My NIV Rant
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มี.ค. 2021
- This week's Three-Minute Gospel is neither three minutes nor is it really teaching in the way we intend for most of these videos to be. This is the director's cut of, "Why I don't recommend the NIV, Part Deux/Electric Boogaloo."
In all seriousness. The NIV Bible that had been around since 1978 was changed significantly in 2011. Most people don't know it is different or how. It takes a while (12-minutes), but we give it a shot.
This is part two of a series on Bible translations. Here is part one: • Which Bible Translatio...
Here are the links referred to in the video:
2002 statement on the Today’s NIV by the Southern Baptist Convention. It reads, “we respectfully request that the agencies, boards, and publishing arms of the Southern Baptist Convention refrain from using this translation.”
www.sbc.net/resource-library/...
2011 statement on the NIV 2011 from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content...
It's another Three-Minute Gospel. Don't forget to like and subscribe. Remember three-minutes is a state of mind!
www.north2ndcofc.org
God is good.
Thank you for revealing the shortcomings of the NIV 2011. Glad I have several NIV 84 copies.
I still use the 1984 NIV. I believe it is a pretty solid link between readability and accuracy. I do not and will not use the 2011 NIV. It is trying to conform to today's culture and society. Translation is one thing, but changing the meaning is a problem.
Can you provide examples please
I recently purchased a NIV Schofield Study bible and was pleased to find that it's the 1984 version of the NIV
Was it new? My understanding was Zondervan/Biblica would not allow the 1984 to be published even in commentaries.
Good for you.
@@preachermansage6822 Oxford either had a huge run printed right before that edict came down and are still selling through it, or they have special permission. Now that the Thompson Chain has gone out of print in anticipation of a new typsetting the Scofield is the last remaining 1984 NIV you can still purchase new.
@@RoastBeefSandwich Thanks for the explanation. I was at 21st Century bookstore in Nashville, where they were trying to produce a second run of a commentary and Zondervan/Biblica wouldn't let them use NIV84.
Thank you for explaining this so well
Thanks for watching!
God gave me revelation just yesterday of the gender thing. If you don’t identify with a gender then no matter if you have sexual relations with male or female it doesn’t matter, there’s neither male or female, even though in Genesis God said He created male & female. They are calling God a liar to serve the lusts of their flesh. Satan doesn’t want the people to identify with a gender so he can fulfill his desire of hatred against God. But hey, we all know who wins in the end! Jesus Christ, King of King’s & Lord of Lord’s, the First & the Last, Alpha & Omega, the Beginning & the Ending, God Almighty! 😁❤️🙏🏻
Is there any way to find out who are these people and what are their backgrounds that are doing these writings for the N IV. And who hired them and what was their beliefs that were doing the hiring to rewrite and change the word of God. I wonder if this is something Google has information on.
Back in the late '70s I went from the KJV to the NASB and eventually the NKJV. Finally, of late I returned to the Grand Daddy of them all, the KJV. It's just so poetic and everything I memorized was the KJV from my youth. Guess I'm an old stick in the mud.
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?"-Genesis 4:7 (KJV)
Carry on!
We shouldn't worry, it will self destruct. It just will not sell.
Thank you so so much for pointing these differences out. I noticed that Songs of Solomon with songs of songs. I didn't realize they actually changed more. The words. I'm glad I'm using my King James and ESV Plus I'm now a subscriber so thank you so much!
Following the NRSV. At least Lockman still has the older versions still for sale.
I have collected a few copies of the 1984 NIV but it is getting harder to find good used copies ten years on. Our pulpit minister is now using the CSB. Good rant.
Thanks Dale!
I found a NIV Thompson Chain Reference 1984 leather, new in the box at a thrift store for 50 cents. 😊
Is it possible to find new NIV 84 bibles?
VM, That is a great question. I know at one time they had completely eliminated it (Zondervan/Biblica).
(JS - If anyone knows the answer better than I, please post it here!)
I was whining about the 2011 to some poor employee at 21st Century Christian, and she told me they were having issues as well.
An author they published was trying to publish a revision of a commentary. He had originally written it using the '84 text. Biblica, would not allow him to republish his book unless he changed all Scriptures to the 2011.
It has always been a strange power move to me. Combine that with the secrecy with which they made the change and that was my motivation to do the video.
You can find used/new? 1984s on eBay. But they are expensive and for some reason, tend to be study Bibles.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
VM, This guy seems to have the same opinion: www.columbiachristian.org/post/why-i-left-the-niv-for-the-esv
I know what you mean. I’m having to think KJB after decades of reading lesser bibles. It’s very hard and worth all the work. The NIV is the only bible I stopped reading after realizing it was messing up too much from the meaning of the verses. But it was the ESV that made me investigate what in the world is going on with these new age bibles. I went the KJB after that investigation and relearned to read. It’s very hard but I can trust it word for word without worry or doubt.
Even with its difficulties for the modern reader, the King James stands the test of time. No doubt.
Do you know Greek and Hebrew?
New Age? Really? Do you not know what New Age is?
@@Meat_Skraps adding mysticism, and elements of worldliness, demigods, and elements of psychiatry and other postmodern ideas. New age is probably not the best words to use but modern bibles seem so anticlimactic haha
@@Meat_Skraps also using Modern ideas, such as dynamic equivalency and other theories and practices derived from german reasoning
Thank you for the education. The NKJV is my favorite translation. For readability, I think the CSB is better than the NIV as far as dynamic equivalent translations go.
The new kjv uses the satanic symbol 666 plus the revenue from the sakes of this bible go to pornography and such evil people who run evil companies
i started in the faith using ESV and NASB. After gradually realising the large number of differences between modern translations and the KJV I made the decision to put aside these questionable translations and use the KJV.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I certainly understand the inclination to reach back for the KJV.
As I'm sure you can tell from the video, I do not consider the ESV or NASB translations to be questionable.
May God bless our reading of his word.
I'm using the 1984 NIV Bible since 1988 from my Sunday school days.
Now, I am confused as to which is the best and accurate version of the Holy Bible.
Please guide me.
I can totally relate. When I was making the decision, my first concern was faithfulness to the text. Tied for second and third concerns were readability* and trustworthiness of the publisher. I did/do not want to have to change translations again in my lifetime.
The "big four" (KJV/NKJV, NASB, ESV) all met the first criteria. I do prefer the translations which use the "Westcott-Hort style" of text. That left me with NASB and ESV. The ESV is more pleasurable to read to me (btw these decisions were made prior to the NASB2020).
*One of my criteria for readability has to do with how closely the translation reads to the KJV/NKJV. This is an arbitrary piece of the puzzle, but the majority of members within churches of Christ us a NKJV. The NIV84 and to some extent the NASB are difficult for members to follow when preaching or reading. The ESV isn't exactly the same, obviously, but it is close enough to follow along.
Good luck and thanks for watching.
Why use Satan's counterfeit Bible's get an a.v. or holy bible
All versions are full of errors missing word's etc
I'm 68 years old and old school I won't read anything but the King James version! I was in second grade when I first started reading my Bible regularly and fell in love with it! In order to teach children from the King James version you have to teach them to translate certain words into their meaning! The word w r e s t means to twist the word of God. Host in the Bible when God says; Army angels! I picked up the NIV one time decided to give it a go and I found several things that weren't true! And I found that they left out certain words that changed the whole meaning of a sentence! I'm a hairdresser so this one kind of hit home. A woman's gray hair is a Crown of Glory, this is NIV. King James version is a woman's gray hair is a Crown of Glory, if it be from the Lord! They left out if it be from the Lord! I've met a lot of gray-haired woman that weren't very nice! Just have to look up certain words like even for gray hair in the King James version, it says h o r e y hair! That means Gray! It's not that difficult and it's written so beautifully and it took years to write the King James version and I believe it's blessed of God! But I do believe that when Jesus said the; that the Bible has to be preached all over the world, then we do have to have it in different languages. But I do believe what is said in Revelation if you take one word away or add one to it you're in big trouble or you twist it to give it a totally different meeting we're in trouble then cuz we know what the meaning is it's pretty simple! We have the Ten Commandments the golden rules we have The Parables of Jesus, we have the teachings of the Apostle Paul blessed of God through the power of the holy spirit that teaches us good things and right things! When in doubt don't do it!
