NIV
Translators-Part 1
Manuscripts used
by NIV Translators -
Lets take a look at the sources used by the KJV Translators and
the KJV Translators.
We know much of what the KJV Translators had. (We won't say that we know
"all" that they had, since we still want to review some sources
first).
The Translators of the KJV placed great emphasis on the Greek texts as
well as the English phraseology.
The key Greek text used by the KJV Translators was the 1550/1551 Greek
text of Stephens. [This is the Greek text that came to be known as the
Textus Receptus, along with the Edition of Elzevier].The KJV translators had
access to many greek manuscripts, and they wrestled with the questions of
which Greek texts to choose from.
The KJV of the Bible was essentially an Oxford and Cambridge joint
collaborative effort. Most the translators were fluent in many languages,
and they also wrote other works and books. So we cannow (in far greater
detail than what we are told) what their sources were.
The NIV Translators did have access to the manuscripts around the world,
which were available to them - in order for them to do the translation.
The problem is that they did not do a translation of manuscripts, from
those manuscripts themselves. As the NIV translators have stated in their
notes & introduction, the Greek Text that they used was based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland
version of the Greek New Testament.
What the NIV Translators used for their Greek
This may seem insignificant, but the Translators of the NIV SKIPPED OVER
the step of deciding which Greek manuscripts were the correct ones.
They deferred on this point, deciding instead to simply choose a Greek
text, and [a priori] decide that this was to be their text of choice.
Ok. So we now know what their Greek Text was [the UBS Nestle-Aland greek
text]. This is the red-cover greek edition. But where did the UBS/Nestle
Aland get the greek texts which it uses for its collation ?
Primarily from 2 Sources (which we also have available to us today - if
we need to check their work). The two primary sources for the Nestle Aland
Text were:
1. The Corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort which they issued around
1881, and
2. The greek manuscripts discovered by Tischendorf.
There are great problems with both of these sources. The first problem is
that Westcott and Hort's greek text will turn out (for those who research
this) to have been based on 4 Manuscripts. All of those 4 Manuscripts depart
from the 95% of the other Manuscripts in Greek.
Further, they also depart from the usual texts used by the Churches in
the ancient world (which make up the 95% of the Greek Manuscripts).
-----------
The Manucript discovered by Tischendorf was discovered in a Greek
Orthodox Monastery on the traditional Mt Sinai. Tischendorf named this text
the Codex Sinaiticus. It is a corrupt version of the Greek and is the second
primary Greek source on which the NIV is based.
NIV Translators -
Part 2
Tischendorf,
Westcott & Hort
Back to Tischendorf, and Westcott & Hort
It is significant to remember that it was the Premise of TISCHENDORF that
the Greek Texts used by the Christian Church for 1850 years
(in his day) were to be REJECTED, because – according to
him - they were erroneous & false texts.
This is not something he proved nor demonstrated. It was simply what he
had been taught by his University Professors. At the time, Tischendorf was
at the Apex of German Textual Criticism, and had
(unfortunately) accepted the premise which his anti-God professors had
taught him: namely that the Bible is fake, the texts of the bible are fake
and we can never really know what was in the original letters of the Bible.
(The fact that most of these professors were enemies of the bible is often
overlooked).
Having accepted the premises of his professors, Tischendorf
decided to find the "real" Bible on his own. Following in the
tradition of Textual Criticism, he at first tried to work with Lachman, who
had been one of the first German critics to actually start substituting
other Greek Texts for the Traditional Textus Receptus [A
practice largely started by Griesbach].
Lachman refused to work with Tischendorf, and so Tischendorf struck out
on his own, sponsored sometimes by the finances of the German Educational
system, sometimes sponsored by private Germans. Tischendorf believed that
the Church had been deceived for 1800 years. He did not accept that
the Bible was the inspired word of God.
(We have never seen any evidence that Tischendorf even
claimed to have been a Christian. I am not aware that he wanted to be
one...We are aware that he wanted to be thought of as a great textual
critic....anyone having information about the Personal Faith of Tischendorf,
and who can cite the sources for this, please let us know).
The first editions of the Greek text collated by Tischendorf largely
backed the greek Textus Receptus. (His 7th Edition still demonstrates this
very much). But by the time that he produced the 8th edition, he had
switched to relying on the corrupt greek manuscript he had found in the
Monastery at Mt Sinai.
Tischendorf claimed that his discovered text (the Codex Sinaiticus) was
an "authentic" copy of the original New Testament. (It is actually
dated to no earlier than the 4th century).
So we can see that this is the manuscript (along with Westcott & Hort)
that the NIV claims to rely on for its own "accuracy". But the
Codex Sinaiticus is among the most corrupt versions of the Greek Text. Its
most probable source in fact are the 50 copies of the Corrupted Text
of the N.T. that Eusebius produced for the Emperor
Constantine (worshipper of Mithras/Sol Invictus).
NIV Translators - Part 3 -
Tischendorf, Westcott &
Hort
So the NIV uses the Codex Sinaiticus, So What ?
Well, the Greek Manuscripts around the world have a number of tests
performed on them, in order to determine where they come from, how old they
are, what their source was, etc.
The closest manuscript relative of Codex Sinaticus (from
Tischendorf) is Codex Vaticanus. Both of these manuscripts
support the doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church. And both of them
have several books in them [as part of the bible] that are NOT
part of the traditional Received Text, either in Greek nor English.
Both of them are dated to the 4th Century. Both of these are used as
valid affirmations of many changes made to the Traditional Text of the NT in
Greek.
