Why no attention to the horrible translation of the NIV and others yet crickets ?

Theo1689

Well-known member
Could it be with all the new and supposedly better translations that folks just like getting their ears tickled ?

This seems like a very bizarre and empty thread. I'm not sure what you're asking for. You give the title:

"Why no attention to the horrible translation of the NIV and others yet crickets ?"

Well, let's see....

1) This is the "KJV-Only" forum, NOT the "NIV" forum. So why would you expect an OFF-TOPIC discussion?

2) You refer to the alleged "horrible translation of the NIV", yet fail to give any EXAMPLES of these imaginary "horrible translations". How can we "discuss" something that doesn't exist?
(Btw, this is a standard tactic by people who can't defend their own position, you try to attack another's position. You can't defend the KJV, so you try to attack the NIV instead. Attacking another translation is not a valid "defense" of the KJV, especially when your "attack" is bankrupt in the first place.)

3) To refer to something as a "horrible translation", one must first have a standard text in mind to compare as to what is "correct". And this begs the question. I'm guessing that you're going to appeal to the "Textus Receptus". However, not only are their MULTIPLE different TR's available, NONE of them are manuscripts, they are published texts.

4) Another requirement needed to judge a "translation", is knowledge of the source and target languages. I'm unfamiliar with any alleged "expertise" on your part in Biblical Hebrew and Greek. I however can read Koine Greek. If you can't read the Biblical languages, then I'm not sure how you can warrant an opinion on this topic.


Okay, so now having laid down that ground work, let's look at a Biblical rendering involving the KJV and NIV:

1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (KJV)

1John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. (NIV)

In this particular verse, the KJV DELETED the phrase, "and so we are". For whatever reason, the KJV translators wanted to DENY that we are ACTUALLY "children of God". Therefore we can see that the KJV is hopelessly EVIL and CORRUPT! ;) ;)

(That's how a KJV-Only person thinks and reacts, falsely attributing evil and malice into any difference of text, no matter how sincere the text is. So I would say that not only is the KJV one of the least accurate Bible translations, but their advocates are not true Christians, not knowing the first thing about Christian CHARITY.)


So to figure out which rendering (the KJV or NIV) is accurate, let's look to the manuscript evidence:

4th century:
Sinaiticus: "........ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
Vaticanus: "........ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

5th century:
Alexandrinus: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
Eph.Rescript: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

7th century:
P74: ".................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

8th century:
Regius: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

9th century:
33: "..................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
049: "................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
Mosquensis: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

10th century:
1739 ".................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

11th century:
81 ".....................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

13th century:
614 "..................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

15th century:
69: "..................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."


So according to the extant manuscript evidence, the KJV reading didn't even show up until the 8th century! Now we see why it's so important for KJV-only's to try to demonize early codices such as Sinaticus and Vaticanus.

But here's the the thing... We don't have to mirror the demonic attitude of KJV-only's by trying to project evil motives for the variant. There is a very EASY and REASONABLE explanation why the phrase went missing in latter manuscripts:

"ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ"

We have two verbs here which end in the 3rd person plural ending, "MEN". The omission is almost certainly due to a reading error by the scribe ending his view with the first "MEN" ("ΚΛΗΘΜΕΝ"), and then when he went back to the manuscript, his eyes were looking for the "MEN" ending, and found the second instance ("ΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝ"), and inadvertently skipped over the phrase.

So why did the KJV get it wrong?




Btw, it's an undeniable fact that if the KJV translators had all the manuscripts we have today, we wouldn't have the KJV today.
 
Last edited:

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
This seems like a very bizarre and empty thread. I'm not sure what you're asking for. You give the title:

"Why no attention to the horrible translation of the NIV and others yet crickets ?"

Well, let's see....

1) This is the "KJV-Only" forum, NOT the "NIV" forum. So why would you expect an OFF-TOPIC discussion?

2) You refer to the alleged "horrible translation of the NIV", yet fail to give any EXAMPLES of these imaginary "horrible translations". How can we "discuss" something that doesn't exist?
(Btw, this is a standard tactic by people who can't defend their own position, you try to attack another's position. You can't defend the KJV, so you try to attack the NIV instead. Attacking another translation is not a valid "defense" of the KJV, especially when your "attack" is bankrupt in the first place.)