I appreciate your passion. Most of my memory work still comes out of my mouth as KJV. RE: "nurture and admonition of the Lord."
KJV is corrupt in many places.
Since it was published in 1611 many other NT manuscripts have been found shoeing this.
Connie, I used to have every version except KJ. In 2000 someone gave me a book that showed many changes and omissions in the newer versions. I opened up each of my bibles and compared. I was shocked. There are way too many to mention here, but phrases like 'through his blood' some changes to what would be a reference to the Trinity like God was manifest in the flesh, Acts 8:37 regarding baptism, 'if you believe with all your heart you may'. Lord, hell, fasting removed so many times. Well I changed to the KJ that very day in 2000 and I've never gone back.
I respect your comment, reminds me of my mom. When you get a chance go TH-cam a video called - are you a good person by living waters. Would love to know your thoughts on it.
I use the original 1979 NIV. I have the ‘84 version but I prefer the ‘79 version. God bless you sir!😀👍🙏✝️
Thanks!
What are your thoughts on the CSB?
Thanks for watching first of all! I am a little scattered on the HCSB. I think it suffers from kinda being in the middle between the ESV roll out and the NIV 2011.
I can't prove this, but it seems to me the SBC knew the TNIV was going to morph into the NIV 2011 and they tried to get out in front of the change (they knew the TNIV was problematic). That's not a criticism BTW.
They came out with the accurately labeled Holman Christian Standard Bible, they changed it to the Christian Standard Bible which is both slightly sneaky and more than slightly presumptuous!
As for the English text of the translation itself, I am not aware of any glowing errors.
The HCSB uses a version of the "Majority Text" as it's underling Greek. Here again, the HCSB splits the difference by going with a version of the Greek text that is in between the critical and TR.
Is it a reliable translation of the Bible? As far as I know. As a Stone-Campbell, restoration, we don't believe in external church governments (synods, councils, conventions) kinda guy; would I feel a little dirty promoting what I refer to as the "Baptist NIV" that was created and is promoted by the SBC? I gotta say yes.
BUT, if you held my feet to the fire would I admit it is a pretty good translation if you are looking for a Bible more serious than the NLT but not as exacting as the NASB or ESV? Also yes.
Sorry for the super-long answer. I neither love nor hate it. Why did I leave it out of "the big four?" It's not as ubiquitous as the others. The HSCB/CSB thing can be a little confusing. And I prefer a "word for word" style and lean toward the critical text.
Have a blessed day! God is good!
@@preachermansage6822 I feel like the [H]CSB is a cynical money grab to try to cater to people who want an NIV-like translation but don't want to support Biblica and/or Zondervan.
That's why I stick to literal Bible translations, plenty of great ones to choose from: NKJV, ESV, NASB, LSB, CSB
I still use the 1984 NIV.
Best explanation I have found-very helpful,,Love your teaching,,-Thank You Sir.--
Personally I really like the Amplified Bible myself.
Thanks! To God be the glory in all things!
The only time I read the NIV was when I was a child and had a children's Bible. Once I got baptized at 16 I switched to the NKJV and read that for about 10 years. Now I read the NAS95 and the RSV. We have so many good translations in English, why settle for a compromised translation. Yet, there are those who say that the RSV is compromised. So I guess I do not have much room to talk from their perspective.
Fred, I think your comment here, "We have so many good translations in English, why settle for a compromised translation." sums up my view pretty well.
Thanks for watching!
My 1979 NIV is wearing out and I am looking for a new Bible. Thanks for your video. I don't think I will be buying a new NIV based on what I have heard from others and your video. I am told the ESV is good, but I find it a little hard to read in places. My search continues. Thanks again for the education.
Thanks and good luck!
Jason,Once again,you are spot-on! Personally,I stick to the King James...But understand why we have/use NIV...But when major changes,and ''conformities'' change the word of God,there are dire warnings about that topic!!! Unfortunately,this is part of the end times,and one must separate from the ''world''.... II chronicles 7:14 Thank you,for what YOU do!!!
There are many changes in all modern Bible versions. They all either use words that are not as pointed or decrease the deity of Christ. I’m a fundamentalist and believe the KJV is the inspired Word of God for the English world.
Thanks for watching and commenting FS.
Serious question: Is there a book or a minister who holds the "KJV is inspired" position, you would recommend?
I have heard this statement for years but have never heard it argued.
Inspiration is a lofty mountain to climb (Hebrews 2:3-4).
@@preachermansage6822 Dr Peter Ruckman is probably the best defender of the KJV. He spends almost 3 hrs explaining it. I’ll find a link.
Eye opening. Maybe someone can do a study as to how many changes were made from 1984 to 2011.
This is a solid article by itself and it has links to some of the research. Thanks!
th-cam.com/users/redirect?event=comments&redir_token=QUFFLUhqblBhNHl4ZGd2MVE4TndSR3BaM193VkJvZmRQZ3xBQ3Jtc0tsbkpaMl9GbDdYbENtblh5Nks2SXpxOTE5VXdweGstLW9sYndqNUV6eTZsTldPb00wMnhwMFptUE5vUllkb05PRUFpOVFHR0xSaFp4ZndWT0gwVU92Y1VXeFB3Wlg2RVlhcXpDMmpZWXRwdEYtT3J6aw&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible-researcher.com%2Fcbmw.niv2011.2.pdf&stzid=Ugx5viku4lT4N28VrLh4AaABAg.9_qswZFeRMF9aSLqCVQRfJ
Dr. T Evangelist: First of all no reason to be rude. You can follow that logic all you want. The real issue here is that the translators have done a very poor job of explaining this. Sometimes the "missing" verse is not in the footnotes NIV, ESV, NASB etc. I get the logic of the closer to the source the more reliable. But if you want non-Greek or non-Hebrew speaking readers to move to your "new or updated better translation", you may want to do a better job in notations, or it may appear you are trying to hide something. I can't even read my notes they require a magnifying glass. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about this in readers minds and with good reason. Given the state of our world, people are distrusting everyone in any position of leadership whether it be political or religious. Just the fact that Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins (Publisher of the Satanic bible) is good enough for some to question them and the translators. The gender thing though is even worse, I get why he is uncomfortable on that point.
There's something I always say when people twist the Bible to fit their own narratives, and there's plenty of wisdom to it. "If you try to change God's Word, it is no longer His, rather it is yours."
Amen to that 1776
I'm a diehard NKJV, my study through all versions is filtered through the KJV because of Strong's,Vine's, and MH Comm study stuff. I hear what you say (about NIV'11) and to be honest, I didn't notice as my mind already applied the pronoun to me the individual anyway. No I'm not fluent in Wokelish, I guess because I'm anchored elsewhere I don't 'hear it' when I read. All the more appreciative of your critique, thanks.
Thanks. I think we have to acknowledge all these translations are going through a difficult cultural change. As society rejects the universal "he" pronoun as a reference to both sexes, finding a solution which is not clumsy is difficult. (he/she, brothers and sisters, brothers with a perpetual footnote, man, human kind, people).
The approach used by the NIV 2011 (the singular they) is confusing because there is no way to delineate singular from plural.
Thanks for watching.
Actually, the 2011 NIV wasn't a revision of the 84 NIV, but the TNIV instead. The TNIV basically became the modern form of the NIV.
Actually it was a little of both.
ESV and KJV team here.
You just can't go wrong! Thanks for watching and commenting.
Just attended a new “Comservative Baptist Church”. Not only is the preacher a Calvinist but he is using the NIV 2011.
Thanks.
I can accept many translations.
Bilblica denied me permission to do NIV on my channel, and this is only in character for them.
Thanks for commenting JK.
One of the quirkier things I heard about Biblica was they denied use of the '84 to people seeking a second printing or an update.
One of the authors at 21st Century Christian was told his commentary could not be published in another form and use the '84.
From Zondervan's site: "Zondervan is granting permission for the latest edition of the NIV text only (currently 2011.) We are not granting permission for use of the earlier editions or version of the NIV text."-www.zondervan.com/about-us/permissions/
I think they know if they let us have "Coke Classic" it will be the end of "New Coke."
Thank you for pointing this out. I had downloaded the NIV Bible on my phone for it’s readability while our church was going through a Bible study on 1 and 2 Samuel and Daniel. I hadn’t heard about the gender neutral pronouns but reading Hebrews chapter 2 was an eye opener. I have an ESV app on my phone and Bible at home that I’ll start using again. Thanks again for sharing!
