I once used the NKJV. At that time, it wasn't quite as blatant as the Thomas Nelson version you referenced, but I begin to be troubled by footnotes which would state things similar to "Most manuscripts don't contain this verse(s)." Many of these were key verses. This leaves one in doubt of what exactly is God's Word. I finally pitched it for that reason. Apparently, it has gotten worse with age, which is hardly surprising.
The version I referenced and gave the link to is a study Bible, so it has more information about historical backgrounds of Bible books, translation aims and methods, textual issues and so on than a usual Bible. I suppose there are NKJVs with no textual notes at all. Here is the link to the study Bible <https://archive.org/details/nkjvstudybible/page/n14/mode/1up?view=theater>
The first time I got a Greek New Testament I had a similar experience. I wanted to start working on New Testament Greek so I went to the bookstore of a nearby seminary and bought a Greek New Testament there. I did not study it carefully as it was the only edition they had, and I had no awareness of different texts or editions.
It was not until I got home that I actually looked at it. I first noticed the textual apparatus at the bottom of the pages, something I had never seen before. I ignored it and set to work on the Greek ,and quickly found variations from the KJV - so, like you, I just pitched it. I threw it away.
This was not because of anything my pastor had said - the church I was attending at that time never said anything about Bible versions. Neither was it because of anything I had read. It was just that the KJV spoke to me so clearly and powerfully, that that was what I wanted to study, not something different. Much later I began to find out about textual issues.
I strongly agree that "Most manuscripts don't contain," or "the best manuscripts read," etc. definitely cast doubt on what was actually said.
We cannot have an infallible Word if the critics are removing mistakes and constantly coming out with new editions.
Forgive my stupid comment here but I have a problem with a bible version being called “New”. My problem is by calling it new, I’m simultaneously not expecting it to be called the same thing when it gets old. But then if someone has called it “New” then they may not expect it to get old. Somewhere in the back of my mind I’m thinking of its obsolescence. Maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe it’s the only way to sell bibles to the modern reader. Anyway that’s my comment.
About your suspicion of "New" bibles, it is not scholarly or sophisticated, but it has something else - common sense and an awareness of the seriousness of commercialization. Much of the continuing stream of New bibles has to do with money. Someone (I think it was Francis Schaeffer) said, "We don't need any more scholars, we have enough scholars. We need more plain and simple men who will stand for truth."
Much bible marketing and advertising has more of Madison Avenue than Roman Palestine.
Joe - thank you for your very well considered and supportive response. I'm in full agreement about 'modern textual criticisms' -- all I have to ask myself is what would man ultimately do to scripture, when from the depths of a totally corrupt heart he first fools himself then lies that he's righteous all the while slaughtering the innocent?
In these modern times, if we can do such ghastly violence to the unborn whilst gleefully cheering on in celebration, what trust is warranted in man to approach the Holy word of God with any sort of righteous reverence?
Short answer: None.
One of the amazing, miraculous gifts that God provides is the spiritual discernment given to every Christian within whom the Holy Spirit resides. It is this same discernment that I wrote about in my latest tirade - it is this same Spirit that guides us through reading Gods word and who ministers in a personal way, which makes the word come alive. Something that has never happened reading anything else.
When in doubt, use scripture to validate scripture.
These time are uniquely evil I think. Perhaps it is part of the great falling away. And modern NT text criticism is basically reliant on techniques first designed to deal with ordinary human books. The idea that the Bible should be studied critically like any ancient other book is an important element of this.
I agree that spiritual discernment is essential, and that is not a matter of scholarship. Someone can be a brilliant textual scholar and not even believe in the Bible at all; someone else can have sound instincts concerning Scripture without any technical critical studies whatsoever.
Many critics will object that spiritual wisdom is too subjective. It does not give the sound, definite answers we get from the science of textual criticism - but that is false on two counts. (1) NT text criticism is not a science at all, but is highly speculative and (2) that attitude presupposes that scientific knowledge is the highest form of knowledge.
This is conformity to the world on a very deep level.
As you said, the spiritual reading of Scripture requires more than mere education and intelligence. It requires spiritual illumination, which makes the Bible come alive. The Bible is completely unique, unlike anything else, as you also said.
