ARCHIVE: NIV Bible Quiz

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by granite1010

"I'm not a mind reader. But the sort of behavior you've been displaying lately is something I've seen before. I used to have a roommate just like you, and his situation was remarkably similar to yours."

How'd he wind up?

It's pretty bleak. He's divorced, has a kid he never sees, and lives with his mother. I hope that doesn't end up happening to you.

"You've been carrying your emotions on your sleeve for the last several weeks. It doesn't take any special insight to see that."

I've never said or pretended to be a special case.

I don't think I've ever accused you of pretending to be a special case. I'm just saying you're not the first person to turn their back on God when events in their life didn't go their way.

If I've been a little edgy, well, I FEEL a little edgy.

Uh... okay. Maybe you should switch to Sanka?

"Christianity didn't give you a bum deal. Your church did. There's a difference."

No, not at all.

Oh, I assure you, there's a big difference between your church and Christianity as a whole.

My church was the final straw.

It would have been the final straw for me too -- with that church. I wouldn't turn my back on Jesus Christ for anything, much less for something that somebody else did to me.

Christianity as a whole is a masquerade, and I feel like most of my life I was either used, misguided, or had blinders on.

The people in your church were putting on a masquerade. It's not like that at every church.

 

[Granite]

"It's pretty bleak. He's divorced, has a kid he never sees, and lives with his mother."

Oy. I guess going one for three leaves me optimistic.

"I'm just saying you're not the first person to turn their back on God when events in their life didn't go their way."

I haven't turned my back on God, Jack. I've turned from Christianity. Not the same thing.

"Maybe you should switch to Sanka?"

Big ole negative!

"It would have been the final straw for me too -- with that church. I wouldn't turn my back on Jesus Christ for anything, much less for something that somebody else did to me."

I tried other churches for a while. Knowing what I know about Christianity's history and origins I'd be a world-class hypocrite and liar to go back.

"The people in your church were putting on a masquerade. It's not like that at every church."

True. Sincere Christians can be found.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by granite1010

"It's pretty bleak. He's divorced, has a kid he never sees, and lives with his mother."

Oy. I guess going one for three leaves me optimistic.

Truth be told, that's not what I'm worried about. I don't want you to go to hell.

"I'm just saying you're not the first person to turn their back on God when events in their life didn't go their way."

I haven't turned my back on God, Jack. I've turned from Christianity. Not the same thing.

It is the same thing from a Christian perpective. Jesus said if you denied Him, He would deny you before the Father.

"It would have been the final straw for me too -- with that church. I wouldn't turn my back on Jesus Christ for anything, much less for something that somebody else did to me."

I tried other churches for a while. Knowing what I know about Christianity's history and origins I'd be a world-class hypocrite and liar to go back.

What if you discovered that the things you think you know now about the history and origins of Christianity were false?

 

[Granite]

"Truth be told, that's not what I'm worried about. I don't want you to go to hell."

I appreciate your concern, but I'm not losing sleep over it. "Hell" happens to be something grafted from Zoroastrianism, and I don't believe in Ahura Mazda, either.

"What if you discovered that the things you think you know now about the history and origins of Christianity were false?"

The history and origin of the church is twisted, grotesque, and corrupt. Christianity has inflicted misery and pain on every single continent it's crossed. Native tribes and peoples have been wiped out, libraries burned, innocent men and women hanged, tortured, burned, all in the name of Christ. One of the world's most notorious regimes was operated by the church herself. There is not a single acre, nation, or people that has interacted with Christianity that has not suffered because of it. By their fruits you shall know them indeed, Jack. Look at your Bible. Look at some of the laws in there. Look at the barbarism, the violence, the butchery, the depradations done in the name of God by the people of God. Look at the division within your own faith.