Bro. Preacherman, have you had a chance to compare the NASB 2020 to the NIV 2011 in this area of gender neutrality? I was sincerely wondering if it went as far. Thanks!
Timothy! Forgive me for overlooking your question. I had two of the same and I didn't notice they were from different people.
Here is my reply. Thanks again for watching my channel:
I have great respect for the NASB. The new revision is struggling with the same thing everyone else is, "How do we deal with the cultural change around the use of male nouns and pronouns as universal terms?" Until the last 40-years, if I said,
"Jesus wants all men to be saved." everyone understood "men" was universal for all people.
Lockman has determined (as others have) it is no longer clear to modern readers what is meant by generic male terms. Sooooooo, in classic NASB fashion they make things slightly more transparent to the text but somehow much more clumsy. In an effort to clarify when the Greek word for brothers is used specifically for males, the NASB20 uses, "Men, brothers." Clear? Yes. Super clumsy? Also yes.
Behold Mark 1:17:
And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will have you become fishers of people.”-NASB20
Yuck! It's enough to make you want to become a KJV only!
BTW, the ESV isn't perfect in any of this. It is a difficulty for all men, people, mankind, brothers and sisters, men brothers, etc.
Here is an article on the issue: evangelicalbible.com/nasb2020/
Thanks for sharing this I had no idea but now I know I won't buy one.
good job
I've taken quite a bit of time to look into modern translations having been faithfully using the KJV since I got saved in 2017.
I'm now putting modern translations to one side and sticking with my KJV because of Luke 4:4.
KJV: "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
All modern translations, based on the Critical Text, omit the last six words of that passage. An example:
ESV: "And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”"
It absolutely astonishes me that anyone can take a Bible seriously that includes this type of error. Luke was a reliable, accurate historian who was relaying an account also told by Matthew, about Jesus' using the Word of God to resist Satan in the wilderness. Why on earth would Luke have not written the full quote from Deuteronomy 8:3? Just think of the irony that modern bibles have literally cut out the words "every word of God" and try to then pass themselves off as the word of God?
Stick with the KJV or the NKJV, which are based on the Received Text of the reformation, and not modern translations which use the Critical Text, which are butchered, inconsistent manuscripts that were laying around unused for at least 1,000 years before their unfortunate rediscovery in the late 1800s.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
I looked at a few translations before answering your comment. Neither the NASB1995, ASV1901, nor the ESV has the disputed text. There is not as much as a footnote on it. That usually means the majority of scholars are in such agreement that something doesn't belong in the text, they do not feel the need to comment.
The phrase that is excluded in the critical text of Luke, is present in Matthew 4:4.
As always, thank you for your time. You have chosen to read from a reliable translation, to learn from it, and to do what it says. You do well.
A hymnal.. a hymnal. How wonderful a church man is , if he sings from a hymnal.
To tell the old, old story of Jesus and his love.
I would much prefer that when translations go through major revisions like the 84 to 11 NIV, they release the revision under a new name.
The fewer revisions the better.
Fantastic name BTW.
@@preachermansage6822 I am still not sure why they say the language changed so much from 1984 to 2011 that they needed to update the Bible. I am wondering if it had more to do with maintaining a copyright and infusing gender changes.
I love literal/formal-equivalent translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB95, ESV). That does come partially from a place of theology, but for the most part, that is my preference. I really tried giving the NIV a chance, but I just couldn't stay with it. I came to feel like the translators took unnecessary liberties with certain word choices than they should have.
No doubt. For me, the idea they would set a rule of using the singular "they" at all times (generally) is a bad decision that leads to poor translation.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Now here’s a pastor I would like to sit under ❤
I am flattered, but all this is from God!
Thank you for the kind words.
That’s why everyone should stick with the King James
These changes air on the side of heretical.
The KJV, NKJV and the ESV are the only ones I trust. I've read them all, but my personal favorite is the NKJV.
I would say the majority of members within churches of Christ fall into this category.
One of the things I like about the ESV is the similarity of the word bed. You can read along to someone who has an ESV when a NKJV is being read and vice versa.
One could argue that the ‘man’ referred to in Hebrews 2, 1 Cor. 15:27-28, and Psalm 8 is actually mankind and that’s why they pluralized it. He created man to rule over everything in the garden in the beginning. Jesus said that the meek will inherit the earth. Revelation 20:6 says that the saved will reign with Christ in the Millennial Kingdom. I mean He let man have dominion over everything here on earth. And later on right after this passage in Hebrews 2:9, the NIV 2011 has no problem addressing Jesus as the singular ‘he’.
Just another observation and perspective. Great video. I appreciate your love for the Word of God.
SC, thanks for watching and commenting. I think you are correct in seeing "all mankind" in Psalm 8. However, the singular, male pronoun looks back to Adam as representative of mankind.
The psalm is a dual prophecy. It looks back to Adam and looks forward to the second Adam.
It's just the whole, "We are going to use the singular 'they' regardless of context." that drives me crazy. Because it is clearly, based on surrounding verses, referring to Jesus.
It is not "mankind" that is made a little while lower, crowned, or had everything put in subjection. It is "he" and he is Jesus.
BTW, I don't think you are arguing against the point in the last paragraph.
The idea it is Jesus who had been given all authority, and to whom God has put all things in subjection (Matt. 28:18; I Cor. 15:27), is so central to understanding the gospel. To so callously slap a singular "they/them" on there makes my head spin!
Please don't read this as angry! It's just every time I examine this set of verses, I find something else that makes it worse than I thought the first time.
For instance, the "them" in verse eight! I would allow that mankind had dominion over the created world, but not "the things we do not see."
Oh man! Now I need a cool washrag and a fan!
Thanks for the kind words and May God bless us this day.
love my KJV
You mentioned you had over 20 years of memorization from the '84 NIV...the church I attended for 13 years switched to the 2011 and even our own minister didn't like the new revision, often referring to the '84 in sermons...why he didn't just keep using that one is beyond me. No one told him he couldn't! (At least I don't think so)
That updating process always annoyed me. You mean I have to buy a new edition of a Bible now, because the old one is obsolete? Not happening!
About 20 years ago I began to memorize out of the KJV because it will never go out of fashion (even though there are words that do not mean the same things they do today)
I'll always study with someone out of a modern version.
I'll always use an ESV or NKJV reader's edition as I sit down and just read out of the Bible (they stopped updating the ESV -- so they say -- and probably won't update the NKJV).
But the 30 minutes a day of memorization will always come from the KJV, because I won't have to worry about any changes!
Your post is so similar to my reaction. I would imagine one of the reasons your minister didn't want to continue to use the NIV84 is having to explain what he was doing all the time and the publisher's adamant denial for commentary authors, Bible class material publishers, etc. to use the '84 in any updated publication of their material.
In the video I did on the ASV1901, I quoted Guy N. Woods from 1968. He makes the point on memory work that you, I, and many others are suffering through.
We all have to come up with our own ways of dealing with the issue.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Here is the video to which I referred earlier. The link for the Woods material is in the description.
th-cam.com/video/uCB-N9fGIFU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MJIgZOA2hqlXLak5
@@preachermansage6822 Have you ever looked through "A Review of the New Versions" by Foy Wallace? Huge book with some very useful information
@@seekingthekingdomfirst I have Wallace's "The Gospel for Today" which includes a section on translation. I have heard of the book but have never seen a copy.
Thanks for watching/commenting.
I have the 2002 NIV Study Bible and love it. My main gripes I've always had with it was that it translates "the flesh" as "sin nature" and translates "deny" as "disown." God will deny Christians when they are disobedient, but He will never disown them.
I also like how the 2002 edition even includes verses as what it deems are taken from later manuscripts and inserts them into the footer section instead of not including them at all.
And yes, you're right. The 2011 NIV butchers the text and should be avoided.
When I was using an NIV84, my main wish was that they would exchange flesh for sinful nature. The 2011 does that but then steps in post holes the rest of the way!
@@preachermansage6822 You said that backwards, but I knew what you meant. I watched your video. It was a great video. God bless!
@@statesman6379 Thanks for translating my reply!
By the way; my favorite KJV bible is The Companion Bible from years ago. A very dense reference bible!
Forgive me, but I'm not familiar with that. Can you describe it please?
