Niv Bible

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The niv bible has many verses that change the teaching of christ,

Mark 9:29 they remove fasting.

Acts 8:37

And many others.

I think you have that backwards. The words / verses are deleted because the earliest, best manuscripts don't have the words. I wonder what you think of this deletion (noted as it is the best support for the trinity found in the bible) in the NIV (From 1 John 5 6-7):

 

 

 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

 

 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

 

Was it deleting a teaching of the Apostle John?

Edited December 9, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Anakin7]

    I Take both a KJV and NIV Bible with me to Church. When in conversations with my Evangelical friends I use The NIV to show True LDS Biblical Doctrine.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Calm]

It just seems to me that "plain english" translations are dumbed down, and lose nuances. Of course I don't use "plain english" versions so could not really say with any conviction.There is also the issue of biases that creep into the translation.Anyone have any input on which newer translations that have a definite bias with the translation?

And nuances are lost because English itself has changed...think of "fear" for example.

I like using multiple versions myself including study bibles that explain what the word means in the Greek or Hebrew.

The NIV iirc has a lot of translation choices based on the theology of its translators. I believe the NRSV is less problematic that way, but again reading a variety of translations can help with pointing out where this might happen. No translation including our own translation of what we read to what it means to us is going to be free of ideas imposed by the reader or translator on the word. As long as we are aware of this, we can actually use that fact to increase our range of knowledge as opposed to thinking it limits it (since we can never know exactly what the original author was intending).

An analogy is the greater learning experience that comes from exploring a painting through not only one's own eyes but others' experiences as opposed to having each and every item identified as to what it is supposed to mean to us like that one IMO overly patriotic painter whose website itemises his intended meaning of his pictures. Instead of enjoying the art and feeling like I am encountering something new, I feel the experience is more like opening a massive amount of empty boxes.

Edited December 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[mnn727]

I agree the NIV has an Evangelical bias, however its still good for comparing and comprehension as are other modern versions. I like the NRSV also - has less of a bias to it..

 

its way past time for a modern English version of the LDS scriptures

As far as the KJV being "poetic"  that's not even logical, its old English and never was poetry - no one speaks that language any more

Edited December 9, 2014 by mnn727

[Calm]

If you're using a different bible during class you just won't be on the same page as everyone else. Study with whatever you want, use the Church approved scriptures for church. Are you using the apps on a phone or Ipad? I'm still on hardcopy and a quad is heavy if you have the easy reader print for old eyes. Is it practical to have both versions open at the same time? I've been considering going paperless but I don't know what to buy. We don't have smart phones. I don't want to spend much money on it right now.

Your ward should have scriptures you can borrow in the library including the large easy to read print versions. Though perhaps some of the more out of the way places you go may lack them. No one hardly ever borrowed them when I was a librarian, perhaps that can save you lugging them around to read and then you could bring your own nonKJV version to church and still have the KJV to read from when that's appropriate.

Edited December 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

Its interesting to read discussions such as these.

 

The original Koine Greek, that the NT was written is wasn't the Greek of the lawyers and politicians, but rather the Greek of the common man. It's far more exact than any of our various English translations. Just looking at the word "love" for example, Greek has no less than three different words for the same English word. A while ago I attended a church that used KJV only, and memorized many scriptures in that version, however, I ultimately decided that it's so out dated because the meanings of words evolve over time (see I do believe in evolution!). We simply don't speak middle english anymore. And, in keeping with the original intent of using a language that is accessible to all, as the Koine Greek was to those original readers, I love the NIV, but use all others as well, as none of them are perfect. 

[Flyonthewall]

And nuances are lost because English itself has changed...think of "fear" for example.

I like using multiple versions myself including study bibles that explain what the word means in the Greek or Hebrew.

The NIV iirc has a lot of translation choices based on the theology of its translators. I believe the NRSV is less problematic that way, but again reading a variety of translations can help with pointing out where this might happen. No translation including our own translation of what we read to what it means to us is going to be free of ideas imposed by the reader or translator on the word. As long as we are aware of this, we can actually use that fact to increase our range of knowledge as opposed to thinking it limits it (since we can never know exactly what the original author was intending).

An analogy is the greater learning experience that comes from exploring a painting through not only one's own eyes but others' experiences as opposed to having each and every item identified as to what it is supposed to mean to us like that one IMO overly patriotic painter whose website itemises his intended meaning of his pictures. Instead of enjoying the art and feeling like I am encountering something new, I feel the experience is more like opening a massive amount of empty boxes.

Agreed that a single translation can lose nuances and have inadvertent consequences.

I was teaching a lesson about Samuel the Lamanite, and I got to the part where in the lesson plan it said that "Samuel received protection from God". Now, would that mean God protected Samuel from harm or Samuel was protected from God's harm?