If this is your idea of "salvation" you can keep it. It's a cut and paste job. It's mind control. It's a myth. It's a fantasy. And your problem is, you cannot have an honest discussion. You're the one with a gun to your head, not me. You've got this idea of "hell" to deal with, to intimidate you. I sure don't. You're worshipping the Godfather, not God the Father: the deity you pray to makes an offer you can't refuse.

Sorry, I'll take a pass.

 

[Jabez]

The KJV (and all editions since Tyndale) was compiled primarily from the Byzantine family of manuscripts (AD 500 – 1000) frequently referred to as the Textus Receptus.

The NIV was omplied primarily from the Alexandrian Family manuscripts (AD 200 – 400) which include the three oldest The Codex Alexandrius, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, all which were major contributors to most Bible versions after the King James version

 

[Lighthouse]

Jabez-
And? Would you rahter have the whole Bible, or a copy with a few missing pieces? Do you like empty spaces in your puzzles?

 

[Jabez]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Jabez-
And? Would you rahter have the whole Bible, or a copy with a few missing pieces? Do you like empty spaces in your puzzles?

Iam tring to find out whats what.Whos to say theses missing peices?Maybe The KJV added things?Iam doing research on it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Riiiighhhht. The KJV added Matthew 17:21, between verses 20 and 22.

 

[Jabez]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Riiiighhhht. The KJV added Matthew 17:21, between verses 20 and 22.

How do we know for sure it wasnt added?To clarify?

 

[Lighthouse]

:doh:

:nono:

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Riiiighhhht. The KJV added Matthew 17:21, between verses 20 and 22.

Lighthouse, I agree that those verses should be there, but your reasoning here isn't logical.

The verse numbers aren't in the Greek manuscripts. They were added by translators. By the time the Bible editions based on the Minority Texts were published, the numbering convention was already standardized on earlier translations based on the Textus Receptus. If those verses were "added" it would have been long before anyone assigned numbers to the verses.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Jabez

How do we know for sure it wasnt added?To clarify?

Jabez, older does not necessarily equal better. If you look into it you will find that those few manuscripts you mentioned have hundreds of inconsistencies between them; while versions like KJV and NKJV are based on a much broader group of manuscripts from a variety of regions, yet are much more consistent with one another.

 

[Granite]

Contradictions abound, no original manuscripts exist, changes have been over the years, the book makes wild statements that lack any historical or archeological proof...

And Christians use these same arguments against the Book of Mormon. Talk about doublethink.

 

[drbrumley]

Jabez,

Check this out.

CLICK HERE!!

Read and ask questions if you need to.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by Turbo

Jabez, older does not necessarily equal better. If you look into it you will find that those few manuscripts you mentioned have hundreds of inconsistencies between them; while versions like KJV and NKJV are based on a much broader group of manuscripts from a variety of regions, yet are much more consistent with one another.

Turbo,

I'll kick my two cents into the pot here. I'm not in any way critical of folks who derive utility from the KJV or the NKJV. But I actually prefer the translations based on the critical texts rather than the Erasmian texts. There are a few reasons why.
1. The available manuscripts available to Erasmus at the time of his compilation is eclipsed by the number of available manuscripts that we have today.
2. Erasmus often utilized the vulgate to inform his translation in areas where he was unsure and as such the translation isn’t as much a translation from Greek as it is a translation from Greek and Latin.
3. Erasmus’ typology of the texts is unclear if he categorized them at all.

I also prefer the principles of translation in the NASB and NIV to the principles of translation of the KJV. In the KJV there are some overtly clear attempts to harmonize the text with the systematic theology of the day. In my opinion, there are some textbook cases of eisegesis in the 1611 KJV. Second, and this is no fault of the KJV itself, we just know more about Greek now than we did in 1611, you have works like BDAG that can compares the meaning of Greek words to both biblical literature and contemporary non-biblical literature to help get as broad a context as possible to discern the clear meaning of a word. The KJV, of no fault of its own, does not reflect that scholarship.
Finally, the available texts that were used between 1604 and 1611 in the translation of the Majority texts into the King Jimmy were primarily based on Erasmus’ work. There was some textual critical choices being made, but they were being made on Erasmus’ editions or Beza’s editions. Now they did the best they could, and they did an admirable job. But even the translators of the 1611 acknowledged that no one single manuscript could be seen as the correct one, they employed the method of searching for the best translation among a plurality of texts.