@@preachermansage6822 Certainly. It is the KJV, and is a reference bible with many references and appendixes. It shows where those emphatic pronouns are for instance. And much more things that are too many here. Its called THE COMPANION BIBLE. A VERY goof tool for preachers too! But it takes a little time to get to understand those references being so many. I love it!! And I'm not a preacher. Ebay may have some. But make sure it says its the KJV version. I have two now. My old worn one is 40 years old. Amazon might also have it. Its not cheap, but well worth it.
NIV is not a word for word translation- it is also missing verses maybe because it’s paraphrase - you can find missing verses on TH-cam that have been via the scripture of NIV against the word for word translation - if your studying a bible then why not a word for word translation such as NASB - NKJV - ESV
Agreed
Southern Baptist created the HCSB (now called the CSB) because they didn't like the NIV (or paying the copyright royalties). I find the HCSB/CSB to be close enough to the NIV to follow along during a service that uses the NIV, but a better overall translation than the NIV. All the scriptures you referenced are preserved in the CSB I looked at.
That is about how I feel about the HCSB.
I have never liked the NIV for a very simple but very important reason. The original NIV in its introduction states that it doesn’t use the term “Lord of hosts”, because this phrase no longer has meaning for modern readers and therefore uses the term “Sovereign Lord” which means the same thing as in He who is sovereign over the hosts of Heaven.
That is completely untrue. They do not mean the same thing. There is absolutely no implicit meaning of hosts in the term Sovereign Lord.
God in His holy Word revealed Himself as the Lord of hosts. Who are we to alter His revelation of Himself? And if they so brazenly take liberties with one of the holy titles of God, what else have they taken liberties with?
I agree. I checked a few other translations and most use, "LORD of hosts."
I must say (and praising the NLT is difficult on me) 😃 if I was going to solve the problem of "hosts" no longer being understood, the NLT went with "LORD of Heaven's Armies" and that is a pretty good solution to that issue.
Attack the Word, and you attack Jesus. Attacking the Word was Satan's ploy in the Garden. Always, man wants to be God.
Ebay does have NIV bibles before 2000. I found 1960 s, 1950 s etc
I posted a comment in reply to this earlier this week and it has disappeared. Any ideas?
BTW, my comment was to be careful of Ebay. It someone is claiming to have an NIV from the '50's, Let's just say I am dubious. Or it could be an unreleased early draft and worth a considerable amount of money.
The NIV of the New Testament was not published until 1973.
Thanks for watching and be careful on the interwebs!
@@preachermansage6822 thanks😁 I am praying for another KJV. I have a well worn bible put out by Charles Stanley, I like the life lessons included.
Question wife you were given a stump (top)to plant in a dream?
@@Hepzibahlee8440 Sorry, I don't understand.
@@preachermansage6822 sorry, I misspelled a word. My question is, how as a seasoned Pastor would you define a dream, where you are given a stump to plant? Thank you
Good video but I think you didn't mention Mark 1:41 which is a very different reading. The translators of the 2011 decided to go with rendering that has very little support. Their reasoning is it's the harder reading and therefore more likely. But, in context, compassion makes more sense than indignant or anger and has much more support in Greek manuscripts.
Wow, I was unaware of that idiosyncrasy. What were they thinking?
I would not think Jesus is indignant there. The leper has faith Jesus can heal him, it is a matter of,
"Will you please?" so to speak.
In contrast the father of the demon possessed boy in Mark 9:22-23 asked Jesus, "If you can." Our Lord was not cool with, "If you can?!?!?! I would understand indignant there...if it were in the text!
Thanks!
@@preachermansage6822 Found a webpage called Mark 1:41 - Why the NIV is Wrong. The author, James Snapp Jr., goes into great detail about that rendering. The CEB, ERV and NIRV also translate it based on the minority reading.
@@richstrobel This list of paraphrases you have in your last sentence is why I did the video in the first place. The average Bible student looks out at the vast sea of acronyms and they can easily be lost.
I just wanted to give a simple video to guide people to a reliable translation that could be commonly found. What your post shows is, if you think the NIV2011 goes too far, wander down the ole paraphrase path a little further and you can really go astray.
Thanks for the tip on the webpage.
I use the NIV and the NLT. Only.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
If your handle had been "jerrytheking" I would have suggested Lance Russell to answer your comment.
I have just purchased a second hand 1984 NIV online. Very excited. I did buy a 2011 edition without understanding the changes. The other change that I notice is changing the word Christ to Messiah. While it means the same thing I don't really understand the motive and I am now suspicious. The NT was written in Greek and the word Christ was used for a purpose.
It's like they sat in a room and came up with bad ideas.
If they mean the same thing, why does it matter? At this point it's more about your tradition, it's just what you're used to, and not about which word to use since they mean the same thing.
Let's face it, if someone doesn't know scripture and you read them "Christ", that word means absolutely nothing outside of knowledge of Christian terms. So you read "Christ" and then immediately have to say "that means Messiah".
At least the word "Messiah" might be a word people are likely to already understand.
I'm one of those people who grew up thinking "Christ" was Jesus' last name, it's a word that has no common English use and I never really asked if meant something.
Still, having used that word my whole life, changing it definitely gives that odd feeling like God's word is being messed with. A Bible that no longer has the word "Christ" in it just feels wrong, but language marches on and people need words in their own language.
@@vigilantezack thanks for your detailed thoughts. Tradition is very hard to break away from. That is both it's strength and its weakness. I am feeling very strongly that we were given abundant copies of the New Testament in Greek for that purpose. We have a New Covenant now. Use of the word Messiah just reinforces the Old Covenant. The understand the word Messiah does not appear in the Old Testament and only twice in the New. Christ appears 530 times. It was developed by the Jewish leaders in the 400 years between the Testaments. I believe the words have different meanings in reality. Messiah implies a worldly leader taking control by force. Jesus was killed because he refused to be that Messiah. Neither Messiah or Christ are words we commonly use. King would be a more appropriate term. Unfortunately there is often a clear agenda in modern translations and the use of Messiah seems to be one of those. I am thankful for my strong Christian heritage but when I examine it in the light of the clear teachings of the Bible there are so many times we are following man made traditions. This applies to every denomination. Jesus is the Christ. His emphasis not mine. Studying the Bible will give us the meaning of Christ.
Thats great. I just did the same thing and I am awaiting its arrival. I am excited to read the 1984 NIV.
@@mikemurphy8067 I live in Aus and my Bible came from USA. So it took a while. There was possibly one in Aus but was not convinced it was 1984. Large print so hopefully will see me out! I am thoroughly enjoying reading the Bible- for the first time really in my 64 years. May you be blessed.
Dr. Lynn Cohicks [Gospels and Acts] and Dr. Nijay Gupta [Letter and Revelation] were put on the NLT Translation Committee in June of 2022, both believe very publicly the Bible allows for female pastors. Dr. Jeannine Brown is on the NIV translation committee [ NT ] starting in 2009, and she is pro-female pastors. The ESV2016 will most likely incorporate the ESV-CE next revision.
If you think the NIV and NLT are bad now.....
CP, Thanks for the comment. I assume you are referring to the ESV Catholic Edition. Is there something about the CE that will allow for women to become elders and lead in worship? I hope and pray not!
I think (hope not!) you are probably right on the direction of the NLT and NIV.
@@preachermansage6822 My point is the NLT, NIV, ESV, CSB all have active translation committees working on their respective next revisions. The direction the next revisions will go can be pretty much determined by the Theology of the people the Publishers have hired to be on the Translation committees. As you note in your video small changes that the average person would not catch have implications.
@@casey1167 That is what I thought.
I just had a mini panic attack over the potential of the ESV going the way of the NIV! Not that it can't happen.
Thanks!
@@preachermansage6822 Well, it is my belief that over time you will see a more liberal bent in all the modern Bibles. As far as the ESV, remember when the NASB1995 was revised to the NASB2020 there was a uproar, and the Legacy Standard Bible came along.
@@casey1167 This may sound trite, but it is up to us not to buy the more paraphrased and altered versions. The market responds to the needs of the customer.
May God receive the glory!
i like the 1611 kjv,nkjv and esv
It's hard to go wrong with that combination. Thanks for watching and commenting!
why do you give up a bible just because they don't publish it anymore? I don't understand sir.
Good question. It has more to do with the confusion caused by the publisher calling two different Bibles by the same name.