3) To refer to something as a "horrible translation", one must first have a standard text in mind to compare as to what is "correct". And this begs the question. I'm guessing that you're going to appeal to the "Textus Receptus". However, not only are their MULTIPLE different TR's available, NONE of them are manuscripts, they are published texts.

4) Another requirement needed to judge a "translation", is knowledge of the source and target languages. I'm unfamiliar with any alleged "expertise" on your part in Biblical Hebrew and Greek. I however can read Koine Greek. If you can't read the Biblical languages, then I'm not sure how you can warrant an opinion on this topic.


Okay, so now having laid down that ground work, let's look at a Biblical rendering involving the KJV and NIV:

1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (KJV)

1John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. (NIV)

In this particular verse, the KJV DELETED the phrase, "and so we are". For whatever reason, the KJV translators wanted to DENY that we are ACTUALLY "children of God". Therefore we can see that the KJV is hopelessly EVIL and CORRUPT! ;) ;)

(That's how a KJV-Only person thinks and reacts, falsely attributing evil and malice into any difference of text, no matter how sincere the text is. So I would say that not only is the KJV one of the least accurate Bible translations, but their advocates are not true Christians, not knowing the first thing about Christian CHARITY.)


So to figure out which rendering (the KJV or NIV) is accurate, let's look to the manuscript evidence:

4th century:
Sinaiticus: "........ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
Vaticanus: "........ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

5th century:
Alexandrinus: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
Eph.Rescript: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

7th century:
P74: ".................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

8th century:
Regius: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

9th century:
33: "..................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
049: "................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."
Mosquensis: "...ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

10th century:
1739 ".................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

11th century:
81 ".....................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

13th century:
614 "..................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."

15th century:
69: "..................ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ..."


So according to the extant manuscript evidence, the KJV reading didn't even show up until the 8th century! Now we see why it's so important for KJV-only's to try to demonize early codices such as Sinaticus and Vaticanus.

But here's the the thing... We don't have to mirror the demonic attitude of KJV-only's by trying to project evil motives for the variant. There is a very EASY and REASONABLE explanation why the phrase went missing in latter manuscripts:

"ΙΝΑΤΕΚΝΑΘΕΟΥΚΛΗΘΜΕΝΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝΔΙΑΤΟΥΤΟΟΚΟΣΜΟΣ"

We have two verbs here which end in the 3rd person plural ending, "MEN". The omission is almost certainly due to a reading error by the scribe ending his view with the first "MEN" ("ΚΛΗΘΜΕΝ"), and then when he went back to the manuscript, his eyes were looking for the "MEN" ending, and found the second instance ("ΚΑΙΕΣΜΕΝ"), and inadvertently skipped over the phrase.

So why did the KJV get it wrong?




Btw, it's an undeniable fact that if the KJV translators had all the manuscripts we have today, we wouldn't have the KJV today.
It isn’t hard to get a line on MV’s just follow the bread crumbs. e.g. sodom-sodomy-sodomite and yet MV’s removed sodomite and replaced it with temple prostitute. A sodomite ( homosexual) and temple prostitute( prostitutes are generally WOMEN) are not hardly the same thing. The NIV had Virginia Mollenkott ( lesbian) and Woodstrua (homosexual) on their committee and presto sodomite is gone. The early church and reformers rejected the minority texts for cause, and if you have no problem with texts out of Egypt translated by Gnostics who didn’t believe what they were translating then by all means do so . Your loss not mine.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It isn’t hard to get a line on MV’s just follow the bread crumbs. e.g. sodom-sodomy-sodomite and yet MV’s removed sodomite and replaced it with temple prostitute.

<Chuckle>

You hate the truth, don't you?
All you ever do is try to demonize anyone who disagrees with you, ignore ALL the facts, and then engage in mud-slinging with "sodom-sodomy-sodmite" garbage.

Thank you for admitting your bankruptcy.

A sodomite ( homosexual) and temple prostitute( prostitutes are generally WOMEN) are not hardly the same thing. The NIV had Virginia Mollenkott ( lesbian) and Woodstrua (homosexual) on their committee and presto sodomite is gone.

Worthless ad hominem.

You truly have no clue what you're talking about.
Mollenkott had absolutely NO participation in the actual translation process, she was simply an English stylist.

But you'll buy any worthless propaganda KJV-only's spew, won't you?

