Changes in Scripture - A Comparative of the KJV/NIV Side By Side

a reply to: chr0naut

A lot of what you say is true but some things don't make sense.

"The original language wasn't preserved." Do you mean you would rather see the original language or are you talking about something like word order? Bibles do exist that present the original side by side with the translation (interlinear.)

As for the council of gods, many other gods are mentioned, some even worshiped in Israel (Baal, Ishtar.) Maybe some of them did believe something like that.

Are you against translations in general? Should we all have to become ancient language experts or just leave the Bible to priests only like they used to do?

The real problem and from having a OH who loves her languages is understanding the context not just running it through a google translate and you need to also have some historical understanding so you know what the scene was like in the day.

What may been of said at the time may not have anywhere near the same understanding as today.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: chr0naut

A lot of what you say is true but some things don't make sense.

"The original language wasn't preserved." Do you mean you would rather see the original language or are you talking about something like word order? Bibles do exist that present the original side by side with the translation (interlinear.)

As for the council of gods, many other gods are mentioned, some even worshiped in Israel (Baal, Ishtar.) Maybe some of them did believe something like that.

Are you against translations in general? Should we all have to become ancient language experts or just leave the Bible to priests only like they used to do?

No, I believe that paraphrases (like the Mesasage Bible) have their place, as do other translations (like the KJV and NIV).

The Bible is written so that its teachings are distributed through it. There in't a concentrated single section on one particular topic. It us written in such a way that removing a part ofthe Bible doesn't radically change its overall meaning and by consideration of the whole, cross contextually, we can correctly interpret it.

But calling one particular translation exclusively the "Preserved Word of God" is just nonsense.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
The real problem and from having a OH who loves her languages is understanding the context not just running it through a google translate and you need to also have some historical understanding so you know what the scene was like in the day.

What may been of said at the time may not have anywhere near the same understanding as today.

Talking about "historical understanding":

The Story of an Interpolation—1 John 5:7, 8

MODERN scholars do not hesitate to omit from their Bible translations the spurious passage found at First John 5:7, 8. After the words “For there are three witness bearers” this added passage reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. [Verse 8] And there are three witness bearers on earth.” (Omitted by the American Standard Version, An American Translation, English Revised Version, Moffatt, New English Bible, Phillips, Rotherham, Revised Standard Version, Schonfield, Wade, Wand, Weymouth, etc.) Commenting on these words, the famous scholar and prelate B. F. Westcott said, “The words which are interpolated in the common Greek text in this passage offer an instructive illustration of the formation and introduction of a gloss into the apostolic text.”1 So what is the story behind this passage, and how did the science of textual criticism finally show it to be no part of God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible?

WHEN THE PASSAGE FIRST APPEARS

With the falling away from true Christianity came the rise of much controversy regarding the doctrine of the trinity, yet, though these words would have been most pertinent, early church writers never once used them. Verses six to eight of First John chapter five are quoted by Hesychius, Leo called the Great, and Ambrose among the Latins; and Cyril of Alexandria, Oecumenius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Nicetus among the Greeks, to name just a few, but the words in question never appear in the quotations. As an example, the anonymous work entitled “Of Rebaptising,” written about A.D. 256, states, “For John teaching us says in his epistle (1 John 5:6, 7, 8) ‘This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’”2 Even Jerome did not have it in his Bible. A prologue attributed to him that defended the text has been proved to be a false one.
...
The text was further promoted at a council held in 1215 by Pope Innocent III when a work of the Abbot Joachim on the trinity was condemned. The entire passage with the interpolation was quoted from the Latin Vulgate in the acts of the council, which were translated from Latin into Greek. From here some Greek writers took up the text, notably Calecas in the fourteenth century and Bryennius in the fifteenth.

ERASMUS AND STEPHENS
...
It was now only a short step to introduce the text into other language translations. It had already appeared in the version of Wycliffe (1380), for he translated from the Latin, having no knowledge of Greek. But now it appeared in translations made from the Greek, such as those of Tyndale and Cranmer, though it was printed in italics and set in brackets. But by the time of the Geneva version of 1557 even this distinction disappeared and the passage is set in ordinary type without brackets. So the interpolation slipped unobtrusively into the 1611 authorized King James Version.
...
THE BATTLE RENEWED
...
In 1729 there appeared here in England a diglot version of the Christian Greek Scriptures by Daniel Mace. In a fourteen-page note he listed the Greek and Latin manuscripts, ancient versions, early Greek and Latin writers that omitted the text and threw it out with this conclusion, “In a word, if this evidence is not sufficient to prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious; by what evidence can it be prov’d, that any text in St. John is genuine?”6
...
THE LAST STRONGHOLD GIVES WAY
...
So the prospect envisaged by Professor J. Scott Porter in 1848 has come true. “It is to be hoped,” he wrote, after summing up the evidence on 1 John 5:7, 8, “the time will soon come when those who have the charge of preparing editions of the Bible for general circulation, will be ashamed of sending forth a known interpolation as a portion of the sacred text.”9 In recent times the discovery of such Bible manuscripts as the Codex Sinaiticus has confirmed that this particular verse was no part of God’s inspired Word.
...