If Zondervan/Biblia published one translation as the NIV and the other as, let's say, the New World Oracle (or NWO for short...brother!), I would still use and recommend the NIV84.
As it stands; if I say, "The NIV reads this way." or "Yes I recommend the NIV." the average person is going to have no idea I am referring to the NIV84. The average bookstore worker will not know the difference. So, I will have unwittingly recommended a translation in which I do not have confidence (NIV2011).
Remember the original video was produced to suggest a reliable translation for the average Christian in the pew. Even this explanation i am giving you today is potentially confusing!
Thanks for checking out my channel!
I'm glad you posted this. I use the NASB , but many of my friends use the NIV. And now some are reading the Passion Bible. I try to tell them about the importance of accuracy, they just say that they're Spirit lead and I'm going off of the old church teaching that doesn't want us to know what the Bible really says, and they want to be in control. I feel Satan is doing a great job at coming as an Angle of light and misleading believes.
Thanks NC. This series of videos started as a response to questions I would get from Christians who were looking to purchase a new Bible.
My answer was not designed to be a grand treaty on translation. It was more like, if you are going to buy a Bible in a store (or online), you can always trust a KJV, NKJV, NASB, or ESV (bonus answer ASV which if someone is publishing one in OT and NT, let me know).
This video about the NIV2011 is, as I mention, a personal story. You're the second person to mention the Passion paraphrase. I probably need to make myself a little more familiar with it. But nothing I have heard is positive. One man does not a committee translation make.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Mike Winger has a very good video on the passion translation, it's important to know about these things. Know your Bible!
Thanks, very helpful. I agree in general about the problems with NIV2011, but think ironically that the NIV2011 is right on 1 Tim 2:12. There are good reasons why “assume authority” or “usurp authority” (KJV) is a valid and arguably better translation than “have authority” in this verse. It’s not some plot to attack male leadership.
I understand all NIVs are somewhat inconsistent, with some books being better translated than others. For example, the Proverbs translation is very good, whereas some other books are less good.
Thanks for the comments AM. It's kind of a "chicken or the egg" thing. Did the wording of "usurp authority" lead to people teach,
"Well, as long as the elders grant her authority it is okay." or is the wording just convenient for those who want to teach female leadership?
Interestingly, in examining how different translations deal with this verse, the NKJV actually deviates from the KJV by using "have authority." I didn't see that coming.
ESV, NASB1995 and 2020, and the NIV84, all have "exercise authority." The ASV1901 goes with "have dominion."
It is not a stand alone reason to reject the NIV2011. It is just the cherry on the top.
BTW, you mention the NIV as being very useful in Proverbs. My initial affection for the NIV84 was based on reading the Old Testament from it.
@@preachermansage6822 Thanks, it’s an interesting and important subject. I shall try to dig out a book I read which went into depth on the sentence structure of that verse. Of course, the first rule is to translate as accurately and clearly as possible. (That verse, if I recall, is particularly difficult, with one or more words not used elsewhere in the NT, and having developing meanings over time outside Scripture.) Next, to interpret the meaning, a Scripture needs to be understood in the context of the passage, the book it’s in, and also the whole of Scripture. I use the NKJV mostly, so that’s an interesting change they made. I just checked and Tyndale used “have authority”, so the KJV translators amended Tyndale with “usurp authority”. A lot of problems arise when we try to jump immediately to modern churches, which often use terminology quite differently to Scripture. We tend to be obsessed with “leadership” today, whereas the NT presumes eldership (oversight, governance, responsibility) alongside ministries (service) and giftings. Anyway, if I can find that book with some further insight on that verse, I’ll try to post it here.
@@alanmunch5779 Awesome
Oops! There's a NIV Bible right beside me!
This might be a bumpy ride for me - I also use the KJV Bible.
Careful...they will sneak up on a person and steal their "he's and she's!"
@@preachermansage6822 I agree that this gender neutrality stuff in general has gone way too far...
I have freedom in USA read other Bibles
I have a KJV Charles Stanley( especially book of Isaiah, in KJV powerful) and God willing, repurchasing it again. Along with a NlASB or ESV. I have the 2011 Niv. I read it with KJV and write corrections in margin of Niv
This is why I stick with the KJV. It is the only translation that is fixed and will not be changed. The nkjv will ultimately be “updated” According to Thomas Nelson. Long live king jimmy!
It may not be changed anymore but it has been revised many times from 1611 until 1769. Even removing the marginal notes of the translators. All 8,422 of them.
I’m not defending the NIV btw. It certainly isn’t one of the best modern English translations and that is because of the revisions it’s had since 1984.
NIV 2011 is a good translation. The NLT is a good translation. The NASB 2020 is a good translation. The ESV is a good translation. The NRSV is a good translation. The KJV was a good translation, but the language is extremely outdated and is a burden for those coming to the faith.
Change change change I use the kjv and I also study Hebrew I have a couple Hebrew bibles the original language
The 2011 NIV is my translation of choice. It's the all-round Bible version. I appreciate various English Bible translations. I have about twenty or so physical copies. I make comparisons all the time. The NLT and NET are my second and third preferences.
Hello Tim, you should compare Numbers 5:21-22.
Written in the KJV
Numbers 11:21-22
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
And in the NKJV
Numbers 11:21-22
21 then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman-“the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; 22 and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”
‘Then the woman shall say, “Amen, so be it.”
And in the NIV
Numbers 11:21-22
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse-“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
Some atheists and Pro-Choicers adore claiming God is okay with abortion.
This translation is awful, absolutely horrible and REALLY BAD.
Another butchered scripture is John 3:16
KJV John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
NKJV John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
NIV John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Investigate what begotten means and then compare it to one and only son.
I have a fellow brother in Christ that couldn't have his own children and adopted 2 children (a boy and later a girl). Here's the difference my brother in Christ calls his male (all grown up now) his one and only son, however he wasn't begotten. Again take to time to research what beget means and you'll see NIV is horrible. Remember Satan is subtle and/or cunning.
'them' in John 14:23 is not plural. There's a long history (going back as far as the 14th century) of they and them being used in a singular sense in literature. 'Them' is more acceptable in this verse because it's obviously not just talking about males.
This is where the rubber meets the pronoun in this discussion. To paraphrase your second sentence, "There's a long history (going back...forever?) of the singular male pronoun standing for people of both genders."
So here we are in this changing pronoun-scape, caught between "him" encompassing male and female, or "them" being understood as singular.
May God grant us grace and peace.
@@preachermansage6822 Your critique of the new NIV relies on a misrepresentation
@@davidjardine4968 Go on.
@@preachermansage6822 You say that John 14:23 is changed in the NIV to be about groups because of the use of the word 'them' but that's not what is meant by the text. You even say earlier in your video that the word 'them' is used to represent singular. Now you're saying that they've made John 14:23 about groups. Also, Hebrews 2:6 - 9: This passage starts off talking about humanity in general, and then in verse 9 refers to Jesus specifically. That's the point of the verse - that there is nothing wrong with Jesus, being God, becoming human. This is the same point in all versions, including the NIV. You say that the NIV changes it so that verses 6 to 8 are not about Jesus but they aren't directly about Jesus in any version. That's why verse 9 starts with the word 'but'. Also, 1 Timothy 2:12, the word 'assume' has the same meaning as 'have' or 'exercise' authority. It's just a different, a little bit old-fashioned way of saying the same thing. It has nothing to do with making assumptions or thinking a certain way as you're suggesting.
@@davidjardine4968 Thanks for the reply. We are picking at nits here a little.
Please remember, my audience for this video is the Christian in the pew. I think it is beyond argument the NIV2011's decision to force gender neutral language onto the text can/will lead to confusion. If you ask your average person on the street to choose between "him" and "them" as to which is singular and which is plural, we know what the answer will be.
The "but" in Hebrews 2:9 is not between man and Jesus. It is dividing between the things over which Jesus has subjection that we now see verses those we do not.
I don't know how to make the "assume" v "exercise" argument more clear.
My goal here is not to burn every NIV2011 in existence and have a heresy trial for everyone who owns one.
Within churches of Christ, every member has a say in how we attempt to restore the faith, worship, and practice of the New Testament church. So, the closer we get to the original Greek text the better. Believe me when I tell you, we can get lost in, let's charitably call them, discussions over words.