The main problem is that: Both of these Greek Texts contradict almost all
of the other manuscripts used by the Church, for 2000 years. That's right ! Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (of Tischendorf) are part of
the 5 % of the Greek Texts that vary and/or contradict ALL THE REST
of the other GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.
What is more significant, is that far from agreeing with each other,
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus contradict each other - in more
than 4000 places (yes - Four Thousand !!!).
There are - in fact - more verses where these two manuscripts differ from
each other, than where they agree with each other.
Also the Translators during the Reformation (Beza/diodatti/Stephens) were
aware of Codex Vaticanus. They rejected its use because it contradicted the
other Greek Texts and because they knew it was a corrupt version.
Back to the NIV Translators
SO the NIV/TNIV TRANSLATORS, fully knowing these facts, STILL
decided to use the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek text, which Depends on Westcott
& Hort and TISCHENDORF's Codex Sinaiticus.
For us, these issues are too significant to place our faith in the work
done by the NIV Translators. There are too many questions that were not
addressed. We still cannot understand WHY they decided to use the corrupt
texts of
Codex Sinaiticus, and the corrupted work of Westcott & Hort.
Our Sources: Although we use many different sources,
here are two of them:
1. The Revision Revised, written by Oxford
Professor John William Burgon (also known as Dean Burgon) (@1883/since
republished & which we sell).
2.The Recent International Bestseller The Jesus Papyrus'
by Carsten Thiede (german Papyrologist) and Matthew d'Ancona.
For those who object to
this article
I understand that If I object
to this article, that I need to take certain steps:
1. I need to clearly understand for myself what is the
specific basis of my objection
2. I need to remember that other people cannot read my
mind and may not understand what I have a problem with, and I will need to be patient in explaining my
objection.
3. I need to examine my own motives and decide what is
pushing me or motivating me to respond about this article. If there is an issue of
lack of accuracy, then
I do need to bring this up.
But if the issue is that the article is
accurate, then I need to understand how I should be
responding to the parts that I already know and understand are true.
4. I need to be
wise, so that I do not use my own lack of
knowledge, as the basis for objecting too fast. There are many questions and
much documentation that can be provided to those who may object. If I have a
problem I can ask for this documentation, but I need to be sure and ask myself
just what I am placing my SECURITY in, as a fellow Christian.
5. does the article upset me because it may be TRUE,
and I am disturbed because I am finding that I have put my security in a Version
of the Bible that either is NOT accurate or that was NOT accurately translated ?
6. does this mean that I may be in spiritual danger,
and that I need to do much more research personally, for myself, and stop taking
the word of some Pastors or leaders who are simply telling me NOT to worry about
these issues, but to be warm and filled and go back to sleep ?
7. Do I need to undertand that even though some of
these Pastors who "bless" all versions may have good intentions, that they may
not have the gift of Biblical Discernment, and therefore they may not understand
either their own need to do a great deal of personal research on this matter, so
that they do not endanger the Congregation and individual Church members that
they have been entrusted with ?
8. Is the church that I am going to either part of a
denomination that now is Liberal or has turned its back on God or historic
Christianity, or part of a group that is endorsing Unbliblical or Anti-Historic
Practices such as Word of Faith or selling the Gospel by Trends such as using
Church Consultants that are far more committed to Church NUMBER growth, and NOT
the individual Spiritual Maturity of the Christians that are ALREADY there ?
____________________________________
The Real Question is what are you going to do with the
information that was presented in this article.
Is the Information True ?
Is the Information Accurate ?
Is the Information documented ?
Do I - before God - have a responsibility if I am a
Christian to accept and act on the information in this article ?
Am I comfortable in the knowledge, that some leaders under
the guise of clarifying the text of the Bible, are actually changing that text,
and changing MY understanding of what God wants to share with me through His
Holy Word, the Old Testament and the New Testament ?
Do I understand that these "small" changes number from the
hundreds to the THOUSANDS depending on which Modern Versions I use, and that
these changes serve to cut away the clarity and the specific understanding found
in the Greek New Testament, that these new modern versions are preventing me
from understanding ?
Do I understand that most of these new Modern Versions
were not developed because there was a genuine need, but because the teams of
Bible Translators were Hired by PUBLISHING companies who are eager to make a
profit on the Word of God, which remains the Number ONE bestseller every week of
every year, and that these Publishers decided to cash in ?
Do I understand that the problem was that if these Bible
Adjusters and Correctors did NOT make the changes that they chose to, that they
would not be able to claim copyright protection, and therefore they would not be
able to make a financial Profit from their new versions ?
Do I understand that there are Spiritual Forces that
want to prevent me from having GREATER spiritual understanding about God,
but that God himself is always in MORE of a hurry than I am, for Me to get to
know HIM ?
Do I realize what my personal
state of preparation will be, within me,
when Islam becomes the Dominant Religion in the
United States, as it is already in Europe, and how I will personally be required
to defend my Faith, by argument and persuasion, using knowledge of the Bible and
of History and of Christianity, and that God will rightly hold me accountable
because I am claiming to be His Child and a personal follower of Jesus Christ ?
In view of these facts, should I try to set aside more
time for the study of the Word of God, and more time for the study of History
and the true history of the Christian Church, and to learn about how other
Christians in the past, actually learned to have and to gain GREAT spiritual
strength ?
If no one reaches out to help prepare me for the coming
challenges, whose job is it STILL for me to be prepared to answer these
challenges and questions ?
FREE
Ebooks for your encouragement,
consideration and learning (PDF)
Page can be found here:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/free_ebooks_instant_downloads_pdf.htm
I Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts: and be ready always to give
an answer to every man that asketh you a
reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
II Timothy 2: 15
Study to show thyself approved
unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