I am curious about the "intentional" theological errors you say are included in the NIV. Honestly, every version of every Bible I've ever read presents basically the same message. Didn't the KJV replace the name YHWH with the generic title LORD?
I have found several in my travels -- and not because I keep a copy of the NIV on hand, but because when I do browser searches, the NIV is the front-and-center translation proffered. (Which is in itself, curious.) If I had time, I'd keep a list of them - the places where I've read and seen very oddly translated passages. When I drag out my Strong's, and with my admittedly brittle and feeble understanding of Greek, it strikes me that someone had to deliberately change the words such that the entire passage rings with different meaning.
Now, not specifically the NIV (because a TON of translations do this) but take a look at one of the more difficult ones to suss-out. For example, Philippians 3:9. Many translations have it "faith in Christ." The Greek 'pistis' could be translated either way, although Mounce's Greek Interlinear reads: 'dia pistis Christos' which contains neither an "of" or "in".
Now, if we study scripture we may remember why Paul stated that the Bereans were more noble than many -- because they took what he said and compared it against scripture. One of the most important principles we use is to validate scripture with scripture. And in this case, I side with the KJV translation because Ephesians 2:8-9 is pretty clear that faith itself is a GIFT of God, not something WE conjure up.
So, the more appropriate way of reading Philippians 3:9 is to recognize that the faith is OF Christ and not an impossible work I must somehow maintain; it's not MY faithfulness, but Christ's faithfulness that guarantees my salvation. Yes, I am called into obedience, but even in my imperfect obedience, my trust is not in my own ability, but in Christ's.
Robert P. Martin's ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION lists six fundamental problems that are matters of consistent policy with the NIV translators.
1. Eliminates complex grammatical structures to make it simpler for the modern reader.
2. Adds words in translation beyond what is really necessary.
3. Omits words in translation beyond what is really necessary.
4. Erodes technical terminology
5. Levels cultural distinctives to make the Bible sound like it was written in the 20th century.
6. Presents their interpretations of a difficult passage as if that were the Scripture
7. Excessive paraphrasing beyond what is really necessary
Those are from some notes I have, I didn't record specific examples.
I once used the NKJV. At that time, it wasn't quite as blatant as the Thomas Nelson version you referenced, but I begin to be troubled by footnotes which would state things similar to "Most manuscripts don't contain this verse(s)." Many of these were key verses. This leaves one in doubt of what exactly is God's Word. I finally pitched it for that reason. Apparently, it has gotten worse with age, which is hardly surprising.
The version I referenced and gave the link to is a study Bible, so it has more information about historical backgrounds of Bible books, translation aims and methods, textual issues and so on than a usual Bible. I suppose there are NKJVs with no textual notes at all. Here is the link to the study Bible <https://archive.org/details/nkjvstudybible/page/n14/mode/1up?view=theater>
The first time I got a Greek New Testament I had a similar experience. I wanted to start working on New Testament Greek so I went to the bookstore of a nearby seminary and bought a Greek New Testament there. I did not study it carefully as it was the only edition they had, and I had no awareness of different texts or editions.
It was not until I got home that I actually looked at it. I first noticed the textual apparatus at the bottom of the pages, something I had never seen before. I ignored it and set to work on the Greek ,and quickly found variations from the KJV - so, like you, I just pitched it. I threw it away.
This was not because of anything my pastor had said - the church I was attending at that time never said anything about Bible versions. Neither was it because of anything I had read. It was just that the KJV spoke to me so clearly and powerfully, that that was what I wanted to study, not something different. Much later I began to find out about textual issues.
I strongly agree that "Most manuscripts don't contain," or "the best manuscripts read," etc. definitely cast doubt on what was actually said.
We cannot have an infallible Word if the critics are removing mistakes and constantly coming out with new editions.
Forgive my stupid comment here but I have a problem with a bible version being called “New”. My problem is by calling it new, I’m simultaneously not expecting it to be called the same thing when it gets old. But then if someone has called it “New” then they may not expect it to get old. Somewhere in the back of my mind I’m thinking of its obsolescence. Maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe it’s the only way to sell bibles to the modern reader. Anyway that’s my comment.