I have no interest in having those discussions with people who are using an English text that is, in my opinion, not as transparent to the original text as it could/should be. Especially when I can easily purchase one of the "Big Four."
Grace and peace.
The septuagint and codex Sinaticus is the proper bible.
NJ, Hey, hey! Now that is a comment!
A pox on both your houses (TR and CT)! NJ is going 200 BC and AD 300 or bust!
Thanks for watching and commenting...and respect!
Yes in our synagogue we use the septuagint and codex sinaticus. Anything after that is inaccurate. Er are jews who believe in Jesus called Nazarenes, Acts 24:5. and we worship in synagogues Jacob(James) 2:2 in greek @@preachermansage6822
I have heard of "Messianic Jews" but this is new to me. What are the basic distinctives of your congregations? Thanks.
I'm not a "messianic jew". I'm a Nazarene jew (A jew who believes in Yehoshua "Jesus"). We are the ancient form of messianic judaism. Acts 24:5. And much church history on us, some confuse us with the Ebionites. we are nothing to do with them.
We worship in synagogues read James 2:2 in literal greek translation. all that makes us different is our practice not belief. check out what we put up about the ancient nazarenes presentation. @@preachermansage6822
Is humans nature same as flash.
First of all; I am no Greek scholar. Most English language Bibles translate the Greek word "sarx" as flesh. The NIV78 and NIV84 translated sarx as sinful nature. For instance, Galatians 5:16 has "desires (or lust) of the flesh" in KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, ASV, etc. While the NIV78/84 uses "desires of the sinful nature."
Oddly enough the NIV2011 chose to translate sarx as flesh.
So many people saying they are still looking to find 1984 NIV’s… why? Use a better translation. For example the ESV is easy to read and a far better translation.
The NIV has missing scriptures! They can cause contradictions and that is wrong to take God's word and change it! Whoever does this will pay dearly for it.
Richard, My apologies for not commenting on this in a more timely fashion.
Certainly the NIV2011 takes liberties with the text to the point I no longer read or preach from it.
However, the issue to which you refer has more to do with how modern translations of God's word handle the underlying Greek text.
Here is a video on the issue. It's not a complete study of the issue but should be able to introduce you to what your concerns are.
God bless and thank you for watching and commenting.
th-cam.com/video/pSD2XS64Y-Q/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3lF6OEMxf-3D77uX
I stick with the tried and true Authorized Version.
I'm not a fan of the 2011 NIV either. I prefer the 1984 myself
You missed it in MT 5:32 and the NIV 2011 translation. If a man divorces his wife who has not been unfaithful, he has condemned her to be labeled as an adulteress, and never marry again being in fact innocent!! She has become the victim of adultery. This is a better rendering than earlier translations do.
Thanks for your comment. Certainly the divorced, faithful woman (or man) is a victim of evil action. You might even say they are the victim of an unscriptural divorce.
However, that is an interpretation and not what the underlying Greek has. That is exactly how the NIV2011 fails. It supplies a meaning they "think" the text "should" say. Needless to say that approach is unsustainable.
@@preachermansage6822 The ASV of 1901 translates this verse thusly: "but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery." If a woman formerly married has not committed unfaithfulness she CANNOT have committed adultery. She is made or forced to be an adulteress by the man. Those standing there knew that. They knew what the Law said. It was the husband that was forcing the label of adultery on a faithful innocent woman. It was he who was the bad guy here. That's why she is actually a victim of adultery, and not actually an adulteress. She is a victim wrongfully accused! They knew that. We are the ones that have the problem understanding ancient texts.
@@makarov138 We are very close on this. I am not really questioning your reasoning.
My only point is, I have not heard a valid argument from the text to translate the phrase that way.
When I say, "I have not heard" that is not a reference to you exclusively. I was aware of the change at the time, but have yet to hear anyone defend "victim of adultery" on a textual basis.
Thanks!
So this NIV version is a mix of truthful and deliberate misrepresentation of the original scriptures and it is left to the NIV reader to figure out what is true and what is not. Some readers will know what it true and what is false and others will not. At the time of judgement will these translators be asked 'why did you change My word and deceive many? I find the HCSB to be a faithful version however it still uses the word baptism which is not an accurate rendering of the Greek "Bapto" which mean immerse, for that you need to read the Complete Jewish Bible which is a good version except for the fact it makes the same error of most translation when it translates "Doulos" as servant when in fact it means slave. I use the very useful free gateway online Bible which shows all recognised translations for comparison.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Biblegateway.com is a great resource.
Also translates Deuteronomy 22.28 as rape thus saying the victim must marry her rapist , I dont agree with that translation nor that it could be godly 😅
Very insightful comment JD (excellent use of jonty).
I had never noticed that, even when I used the NIV84, (which also has rape in v28). This is the classic mistake that occurs with a paraphrase. Inherent in the philosophy is the idea, “We will tell you what God really meant.” Here is how the mistake is made, and should be avoided.
This is a great passage BTW that shows God had a very forward-thinking view on women (which is a ridiculous thing to say). Deuteronomy 22:13-19, 22-30 is a courtroom precedent for deciding whether a man or woman are guilty of consensual sexual immorality or if the man has violated a woman against her will.
What the NIV2011 has done is interpreted these passages for us, even though the underlying Hebrew is identical in v22-28.
Ignorance Alert: I AM NOT a Hebrew or Greek scholar. I am simply looking at the text with the aid of an interlinear on my Bible program.
So, directly under the phrase “lies with her” are the same three Hebrew words and the same Strong’s Numbers which are 7901, 5973, 1931. From the context, the NIV2011 translators have interpreted the guilt or innocence of each situation.
V22 “sleeping with” he and she are guilty because “is found” indicates in town (see principle in v23).
V23 “sleeps with” he and she is guilty because they are “in a town” and she “did not scream,” indicating consent.
V25 “rapes her” he is guilty, she is not guilty because they were “in the country” and even if she had screamed, “there was no one to rescue her.”
Up until this point, I agree with the NIV2011’s interpretation. But that is not a foolproof standard! The word of God should be translated, not interpreted! Verse 28 is a perfect example of why.
V28 “rapes her” The woman is declared neither guilty or innocent. Yet she pays the penalty of marrying her rapist? Again, the underlying Hebrew is identical in every one of these verses, the ESV has “lies with her.”
So, the NIV has determined for us what the word should be. May I humbly propose another interpretation?
In verse 22, the phrase, “is found” indicates “in town.” Therefore, there is mutual consent and mutual guilt.
In verse 23, “is found” is implied by the fact they are “in the city” and she “did not cry for help.” Both are guilty.
In verse 25, they are in the country and the woman is declared not guilty because she has no chance to scream and be rescued. I don’t need the translators to interpret “lies with her” and make the decision to change it to “rape.” The Hebrew word for rape is not present. And a common-sense reading of the text would lead anyone to determine the man had raped her because he is put to death and she “has committed not offense.”
In verse 28, there is a change because the woman is neither married nor betrothed (this is of consequence because of the penalty). But notice the phrase, “they are found.” Following the interpretation principles for verse 23, this is a consensual act, in the city, between two single people, who are not betrothed (thus no other party is wronged). It is not a rapist gaining a bride by victimization. It is a God, who had every right to pronounce a death sentence, mercifully allowing two single people to enter into the honorable state of marriage.
So, does it matter which Bible translation you use? Absolutely. No translation is perfect! But you stand a much better chance of understanding God’s will for your life by reading from a translation using a word-for-word philosophy.
I don’t touch The NIV period. KJV majority & NASB 95’ if I must. The literal translations are much better than paraphrase translations
Go find an RSV-CE. That will fix all your problems. It's readable; it's scholarly; it's complete. Go for it, brother.
I have the RSV in my Bible program and have used it sparingly (to be honest).
I landed on the ESV about ten years ago. It uses the RSV as a "word bed." What makes it the "Catholic Edition?" I would assume the NT Apocrypha. Anything else?
@@preachermansage6822 The Catholic Edition contains books that have been deleted by the "reformers." Only since the mid-19th century have these been absent from Protestant texts. Prior to that the were included as "Apocrypha." Also note that the end of the Markan text is missing from Protestant bibles.
@@matthewmcdaid7962 To what do you refer when you talk about the "end of the Markan text." All major English translations have Mark 16:9-20. They may be bracketed or footnoted, but I wouldn't say they are missing.