Anyways, I have looked at some translations of individual passages in other English versions, and some say the exact opposite of the KJV.

I find it interesting that 2 translations of the same verse can return exact opposite meanings... not similar, but opposite.

I can see if the word usage differs... that can add some flavor, but I am unsure what good that type of comparison will do.

[Doctrine 612]

I think you have that backwards. The words / verses are deleted because the earliest, best manuscripts don't have the words. I wonder what you think of this deletion (noted as it is the best support for the trinity found in the bible) in the NIV (From 1 John 5 6-7):

 

 

 

 

 

Was it deleting a teaching of the Apostle John?

No iam sorry the niv does not come from the best source.

May I ask on who do we belive for our salvation and everlasting life.

Kjv

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Niv

47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

Where did " on me" go.

The niv is just another nwt bible, to fit people's doctrines into the bible and not to pull doctrines from the bible.

[De Groote]

My guess is that close to a majority of the members of the Church do not use the King James Version of the Bible. Somebody help me out and look up the exact stats on how many members of the Church do not speak English as their first language. There is no Spanish KJV. No Dutch KJV. No German KJV.

 

The Bible was not written in English. The best way to read the scriptures would be to learn Hebrew and Greek. That would be preferable to reading the KJV. 

 

That being said, it is probably best to keep in mind what Paul said about eating meat given to idols, basically, don't do it if it will harm the faith of the tenderhearted. (This is not a KJV direct quote here...)

 

But, if used for a specific reason, they can be helpful. Don't forget that BYU has several new "translations" out of parts of the New Testament.

 

Probably the best way to handle the use of other translations in Church settings would be to help clarify the KJV where it is opaque. There is nothing wrong with this approach. If there was, then a lot of the alternate translation footnotes in the KJV are violating the KJV only rule. It is quite easy to tell a class how Joseph Smith often would offer different translations (he liked the German translation best!) to help the Saints understand the KJV. It is also essential, I think, that missionaries know ahead of time what all our favorite scriptures are like in other translations, but that is another discussion.

 

So explain, read the short portion of the alternative translation, go back to the KJV. We do this a lot in our scripture reading with our children and it helps us understand what the KJV says and gives us opportunity to see where the other translation goes wrong. I hope my kids are growing up with a love of the KJV without an irrational fear of other translations. 

 

My current favorite alternate translation I don't think of as a translation, really. It is more like reading an adaptation of the Bible. I like it because it shakes up my perceptions. It is so easy to get used to things and not to read what is there. (It is "The Message Bible") A different translation can bring a person back to the KJV with new eyes--not that the other translation is correct always, but that it wakes you up to see what is there. I also like the NKJV and a Dutch translation. I like the NRSV much better than the NIV.

 

But, of course, my favorite is, genuinely, the King James Version. Arthur Henry King would talk about how if you read it to kids while they are young, they will get used to the language: "Some may think the language of the scriptures is too difficult for children, but the language of the scriptures can be built into children's lives if it is part of their daily existence. A family that reads the scriptures together regularly from the time the oldest child is still an infant in arms will be helping the children, as they grow, to learn the language of the scriptures at the same time as they absorb the language of their home and environment."

[readstoomuch]

I love the ESV (English standard version). I have tried many. Much better than the Niv, yet still has the majesty of the KJV..

[Alan]

I also think it's time to modernise the Book of Mormon.

[JLHPROF]

I also think it's time to modernise the Book of Mormon.

 

Well considering everyone agrees that Joseph didn't "translate" the Book of Mormon but was told what to write by the spirit, I'm ok with the current version until God decides to reveal different words to man.

[Doctrine 612]

My guess is that close to a majority of the members of the Church do not use the King James Version of the Bible. Somebody help me out and look up the exact stats on how many members of the Church do not speak English as their first language. There is no Spanish KJV. No Dutch KJV. No German KJV.

 

The Bible was not written in English ."

What? The whole time, ( now with clamped teeth) the whole time.( mrs. Doubtfire, quote).

No you are right, we should study hebrew and Greek text.

I have read many lectures on the topic of bible translations new verse old, and it is a interesting, to se how just a few words can change a whole meaning to a verse. This is why having the spirit and prophet is so important.

[Kenngo1969]

... its way past time for a modern English version of the LDS scriptures

As far as the KJV being "poetic"  that's not even logical, its old English and never was poetry - no one speaks that language any more

I'm largely a literary ignoramus, so take this for what it's worth. I'll grant you, much has been lost in translation, but in an era in which there largely wasn't even the printed word, let alone tablets, laptops, desktops, smart phones, et cetera, in which few people could even read, much less write, and hence, an era in which the most reliable means of transmission of scripture largely was by word of mouth, poetry and other literary forms were indispensable in the transmission process.