About your suspicion of "New" bibles, it is not scholarly or sophisticated, but it has something else - common sense and an awareness of the seriousness of commercialization. Much of the continuing stream of New bibles has to do with money. Someone (I think it was Francis Schaeffer) said, "We don't need any more scholars, we have enough scholars. We need more plain and simple men who will stand for truth."
Much bible marketing and advertising has more of Madison Avenue than Roman Palestine.
Joe - thank you for your very well considered and supportive response. I'm in full agreement about 'modern textual criticisms' -- all I have to ask myself is what would man ultimately do to scripture, when from the depths of a totally corrupt heart he first fools himself then lies that he's righteous all the while slaughtering the innocent?
In these modern times, if we can do such ghastly violence to the unborn whilst gleefully cheering on in celebration, what trust is warranted in man to approach the Holy word of God with any sort of righteous reverence?
Short answer: None.
One of the amazing, miraculous gifts that God provides is the spiritual discernment given to every Christian within whom the Holy Spirit resides. It is this same discernment that I wrote about in my latest tirade - it is this same Spirit that guides us through reading Gods word and who ministers in a personal way, which makes the word come alive. Something that has never happened reading anything else.
When in doubt, use scripture to validate scripture.
These time are uniquely evil I think. Perhaps it is part of the great falling away. And modern NT text criticism is basically reliant on techniques first designed to deal with ordinary human books. The idea that the Bible should be studied critically like any ancient other book is an important element of this.
I agree that spiritual discernment is essential, and that is not a matter of scholarship. Someone can be a brilliant textual scholar and not even believe in the Bible at all; someone else can have sound instincts concerning Scripture without any technical critical studies whatsoever.
Many critics will object that spiritual wisdom is too subjective. It does not give the sound, definite answers we get from the science of textual criticism - but that is false on two counts. (1) NT text criticism is not a science at all, but is highly speculative and (2) that attitude presupposes that scientific knowledge is the highest form of knowledge.
This is conformity to the world on a very deep level.
As you said, the spiritual reading of Scripture requires more than mere education and intelligence. It requires spiritual illumination, which makes the Bible come alive. The Bible is completely unique, unlike anything else, as you also said.
I am curious about the "intentional" theological errors you say are included in the NIV. Honestly, every version of every Bible I've ever read presents basically the same message. Didn't the KJV replace the name YHWH with the generic title LORD?
I have found several in my travels -- and not because I keep a copy of the NIV on hand, but because when I do browser searches, the NIV is the front-and-center translation proffered. (Which is in itself, curious.) If I had time, I'd keep a list of them - the places where I've read and seen very oddly translated passages. When I drag out my Strong's, and with my admittedly brittle and feeble understanding of Greek, it strikes me that someone had to deliberately change the words such that the entire passage rings with different meaning.
Now, not specifically the NIV (because a TON of translations do this) but take a look at one of the more difficult ones to suss-out. For example, Philippians 3:9. Many translations have it "faith in Christ." The Greek 'pistis' could be translated either way, although Mounce's Greek Interlinear reads: 'dia pistis Christos' which contains neither an "of" or "in".
Now, if we study scripture we may remember why Paul stated that the Bereans were more noble than many -- because they took what he said and compared it against scripture. One of the most important principles we use is to validate scripture with scripture. And in this case, I side with the KJV translation because Ephesians 2:8-9 is pretty clear that faith itself is a GIFT of God, not something WE conjure up.
So, the more appropriate way of reading Philippians 3:9 is to recognize that the faith is OF Christ and not an impossible work I must somehow maintain; it's not MY faithfulness, but Christ's faithfulness that guarantees my salvation. Yes, I am called into obedience, but even in my imperfect obedience, my trust is not in my own ability, but in Christ's.
God bless
Robert P. Martin's ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION lists six fundamental problems that are matters of consistent policy with the NIV translators.
1. Eliminates complex grammatical structures to make it simpler for the modern reader.
2. Adds words in translation beyond what is really necessary.
3. Omits words in translation beyond what is really necessary.
4. Erodes technical terminology
5. Levels cultural distinctives to make the Bible sound like it was written in the 20th century.
6. Presents their interpretations of a difficult passage as if that were the Scripture
7. Excessive paraphrasing beyond what is really necessary
Those are from some notes I have, I didn't record specific examples.
Amen, brother.