.jpg)
To put things into perspective, I have always have the understanding that the content of the message is more important than the language to bring about the understanding of the content.
That means, if a meaning of a passage has being distorted to a point because of the lack of a few words, then it is definitely a very very serious issue. At this point, I would also want to say that to quote an 'accurate' verse from the Bible but out of its context, is as bad as taking the few words out of the Bible. The reason is simple. If the REAL meaning is lost, then we have misrepresented God and I will say there are a lot of people who has quoted Bible verses out of context too.
To me, so long the Bible verses are very close to what the original Bibles are saying and say what it means, that is the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible the Septuagint, then it is a Bible through and through (the inspired word of God). If a translation is purported to lead Christians away from the true meaning of being a Christian or has lead some Christians to misunderstand the true love and Blessings of the Lord, then that translation can be said to originate from the pit of hell.
Do you know that the hebrew language and also greek has deeper meaning than what English language can hold. For example the word 'Peace' in English which is used to translate from the Hebrew word 'Shalom'.
Here's some meaning from the word 'Peace' (just Google 'define:peace')
- harmonious relations; freedom from disputes; "the roommates lived in peace together"
- the absence of mental stress or anxiety
(Hebrew, `peace'). Common Hebrew greeting. `Shalom' indicates security, contentment, good health, prosperity, friendship, and tranquility of heart and mind.
From just the definition of the word 'peace' to the word 'shalom' in the actual usage of the language of Jesus time (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), then you can see, the Hebrew word has much more meaning than what the word 'peace' is ascribed to.
So does that mean KJV is wrong to translate the Bible as such since it has changed the meaning of Shalom into a meaning that is much shallower and much poorer as in peace? Would that make KJV a mistranslated Bible as well?
That's the thing about language. We cannot fathom to enormity of certain words in Hebrew and we have lost a lot of the gifts of God and don't understand the enormity of Jesus sacrifice on the cross because of lost meanings. Isn't that worse than taking out some verses that does nothing to change the meaning of the message?
I have this page to recommend for people to read:
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/kjv.html
The very best test is to ask yourself after reading the NIV, am I still a Christian, that is a person that do not the deity of Christ, who is the Son of the Most High? Do I believe that I have been born again as a Christian and my sense of shame and sin is nailed on the cross with Christ? Do I believe that I will be given a new life and become a new creation through Christ?
If the answer is yes to anything of the above, then you are touched by God through His Word and has become His sons and daughters despite the 'shortcomings' of the translations.
To me, the most important thing we should look out for, is the condemnation that springs out from the misinterpretation (not translation alone) of the Bible verses, to chain people to the yoke of the Law whom our Lord has set us free from. And secondly, we as Christian brothers and sisters should do the right thing, to preach God and His Gospel as Paul is preaching....to point to the benefits of Christ sacrifice on the cross.
Please go back to this page (http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html) and then ask yourself, did the translation of a passage actually changes the fundamental meaning of the Bible? Did the missing verses cause you to lose your salvation? In all battles, fight the right ones and win it through Christ's understanding.
I just take out some of the purported verses from the website for some comments:
Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." NIV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." The NIV leaves out "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." Everything pertaining to His Kingdom and Deity is left out."
Wilson's Refrain: Does leaving that part out changes God's diety in anyway?
Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" NIV "'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. '"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" NIV leaves out "Jesus, thou", degrading the power of the verse concerning His deity.
Wilson's Refrain: Read the NIV passage agin. Did it not the demons are talking to Jesus Himself? So why the elimination of "Jesus, thou" degrade Jesus power since the demons has acknowledge Him in the first place?
Matthew 9:18 KJV ". . there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him. ." NIV "While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, 'My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.'" NIV changes "worshipped" to "knelt before." Men kneel before their own kings and queens, but they do not worship them.
Wilson's Refrain: Yes, people kneel before Kings and Queens and they do not worship them. The thing is this, what difference would it make to you as a reader? It is the following act of reviving the daughter that is most important, He did the miracle of resurrection! Do you become a believer because the Bible say the ruler worshipped Jesus or because you believed that He did resurrect the girl?Besides, the KJV can said to be translating from the perspective of someone who has already received Christ as Lord and can easily use the word worship if the people involved has knelt down. The fact is that the people did kneel, they worship him or not is the contention. But this contention doesn't deny the fact that people did ask Jesus for help and the very fact Jesus was asked, shows He did has an awesome power and that fact is the fact we should bring out of the passages as a witness to His power.
So if NIV is a newspaper, then using the word 'knelt' is a correct way of describing what has happened since it is describe as an action. To put the word 'worshipped' can be seen as a form of prejudice (that means putting meaning behind an action that may not be there in the first place) and thus also another form of mistranslation.
Matthew 16:20 KJV "Then charged He his disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ." NIV "Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." NIV leaves out "Jesus," as it does in numerous verses.
Wilson's Refrain: Without the word 'Jesus', would you as a reader understand that the verses is refering to Jesus as well? I guess many of us would so this is really an unnecessary accusation. I would also use this verse to comment about leaving the word 'Lord' to denote that Jesus' deity is being denied. What utter nonsense.
Mark 1:14 KJV "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God." NIV "After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God." NIV says "the good news" and leaves out "the gospel of the kingdom of God."
Wilson's Refrain: In the first place, the word 'Gospel' means 'Good news'. So what is the problem? The author is basically finding saw dust in the eye of NIV when the author fails to see the log in his!