 

I don't think we should be in such a hurry to jettison allegedly-antiquated language when it can serve as evidence that the Book of Mormon, particularly, is exactly what it claims to be.  While the Book of Mormon itself is not a history, it does contain history, and the Spanish philosopher George Santayana said that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.  I think that's a big part of the reason why President Ezra Taft Benson emphasized the Book of Mormon so much.  With respect to literary forms providing evidence of purportedly-ancient origins, chiasmus, for example, has been found in both the Book of Mormon and in the Bible.

 

I think any tie that can provide evidence to us allegedly-enlightened moderns from those allegedly-benighted ancients that they, and their records, are real, is a good thing, even language that sometimes seems frustratingly opaque (if not impenetrable).  My $0.02.  Also, see, e.g.:

 

Here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705386489/Daniel-Peterson-Poor-English-but-good-Hebrew-2-a-divine-hint-of-Book-of-Mormon-truth.html?pg=all

 

And here: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/chiasmus-in-antiquity/

Edited December 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

Thanks for the conversation. Like others have stated I find the modern English easier to understand though I agree that some of the interpretations may be a bit different. Still, for fun, try reading Isaiah in the NIV and see if it's any easier to understand than in the KJV.

[mnn727]

I see people talking about how modern versions are tainted by their authors viewpoint and yes, that  can be true, but remember the KJV is a translation too. It was translated by authority of King James of England and and is biased towards things like 'the divine right of kings' for one.

Have you ever actually read and thought about the introduction/dedication to the KJV Bible? (Its almost sickening IMHO the amount of groveling shown - makes you wonder what they did to the translation to keep the king happy)

Edited December 11, 2014 by mnn727

[carbon dioxide]

I have found the NIV to be more of an interpretation of the text rather than a better rendering. It is filled with doctrines that are further away from the restored gospel. For example, Psalms 51:5 states "surely, I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" suggesting the notion of original sin. I have also found that it has become gender neutral when talking about God. 

I have seen a few other examples of that as well where it seems the translators inserted some words in the text to bend it towards a certain protestant viewpoint.  Like 1 Peter 4:6

 

"For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."  

 

Rather than be a passage of the preaching of the gospel to those who are in the spirit world, this version make it appear that the gospel was preached to people before they died.  Thus denying the spirit world missionary work.

 

If I had to choose something other than the KJV/JST combination, I would choose the NASB. 

[saemo]

Yesterday while I was sitting in Gospel Doctrine class the instructor had someone read a few versus in Ezekial and I couldn't understand what was being said so I pulled up the New International Version (NIV) and followed along.

How about the JST?

http://gospelink.com/library/contents/354

[Alan]

My comment about modernising the Book of Mormon was serious.

In my view we need to take out all of the thee's, thou's, ith's and 'eth's.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Alan

[sdc999]

What's so bad about changing a word to fit what you want it to say so long as it really doesn't stray too far?  Maybe it fits todays times better.

[bluebell]

What's so bad about changing a word to fit what you want it to say so long as it really doesn't stray too far? Maybe it fits todays times better.

I think most people feel like scripture should say what God wants it to say and not what we want it to say.

So that's why changing it to fit us is seen as bad.

Edited December 11, 2014 by bluebell

[bluebell]

How about the JST?

http://gospelink.com/library/contents/354

It looks like you have to pay a monthly fee to get access to those.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

How about the JST?

http://gospelink.com/library/contents/354

 

Other than JST of Matthew, the JST bible is not on LDS.org and Ezekial is not included in the LDS tools ap where much of the new testament is found. Therefore, without buying it, the church doesn't seem all that interested in making it available for use. It does seem a little strange that the JST wouldn't be the official version of the bible we use.

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Other than JST of Matthew, the JST bible is not on LDS.org and Ezekial is not included in the LDS tools ap where much of the new testament is found. Therefore, without buying it, the church doesn't seem all that interested in making it available for use. It does seem a little strange that the JST wouldn't be the official version of the bible we use.

 

My understanding is there are two reasons for that:

1. The JST went through the hands of the early RLDS leaders (and the Smith family) and there is no guarantee that the text survived unaltered.

2. We already have a hard time convincing investigators that the other 3 standard works are from God.  If we trade in the original Bible for the JST "translation" we will have nothing left in common.

[bluebell]

Other than JST of Matthew, the JST bible is not on LDS.org and Ezekial is not included in the LDS tools ap where much of the new testament is found. Therefore, without buying it, the church doesn't seem all that interested in making it available for use. It does seem a little strange that the JST wouldn't be the official version of the bible we use.

I think part of it is that the RLDS holds (or held, I have no idea when or how things enter the public domain) the copyright for most if the jst.