I have a tie for my favorite Romans commentary (Jimmy Allen/Moses Lard). Allen uses the RSV as his base text. I will look into purchasing one. Have a blessed day.
@@preachermansage6822 If it's "bracketed," it's not part of the approved text. In the RSV-CE the whole text is there. This is a text that was approved when the canon of scripture was defined by the Church long before the Reformation. And remember the passage in Revelations that condemns those who would add to or delete from the sacred books.
God Bless you so much for uploading this.... I love the 1984 version. I bought the newest niv days ago, and I will not read it. Here's an example of why... Luke 18:5...yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”
One of the reasons I did this video is the fact no distinction is made between the versions. So, the average Bible shopper isn't aware of the change.
For comparison, here is the same verse out of the NIV84 "yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’ ”-Luke 18:5
@@preachermansage6822 Hi Jason, I uncovered one of my old 84 versions from years ago; it's a bit dilapidated. I am currently reading the kjv... it's a bit of a struggle, because I like to quote the Word of God as a weapon against the enemy, and I find that difficult with some parts of this version. Do you trust the esv? I love the Word of God, but I have struggled for decades with not knowing which is best I memorised parts of The New American Standard when I was saved in 1979. I want to do that again, and have been thinking about the esv. Love from your Brother from Oz 🇦🇺
@@robross180 Thanks! Right back at "cha
Thanks Rob, your comment was the deciding factor for me. I had to look up the verse for myself and I’m shocked. I will not purchase the NIV biblical theology Bible that I wanted because they use the 2011 translation. Bummer.
Well I don't necessarily agree with this gentleman I will say this once I started reading the Christian Standard Bible I haven't picked up my NIV. When I read my NIV I read it in conjunction with my new American Standard 1995. Now at least starting tomorrow because I'm waiting for my quintel to get here it will be this Christian Standard Bible and the ESV
So now we're going to derail this thread with upscale Bible talk! 😀
I have an Allen Readers ESV. But the Schuyler Bibles tempt me. My only frustration with the Allen is the size of font to size of Bible ratio.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would enlarge a Pitt Minion by 25-30%.
Plus, my truck Bible is single-column and I like that.
Having said all that, I am reluctant to change my number one because I know where things are on the page!
We are blessed to have so many good translations of God's word!
@@preachermansage6822 LOL! This Bible is the only one I could find in an 11-point font with cross references I would like to see the publisher make this in a less expensive binding
@@itsstillcalledtoday9928 Man! An 11-point font. Now we're talking.
I think you switched accounts on me. It threw me for just a second there. Post a pic when you get it. I hope you like it.
@@preachermansage6822 I have two channels I have this one and my second one which is called the cross-eyed texting where I do wet shaving videos and such.
@@itsstillcalledtoday9928 Ahhhhhh! Got it.
Hi Sage, as you can see I took down all my posts. My posts were not intended to be critical at all. My apologies if they came out that way. Regarding the "daughters" posts, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was merely saying that I think the NIV might be a fine translating for those that believe that you can use the rod for either sexes. But I can see why it sounded otherwise.
I grew up using the NASB, and I still love the NASB. But that said, I started to notice in my own studies using AT Robertson, Matthew Henry, and other commentaries, that the NIV was actually accurate in conveying the actual meaning of the author. But this is just MY findings, and it may not be true for others.
Anyway, I apologize that my posts left too much room for being interpreted as critical. I sincerely wish you the best in Christ! Happy New Year!
I can think of no better way to end 2021. May we all exhibit the Spirit of Christ in 2022 and your post shines bright with it. May God grant us grace and peace.
@@preachermansage6822 - Amen! 👍👍😊😊
The King James Version contains certain translation and textual errors which will facilitate a global transition from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to the false gospel of the Antichrist. This addendum hopes to present information which will enable the reader to understand what the Gnostic doctrine teaches and which mistranslations in the KJV support these errors. Coupled with the fact that the KJV will be interpreted according to “letter meaings” and “bible codes” purported to be contained in the text, it behooves Christians to undertake an objective evaluation of the KJV, as they should do with all translations in their language. The fact that foreign language translations are now, for the most part, translated from the KJV rather than the Greek Textus Receptus, makes this report equally relevant to non-English speaking Christians who use foreign translations.
We do not believe that the Translators of the KJV intended to mistranslate important words that will affect the interpretation of end-time prophecy. All of these translation and textual errors predated the 1611 KJV and can be traced through successive English translations which, according to King James’ instructions, were “to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.” The mischief appears to have originated with the Wycliffe translation, although one major error was inserted in a later edition of the KJV. Whatever the various reasons for these mistranslations in the King James Version, they needed to be corrected and, in every case, the New King James Version made the necessary corrections.
The fact that a large network of KJV-Only defenders have made it their profession to misrepresent, not only these translation and textual errors, but hundreds of others, as accurate translations of the Greek Textus Receptus, while they tout the KJV as God’s perfect Word and condemn the NKJV as a Satanic version, and allow no one to update or correct the KJV - not to mention their suppression of vital information (e.g. the Translators’ Preface), their manipulation of textual data, their frequent misquoting of sources, their distortion of history and lies without end - in short, their thoroughly deceitful treatment of the Bible version issue, makes it difficult to resist the suspicion that King James Onlyism has a sinister interest in preserving these translation and textual errors in their Bible. (See Chapter 6a: “Talmud & Kabbalah Only”)
It must be emphasized that these mistranslations did not originate with the King James Version but in the Wycliffe translation, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, the Wycliffe translation carried a greater number of these corruptions than the Vulgate which is not surprising considering the evidence that John Wycliffe and the Lollard Knights were agents of the Rosicrucians. (See Chapter 19: “The Lollard Movement: John Wycliffe” and preceding sections.)
In the following report, we have analyzed certain translation and textual errors in the King James Version which may be used to promote the false gospel of the Antichrist. In this analysis, each KJV error is compared with the Greek Textus Receptus, readings in English translations before 1611, also the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta and the Septuagint when applicable, and the NKJV. We have included other relevant information, such as the origin and history of the word (Etymology) and the pagan meaning and associations of the word (Mythology), to show the potential problems with these mistranslations in the end time deception. Textual errors in the KJV are also included, that is instances where the KJV fails to translate a word that is in the Greek or Hebrew text, thereby giving opportunity for a false interpretation of the verse.
king james version
1. HOLY GHOST
2. JEHOVAH
3. JUPITEr & mercURIUS
4. MOUNT SION
5. NEW TESTAMENT
6. A FALLING AWAY
7. GREAT TRIBULATION
8. ANTICHRIST
9. IN THE HAND/FOREHEAD
10. GIANTS
11. END OF THE WORLD
12. Easter
13. groves
greek / hebrew
1. HOLY spirit
2. yhwh
3. zeus & hermes
4. MOUNT zion
5. NEW covenant
6. the falling away
7. the great tribulation
8. the antichrist
9. on THE HAND/FOREHEAD
10. NEPHILIM
11. END OF THE AGE
12. Passover
13. Asherah
Outline of Biblical Usage:
son, grandson, child, member of a group
son, male child
grandson
children (pl. - male and female)***Translators chose this because of context in Proverbs 13:24 unless you believe only boys beed disciple and not girls lol***
youth, young men (pl.)
young (of animals)
sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
people (of a nation) (pl.)
of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
a member of a guild, order, class
Thanks for watching and commenting JL. It isn't the gender-neutral language per se that drives me nuts. It is the insistence on the "singular they" and the invasive pluralization forced on to the text.
In Proverbs 13:24, I believe male headship of the family is part of the context. A loving father has a unique role to fill when it comes to disciplining his son.
Yes, mothers can discipline and daughters can stand in need of it. But it is the father's role most properly and toward sons most urgently.
Have a blessed day!
I prefer the NASB compared to the NIV, the NIV is too much like a story book.
I find it manipulative, misleading, disgusting and abhorrent!!! Unfortunately, for the same reasons I cannot recommend the NIV. Just compare Daniel 2:20 or a plethora of other passages. What is the Word of God? The Bible? Which Bible? This is a serious topic needing diligent study!
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem
I generally appreciated and hold to the, "The earlier manuscript evidence is the better proof." hypothesis. Certainly there are circumstances are not as cut and dried.
For me, the ending of Mark and the "he who has no sin" section of John are the two I wish we had more clarity on.