Luke 11:2 KJV "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." NIV "He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come." He isn't "Our Father" but just Father, and He isn't in Heaven, because that tells you something of who He is and points to Him as the Heavenly Father, so both references to heaven are removed. He must be here on earth. The reason for this is that the New Agers and Catholics believe in the "universal fatherhood" of God. My Father or Our Father becomes "The Father." This can be seen in some of the verses below: John 10:30,32; 14:28, etc. He is Father to all, and with it is the "Brotherhood of man." Then what happened to doing His will? Most people today want to do their own will, and justify it, and say that is the way it is supposed to be. But that is not the way it is supposed to be. We are to say "If the Lord will. . ." James 4:15 KJV "For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." Satan wants you to do his will, and not the Father's.
Wilson's Refrain: This is another lame excuse to demonise the translation. Would the expulsion of 'Our' robbed us of the meaning that God is our Father? Jesus is teaching His disciples how to pray. By telling them to say 'Father' is as good as telling His disciples to accept God as their Father as in ABBA!! A VERY intimate term...like papa! It has NOTHING to do about Universal fatherhood as the author puts it. No way taking out the word 'Our' constitute the meaning 'THE' Father! Obviously the author is trying to accuse/condemn the translation out of thin air!
Angels are also sons of God. But Angels are NOT sons of God through Christ Jesus, THE Son of God.
I 'love' the last part where he says leaving out the works 'If the Lord will,' means we are doing Satan's work. Gosh...this is going by the word but not the SPIRIT of the meaning of the word.
Luke 11:4 KJV "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." NIV "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation. '" Even Satanists and Eastern Mysticists desire cleansing from sin, and Satan desires to masquerade as the sin forgiver and destroyer. Example: From the Complete Book of Magic and Witchcraft, part of a Satanic ritual states: "Grant that I may be cleansed by this water from all my sins." So Satan doesn't take this part out. Think about it: why don't they want you to be delivered from evil? This is all part of the conspiracy. First they deny the existence of Satan. They say that Satan is not a person, but merely a "power of evil." Then they assert that Lucifer and the Devil are separate and distinct entities. Satan tries to hide his real identity, and hide behind other names. New Agers say that Satan is a figment of Christians’ imaginations. They point out that Lucifer means 'day-star' or 'light giver' and say that Lucifer is the brightest of God's angels. Albert Pike said, "Lucifer is God." That's the next step in the deception: claiming that Lucifer is a good angel or even God or Christ Himself.
Wilson's Refrain: This is another lame accusation. So if one do not pray 'but deliver us from evil', that means God's redemptive work on the cross did not happen? God forbid!! And to say Satan left that part out means the NIV is of Satan's work!! Goodness! The venom of the author!!
Fact: God HAS delivered us from Evil! And praying or not praying about it doesn't deny you the fact that God HAS ALREADY SAVED YOU~! So what is the author trying to say? Whatever he is attacking has nothing to do with the verse in question!! In fact, I question his faith...is it in the words or in the works of Christ?
Acts 2:30 KJV "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;" NIV "But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne." NIV replaces "Christ" with "one of his descendants," which could be anybody.
Wilson's Refrain: The fact of the matter is that 'Christ' is a title (Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one". It is a translation of the Hebrew. Or messiah: any expected deliverer ) And this title of the anointed one, can also be anyone, not just Jesus. The fact of the matter is that in Acts 2, Peter is establishing the credentials of Jesus....so even if you put Christ or 'one of his descendants' in the passage, we would conclude very clearly that Jesus is destined for the throne of David.
Romans 16:24 KJV "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." NIV leaves out the entire verse.
Wilson's Refrain: So what if it was left out? What does it do to the meaning of the book of Romans?
Romans 14:10 KJV ". .for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." NIV "For we will all stand before God's judgment seat." NIV does away with Christ and His authority in judgment.
Wilson's Refrain: What if I say NIV is acknowledging that Christ is with God and thus He is God and therefore putting Christ or God is of no consequence? Of course it has no consequence because there will be a judgment by God as in the triune God...so it doesn't matter if it is Christ, Abba Father or Holy Spirit!!
Matthew 25:13 KJV "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." NIV "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." NIV leaves out "wherein the Son of man cometh," changing the whole meaning of the verse.
Wilson's Refrain: The fact is this: IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE VERSE..heck...if did not change the meaning of the whole message!! The word 'Therefore' means that there are prior verses to this that need to be read, to justify the last sentence...so taking it out DOES NOT change the meaning of the verse.
I guess I would stop here because just these few verses, you would see the real agenda of the author. It has nothing to do with the real problem problem of translation. If people wants to receive the Lord, they WILL receive the Lord. The meaning of the word of God is still in NIV so much so it will convict people of their sin and lead them to Christ. That means the meaning is correct, the Word as portrayed in NIV is the Word of God.
Even if the Bible is correctly translated but the real meaning was lost, then what good is that translation?
Conclusion:
Brothers and Sisters, there are more important things in the Christian walk. The Bible that you have in front of you, be it NIV, KJV or even Young's Literal Translation, they are water to a parched soul, the Word's of hope and of encouragment. What I want to say is that NIV translation has brought people to Jesus and to God and hence has no real issues at all to deem it as a mistranslation.
If one's salvation is rested on the translation of the Bible, then the Work of Christ of the Cross is of no value at all. But the fact that NIV DID announce the Lordship of Jesus Christ and proclaim the finished work of the Lord, it has done its job to pronounce the Gospel to the World.
In true scholarship, one does not only rely on one translation, but of many. Even KJV do not grasp the full meaning of the greek Septuagint or even the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh so one can even argue KJV is mistranslated as well. So who wins from this debate? The devil.
I would really want you to read this website and to put everything into correct perspective.
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/kjv.html