References:

1 The Epistles of John by B. F. Westcott, 4th edition, 1902, page 202.

2 The Works of N. Lardner, volume 3, page 68.

6 The New Testament in Greek and English, 1729, volume 2, page 934.

9 Principles of Textual Criticism by J. Scott Porter, 1848, page 510.

Regarding the last sentence I quoted from that article, it's talking about the specific phrase that was added as explained at the beginning of the article. The correct rendering for 1 John 5:7,8 is linked there as well. The issue concerning the added phrase in 1 John 5:7,8 as also found in the KJV (or AV), refutes all of ChesterJohn's arguments that match or almost match those of the King James Only movement (or it shows them to be misleading or false).

a reply to: toms54
There is NO original in any side by side Bible of Hebrew or Greek.

All that Chr0naut would say is he believes in NO Bible being without error and that all bibles are the same.

Sorry but only One Bible stands out above all others and that is the AKJV.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

We have no experts from back then. By 1611 there were none who knew the correct way of speaking Koine Greek.. Everything was just mechanically handed down and none of it like the original autographs were preserved by God.

a reply to: Raggedyman

That may be fine for salvation but your walk and wisdom would be hindered just to say the least not to mention the area of deception you are in because of it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

And none of them agree with any other translation of the Bible. So confusion abounds when you compare them side by side just as I showed in the OP. 578 Changes in just one chapter by the time it is all done and said the NIV will have had 38,000 changes if we just average it out.

a reply to: chr0naut

The words of God are preserved just as he wanted them to get to us.

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

a reply to: toms54

I have 25 different English versions and 3 foreign language Bibles.

The OP is about the changes the NIV makes from the already clear English text of Genesis Chapter 1.

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems odd that the old testament was the infallible word of God but along comes a few guys with political agendas and tell us..."never mind" this is the way to live now.

Bacon...yummmmmm

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

So that one verse proves to you that the KJV is the pure and perfect written word of God
Sorry I am not that gullible or needy, I can live with a bible with errors, we have been down this road, we disagree
If that makes me a heretic, sorry

a reply to: olaru12

Yes it's you, probably the fact you havnt even tried to comprehend the difference between Judaism and Christianity, that there are two faiths in the bible

you are more interested in your belly than understanding the bible, why pretend otherwise?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

That may be fine for salvation but your walk and wisdom would be hindered just to say the least not to mention the area of deception you are in because of it.

My walk and wisdom are hindered but you need to cling to a bible version to justify your faith

Are you kidding me
Did you think that through before writing it

Your faith is clearly in the KJV, mine in the King, who is Jesus
My erroneous bible teaches me to put my faith in Jesus, not a bible
What does your perfect bible teach you about where you should put your faith, a book or a true King, Jesus

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

The words of God are preserved just as he wanted them to get to us.

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 12 was written by King David, about 2,600 years before the AKJV was penned. It clearly mentions that God's Word was preserved from David's generation, not from 2,600 years in the future.

God's Word has been preserved. It is in the AKJV which spoke to the English speaking people in its generation. It is in the NIV and other more modern translations and paraphrases which speak more accurately to their generations.

The AKJV represents the best effort of its day but since then we have learned a few things, have discovered more of the ancient texts and the English language has changed. You must remember that one of the major source texts ofthe AKJV was the Masoretic, which while remaining technically accurate, also tried to obfuscate Christian references by applying alternate interpretation to the wording (i.e: 'virgin'/'young maiden' and Isaiah 53 being about a lion).

Psalm 12 talks about the preserved Word of God but you really have to stretch credibility to equate that with the AKJV.

originally posted by: olaru12
Perhaps it's just me, but it seems odd that the old testament was the infallible word of God but along comes a few guys with political agendas and tell us..."never mind" this is the way to live now.

Bacon...yummmmmm

As far as I know, it was one guy, Jesus, who changed from the old covenent to the new and He wasn't political.

Ditto with all of the Early Church's evangelists.

Paul, who could probably have claimed to be related to King Herod, and a Roman citizen, went about travelling the world and preaching. He doesn't seem to have ever sought political office, even in the most bizarre of traditions and stories about him.

Most of the governments of the time actively persecuted Christians for their beliefs. It wasn't until 400 years after Jesus that Roman Emperor Constantine used Christian beliefs politically. And he was Emperor before he was Christian, so it isn't like it was some sort of Christian 'play for power'.

a reply to: chr0naut

all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

and despite you twisting it ways what it says literally were it says it about the LORD preserving his word pure as if it were tried as silver to every generation forever.

You either believe it or not.

if youdon't then that is to your hurt not mine. I know whom I have believed and it is not a God who cannot preserve his word to every generation like your gods are, men that is.

a reply to: chr0naut

you can eat anything you want, pork abstention was only for the Jews.

a reply to: Raggedyman

my faith is in the God of the Bible who is Jesus Christ, the fulness of the godhead bodily.

He is all powerful and ever able to preserve his words to every generation forever.

unlike you puny little men gods who you look up to to tell you what is the word of God and what is not.

Did you not see what these men gods did to the first chapter of Genesis. How do you think these men gods fair on the rest of it?