You raise a good question but it could be reversed as well. When does keeping material not found in the earliest manuscripts become a problem?
Either way, we tend to be discussing very small pieces of a large pie. BTW, most of the words/verses left out of the WH style texts are examples of copyists "harmonizing the quotations" of the gospels. Compare Mark 2:16 and Luke 5:30 and the addition of "and drink." Almost all of these corrections leave the text from the gospel with the text found in the Greek. The only thing "missing" is the removed, later, not original addition.
Thanks for watching!
@@preachermansage6822 The problem has always been how do different churches come up with basically the same texts. E.G. Mark 16:9-20 The hypothesis of Anthony Hort was the Lucianic recension. Now, that that theory has been abandoned, why do we still accept the conclusion? To me that's unscientific.
@@preachermansage6822 what will your reaction be when "they" find even older fragments that cast doubt on still other important passages? What if some of the key verses supporting Campbellism start getting moved to footnotes? Was God unfaithful in His promise to preserve His Word to all the folks who lived before these "older" manuscripts were discovered? BTW, I'm not KJV Only. I guess im sorta Textus Receptus preferred. I use a modern, Critical Text translation as a study aid. So I take note of textual variants.
BTW, I very much appreciate this video and your warning about forced gender neutrality. I want my Bibles to be translations not interpretations. I was required to write in "gender neutral language" in seminary. So I quoted from Bible translations that didn't push that and the profs couldn't say anything lol.
@@timothyowen4503 Ahhhh the stale whiff of ye olde Campbellite slight. Good times. Good times.
BTW, many a Stone-Campbell preacher had his favorite sermon on the Ethiopian eunuch ruined by Westcott-Hort. Not having Acts 8:37 makes the "Good Confession" sermon a little more difficult.
You make a good point about, "Those who lived in the Vulgate/T.R. era." One of the comforts about Acts 8:37 not being in the original is that no prophecy of Scripture is changed by it addition or removal (Matthew 16:16; John 11:27).
I do not believe God allowed damning error to be inserted into the text and I believe that is the work of God.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
For reading purposes I still love and trust the NIV 2011. But for word study i like NASB2020, one of the best translation.
I am trying to decide whether I should use NASB2020 or 1995. I use other translations (ASV, NASB1995, KJV, HCSB) as a kind of "first commentary" in my Bible program.
Thanks for watching!
@Preacherman Sage Many say the 1995 NASB is more literal than the 2020 NASB.
I recently purchased the Legacy Standard Bible, its marketed as a update of the 1995 NASB, different and more literal than the 2020 NASB.
The 1995 is better and less modernized
Good video dear brother. The best edition of the NIV that I have found to be closer to the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts is what was called the "Textbook Edition." It like all other translations isn't perfect, but it is a good and useful edition. It was very careful to translate more of a "word for word/modified-literal" rendering than any other edition of the NIV. A few examples that no longer exist in NIV and even the ESV. (1 Corinthians 1:13,15... "Into" instead of "in." ; Acts 8:16..."into" instead of "in."; Acts 19:5..."into" instead of "in." Nearly all English versions use the preposition "in" in those passages instead of "into." The Greek says/means "into" and the Textbook Edition of the NIV nailed it. There are many other places where it does the same, and it does it better than nearly all modern English versions. It should read "into" in Matthew 28:19. The ASV-1901 was the best widely available modified-literal version (for many years). It translated very closely to the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Though it is somewhat archaic, and uses the Elizabethton English of centuries ago, it is legendary in accuracy. The new translation known as the Legacy Standard Bible is also excellent and exceeds most versions in its consistency, formal equivalency, and structure. I generally use the ASV-1901; Legacy Standard Bible, the ESV-2016; and the Textbook Edition of the NIV for comparison purposes. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts are the very bases upon which true accuracy should be determined.
Very helpful reply. I have never heard of an NIV TE. Speaking of prepositions. What does the NIV TE have in I Peter 3:21; "an appeal to God 'for or from' a good conscience,"?
Thanks ahead of time!
@@preachermansage6822 thank you for your kindness and brotherly love in Christ Jesus our Lord. The NIV Text edition says, "...the pledge of a good conscience toward God..." The Text edition also demonstrates accuracy in a clear text such as Acts 2:38. It says, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ SO THAT (emphasis mine, M.R.) your sins may be forgiven..." There are many other passages where its accuracy is clearly established. I am sincerely thankful to Yahweh, for his mercy, abiding love, and grace. I am grateful that I was blessed to earn PhD degrees in Old Testament, and in New Testament Greek and Exegesis. This has enabled me to work from and within the ancient manuscripts of both Old and New Covenants in order to determine what the word of the Living God says. Decades ago I heard the message of the sacred writings, and I broke away from denominationalism, man-made doctrines, and human traditions. The only right way is God's way. Many years ago, my friend and brother Jack P. Lewis taught me the need and importance of independent thinking genuinely based on God's eternal word. Love to you dear brother!
@@mikerichards1264 That translation of Acts 2:38 if stout.
I am, clearly, no scholar and understand translating "eis" is thorny work, but the difference between "for, of, & from" in I Peter 3:21 is one that really makes a difference.
Thanks!
You might be surprised to know that the NIV84 translates MT 24:30 incorrectly from the Greek text. And yet, to my surprise as well, the 2011 NIV translates that same verse correctly! I guess the light is still lit! And one further thought on bible translations. Maybe the reason God had His word written with male biased language, was because at the time, it was an entirely male biased world. Today's Church understands that we are all equal members in the Kingdom of God. And we know from the context that there are certain scriptures where a male word is in fact used inclusively, and not merely male. So I'm not nearly as distracted by neutral gender language as I am when verses don't agree with the Greek Texts.
Good point. I'm not, "anti gender neutral language." I am just looking for transparency to the text.
There is no doubt about the "male biased language" of society and every translation is making their own attempts at solving the problem.
Thanks for the comments and for watching our little videos. To God be the glory.
Stay with KJV & pray it is not changed.
Which KJV? It has had multiple revisions.
I normally don’t condemn others. But those who change gods word to accomplish earthly political means will truly be in the deepest levels of hell.
'why would anyone read from a book that has been construed and twisted?
Are you talking about the KJV?
@@martinbaker7032 KJV ''is the bible''
There were several edits between 85 and the time of this video and there will be more, as one point of the NIV I believe is to be completely readable in contemporary language. The them doesn't imply plurality, as you seem to know, and the NIV didn't start doing this recently, it started doing it in the mid-90s because it doesn't signify plurality, it's a more economical and easy to read way of saying "an individual" or "he or she" or "his or her" etc. , a practice that, evidenced by the early switch by the NIV itself, predates current controversy over "they/them" pronoun use.
All the translations are struggling with how to reflect the move away from the masculine pronoun as universal.
In my opinion, the NIV 2011 did so in a disingenuous way (NIV 84 exchanged for TNIV), and a philosophically mistaken way (forcing the singular they onto the text regardless of context).
Thanks for the comment and for watching.
I can add to the list message bible 😢.
It's unbelievable what the devil is doing .JESUS THE MARANATHA .
It leaves the Bible wide open to be inferior to other occultic beliefs. Making the Word of God of no effect😡
The enemy has been busy for centuries sowing discord and tares while the watchmen have been sleeping.
The time is now to stand up church and expose.
Thank you so much for this information, could you please give more updates on this, greatly appreciated
Maranatha.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
The translators for any modern version are in bind when it comes to gender language. The universal use of he or man as gender encompassing language, is no longer considered grammatically correct.
The NIV2011 showed everybody how NOT to handle the issue.
One positive by-product of the rush for gender-neutral language, has been an appreciation of and a market for better translations. The ESV, NASB2020, and the LSB have been popularized precisely because they are more conservative translations.
Thanks again.
I feel like the newer Translations Try to get with the times too much and you made good points and i was appalled When they remove the father and put parent That is so wicked To remove the father I will just stick to kjv Thank you for bringing You're findings god bless you sir in jesus christ name.
The Old NIV 1984 version was a good and accurate translation, but the NIV 2011 version is a bad and inaccurate translation and has been ADDING words to the Bible that are NOT in the original.
THEY HAVE ADDED sisters WHEN THAT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL!
Example:
Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God-this is your true and proper worship. (NIV 2011)
Romans 12:1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship. (NIV 1984)
Niv= non-inspired version