The early church and reformers rejected the minority texts for cause,

And your evidence for this is ..... ?

and if you have no problem with texts out of Egypt

Egypt was home to one of the largest libraries in the world. Just because texts made their way INTO Egypt, doesn't mean that they originated "from" Egypt.

translated by Gnostics who didn’t believe what they were translating then by all means do so .

And your evidence that they intentionally corrupted those manuscripts is ...........?

Your loss not mine.

You need to lose the attitude.
Seriously.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It isn’t hard to get a line on MV’s just follow the bread crumbs. e.g. sodom-sodomy-sodomite and yet MV’s removed sodomite and replaced it with temple prostitute. A sodomite ( homosexual) and temple prostitute( prostitutes are generally WOMEN) are not hardly the same thing. The NIV had Virginia Mollenkott ( lesbian) and Woodstrua (homosexual) on their committee and presto sodomite is gone. The early church and reformers rejected the minority texts for cause, and if you have no problem with texts out of Egypt translated by Gnostics who didn’t believe what they were translating then by all means do so . Your loss not mine.

Did everyone see how "leatherneck" simply IGNORED all the facts presented, and engaged in fallacious ad hominem, mud-slinging, guilt by association, and poisoning the well?
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Did everyone see how "leatherneck" simply IGNORED all the facts presented, and engaged in fallacious ad hominem, mud-slinging, guilt by association, and poisoning the well?
😔 To be expected. Sadly. He is so predictable, I'm starting to wonder if he's a robot...

--Rich
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
😔 To be expected. Sadly.

--Rich
Did anyone notice that no one commented on sodomite being removed from MV’s ? No one commented on the fact that Virginia Mollenkott ( self professed lesbian ) or Woodstrua ( homosexual) both being on the NIV committee then presto sodomite was removed. I noticed that those who advocate MV’s are not swayed by truth nor facts. To be expected, sadly.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Did anyone notice that no one commented on sodomite being removed from MV’s ? No one commented on the fact that Virginia Mollenkott ( self professed lesbian ) or Woodstrua ( homosexual) both being on the NIV committee then presto sodomite was removed. I noticed that those who advocate MV’s are not swayed by truth nor facts. To be expected, sadly.
They have been replied to in other - if not this - thread. Why should we waste our time replying, when you just ignore what we have to say, anyway?

And no, I'm not going to hold your hand and show you where the replies are - you are probably capable of doing a search on your own. (Not that you would...)
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Did anyone notice that no one commented on sodomite being removed from MV’s ? No one commented on the fact that Virginia Mollenkott ( self professed lesbian )

Again, Mollenkott was NOT a translator.
So you are completely ignorant of the facts.

or Woodstrua ( homosexual) both being on the NIV committee then presto sodomite was removed.

You haven't demonstrated any "causation".
Only self-serving assumption.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
They have been replied to in other - if not this - thread. Why should we waste our time replying, when you just ignore what we have to say, anyway?

And no, I'm not going to hold your hand and show you where the replies are - you are probably capable of doing a search on your own. (Not that you would...)
Lol, no search would change the fact that MV’s are corrupt.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
They have been replied to in other - if not this - thread. Why should we waste our time replying, when you just ignore what we have to say, anyway?

And no, I'm not going to hold your hand and show you where the replies are - you are probably capable of doing a search on your own. (Not that you would...)
But for the benefit of anyone just tuning in... there was this post here, copied below for the sake of this thread... :)

Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted, but for the sake of not letting such ignorant comments as the above go without correction, this is not a so-called majority/minority text issue at all and there is no variance underlying the shift in modern translations from the archaic term 'sodomite' to 'temple prostitute'. The underlying Hebrew word is קדש (kadesh), which is etymologically linked to the identical verbal root kadash and the noun kodesh meaning 'to consecrate' and 'holy' respectively. The word in question refers to cultic personnel who engaged in ritual prostitution in connection with a sacred place... it has both masculine and feminine forms, the latter occurring in the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen 38:21-22) where the KJV translates it as 'harlot'. That's another word for a prostitute... and the cultic connection is brought out in modern versions where the temple is the locus of prostitution.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Did everyone see how "leatherneck" simply IGNORED all the facts presented, and engaged in fallacious ad hominem, mud-slinging, guilt by association, and poisoning the well?
The standard operating procedure for KJVOs is to not respond to any question asked of them, but to regurgitate their shallow talking points. They are unable to respond to questions about those talking points,

They really have no clue how this make them look.
 
Top