Now if a plurality of texts is necessary for the 1611 edition of the King Jimmy, I am going to say that a greater plurality of texts will lead us to a more informed process of textual criticism giving us a greater degree of accuracy.


Now, you mentioned that the Critical Texts have hundreds of inconsistencies between them. They do, and they do because there are hundreds more of them to compare. If you have 20 manuscripts and 18 agree you don’t have hundreds of differences, you have 2. If you have a thousand manuscripts and manuscript fragments and 800 of them agree, you have hundreds of inconsistencies but also hundreds of agreeing fragments. But you have the same percentage of agreement.

Grace and Peace

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Turbo

Lighthouse, I agree that those verses should be there, but your reasoning here isn't logical.

The verse numbers aren't in the Greek manuscripts. They were added by translators. By the time the Bible editions based on the Minority Texts were published, the numbering convention was already standardized on earlier translations based on the Textus Receptus. If those verses were "added" it would have been long before anyone assigned numbers to the verses.

:doh:

If The Message used the majority text, it would be more like the original, then?

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

:doh:

If The Message used the majority text, it would be more like the original, then?

Than what? Than the current edition of The Message?

 

[Lighthouse]

I didn't say, "than." I said, "then."

 

[Turbo]

I know. :doh: But you asked if "it would be more like the original." "More" is a comparative word. I'm asking you so clarify your question. Would it be "more like the original" than what? Than the current edition of The Message? Than some other version? What?


Nevertheless, your point in post 88 made no sense since the verses are not numbered in the manuscripts.

 

[Turbo]

BChristianK, please clarify a few things for me:

• Do you believe that the verses and phrases omitted from the NIV are not inspired scripture? (See post #1)
• Do you believe that the NIV is based on more or fewer manuscripts than the KJV and NKJV?
• Do you believe that Deuteronomy 22 is rightly translated in the NIV, that God commanded that rapists and their victims should marry?

Originally posted by BChristianK

I also prefer the principles of translation in the NASB and NIV to the principles of translation of the KJV. In the KJV there are some overtly clear attempts to harmonize the text with the systematic theology of the day. In my opinion, there are some textbook cases of eisegesis in the 1611 KJV. Second, and this is no fault of the KJV itself, we just know more about Greek now than we did in 1611, you have works like BDAG that can compares the meaning of Greek words to both biblical literature and contemporary non-biblical literature to help get as broad a context as possible to discern the clear meaning of a word. The KJV, of no fault of its own, does not reflect that scholarship.

How does any this apply to the NKJV?

Now if a plurality of texts is necessary for the 1611 edition of the King Jimmy, I am going to say that a greater plurality of texts will lead us to a more informed process of textual criticism giving us a greater degree of accuracy.

Then why do you prefer translations based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?

Now, you mentioned that the Critical Texts have hundreds of inconsistencies between them. They do, and they do because there are hundreds more of them to compare...

No, I was talking about two manuscripts upon which the NIV is based: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. There are hundreds (thousands?) of inconsistencies between the two of them, yet they are regarded as "the best" manuscripts by Westcott and Hor t, the publishers of the NIV and many other modern translators. How can these two be "the best" if they don't even agree with one another? Am I missing something? Did you read any of drbrumley's link?

If you have 20 manuscripts and 18 agree you don’t have hundreds of differences, you have 2. If you have a thousand manuscripts and manuscript fragments and 800 of them agree, you have hundreds of inconsistencies but also hundreds of agreeing fragments. But you have the same percentage of agreement.

Grace and Peace

How about if you have only two manuscripts that have hundreds or thousands of disagreements between them?