NKJV leaves MOST things in place in the text, then adds the * at those same points, with the relevant footnotes at he bottom. In a glaring example, I just checked a new copy of the English Standard Version. It is missing the entire account of the Woman at the Well, at the end of John 7, and beginning of chapter 8. In it's place are brackets {stating that the earliest manuscripts do not contain this account}, or similar language. They don't even give you the courtesy of a footnote with the entirety of the disputed text!

Look on this site's King James Bible page for the Wescott and Hort Magic-Marker Binge for quick overview

[PB1789]

Connie:---Good Reply! Hope PetertheRock clicks over there and reads the many articles.

Pneuby:--- Good points! The NIV translators must have taken their classes from that red-headed guy that lived at Monticello and his "cut-and-paste" bible where he liked the wisdom words of Jesus, but really didn't go for all that "miracle" stuff...


PetertheRock:--- "Seek and ye shall find." Front page of this site has a link to books that the Forum Admin (Diligent) thinks will be helpful to folks such as yourself. I'd suggest the book by Hills. Another good (and readable one) is titled: "Which Bible" by Fuller. Helpful, and hopefully it will give you something to think about. There are articles/pamphlets about the NIV printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society (check their website) which you can read online for free or send them a few bucks and get their sample pack.

As to your first statement about the A.V-K.J. coming from the Latin Vulgate... the answer is NO! Wyclif (Wycliffe) in England used the Vulgate to translate the Bible into English for the common folk, but by the time of the early 1600's the Translators had access to printed editions of the Hebrew O.T. and the Greek N.T. {praise God for giving Mr. Guetenberg a good, productive brain.}

Here is something for you to mull over in your head...You or myself or your Dad can quote from the Authorized Version (K.J.) all day long and write down it's words,,,no problem. IF you quote or copy 250 words or more (if memory serves) from the NIV and most other Modern Versions, you must get written permission from the publishing house that holds the copyright---or else they can take you to court.

To all who responded: thank you for your direction...I am somewhat of a novice pc user as well, so bear with me on that. I will read those articles mentioned. In response to the reply given re translation from the Latin Vulgate...I have read that the original Greek and Latin were translated to the Latin Vulgate which was then translated into German then other more modern languages of those times. I will read further in your Bible page to discover what the thinking is there.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

I have read that the original Greek and Latin were translated to the Latin Vulgate which was then translated into German then other more modern languages of those times.

Hi Peter,

This is a reasonable description of Catholic Vulgate editions, although they were slow to put the Vulgate in the common languages and make them available to the common folks (thus the 'ploughman' comments of Erasmus and Tyndale). In English this Vulgate edition would be the Rheims NT, part of the Douay-Rheims.

In contrast, the Reformation Bibles were based on the Greek NT Received Text, which essentially defeated the Vulgate in the Battle of the Bible. A very fascinating historical study neglected today. This line of Reformation English Bibles includes the Tyndale and the Geneva, groundwork leading to the King James Bible.

The counter-reformation attempt produced the alexandrian-based versions manufactured in the late 1900s until the 'Version of the Month Club' - where they are today. These versions are very corrupt, even in their partially-sanitized English editions, and they are far inferior to even the Vulgate. As a simple example the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera are simply Bible in the Vulgate, in line with the great majority of Greek MSS.

And thus the Battle of the Bible today is the true Reformation text, superbly brought forth in purity and perfection and majesty in the King James Bible vs. the corrupt alexandrians. With the Vulgate as a bemused bystander rooting on the counter-reformation text of Westcott and Hort. The RCC will publish the corrupt modern versions, but not the true and pure Reformation Bible.

Shalom,
Steven