KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: Romans 8 : 1

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 08245 :  Romans 8 : 1

KJV - There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit

NIV - Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus – NIV

The highlighted portion of the verse in KJV is missing in NIV. Which one is appropriate?

Post by : kristianjude  View Profile    since : 11 Nov 2016


Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 11 Nov 2016 10:37:34 AM Close

Hi Kristian Jude,

Long time no see. :-) 

KJV is more appropriate. The reason why this verse is missing is because of NU text not having it. NIV draws a lot of intepretation from NU-Text.

Definition of NU text: These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text [the oldest, but sometimes questioned text (Source: https://support.biblegateway.com/hc/en-us/articles/228180707-What-do-the-footnotes-in-the-NJKV-New-King-James-Version-mean-)

Regards,

Joe

P.S. I hope the source is visible and people dont start talking about copyrights and other infringements.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 18 Nov 2016 8:02:33 AM Close

Dear Joe,

Discrepancies may be there in KJV also, but this is the version which I prefer than any other versions.

The portion missing in NIV but appearing in KJV clearly constitutes a conditional clause of the statement. Producers of NIV could not have taken out the portion accidentally.  Seemingly there is a purpose behind it. If you read verses 4 to 6, you can find how the portion missing in NIV is very much relevant to appear in verse 1.

An article in ' tbsbibles.org' records “During the 1st century following the resurrection of Christ, God moved men to pen His Word (2 Peter 1.21). The result was a group of letters and books, written in Koine Greek (called the 'original autographs'). These letters and books were copied and recopied throughout the centuries and distributed throughout the world. These copies comprise the manuscripts of the New Testament. Over 5,000 of these Greek manuscripts have survived to this day”.

While reading the article in its entirety, it is understood that KJV has been prepared in accordance with the Traditional Text. As found in the article, the critical text (or NU text as you have written) is just opposite to the Traditional Text.  Critical Text came out only during the 19th and 20th centuries and took the forefront. Why the NIV rejected the Traditional Text and opted for Critical Text is the question that must be answered.

The Critical Text appearing after 1800 years is water downing the Truth and any version in any language derived out of this text are not reliable.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 19 Nov 2016 2:53:01 AM Close

Hi Kristian Jude,

I agree. I generally use KJV, NKJV and Darby for reference most of the times. NIV, I presume is intepreted for the newer generation. But that does not of course dilute the fact of its ommission of critical contexts.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 19 Nov 2016 6:59:30 AM Close

Dear Joe,

Unfortunately, Darby translation also has omitted the vital portion of Roman 8:1 like NIV.  I will add my further views later.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 21 Nov 2016 10:24:13 AM Close

Hi Kristian Jude,

The Complete Jewish Bible reads as follows:

Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua. 

Completely different from all intepretations.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 21 Nov 2016 8:53:18 PM Close

Dear Joe,

I couldn't see any  difference between NIV and CJB. Can you  explain your statement? Do you agree with CJB?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 21 Nov 2016 11:34:34 PM Close

Hi Krisitan Jude

As stated earlier, I refer to KJV, NKJV and Darby for intepretation most of the times. 

Since you had bought the discussion of intepretations. It is also good to see what other manuscripts that are ancient also says.

NIV: Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

CJB: Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua.

Please tell me you see the difference in these two verses. In Christ and In union with Christ have two different meanings. NIV, ends the first with a comma and continues further. CJB. ends it at that.

In any case, the context still remains the same. Those who believe in Christ have no condenmnation

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 22 Nov 2016 7:56:22 AM Close

Dear Joe,

Both ‘In Christ’ and ‘in union with Christ’ bear the same meaning. If one is not in union with Christ, he cannot at all be in Christ. Those who believe in Christ have no condemnation, as you said, is the common meaning for both the versions. Understandably, both these versions must have the root from the critical text of Greek NT. The primary issue here is what is said in KJV as a following part is missing in CJB as well as NIV. Please go through the Interlinear Greek NT based on Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894 (which is the basis for KJV).

My concern here is for the missing part. CJB is in no way different from NIV in rendering the meaning. Both the versions give only a half truth unlike KJV.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 22 Nov 2016 12:49:00 PM Close

Hi Kristian Jude,

Not putting a point for the sake of an argument. But intepretation errors can happen since it is human. How one drafts a sentence can construe different set of meaning. In Christ and union in Christ are two different phrases altogether. Yes, the crux is understood because we know the context and yes, an integral part of the verse is also missing as well. Its like saying - He crossed the bridge and saying he crossed over the bridge. The meaning at the end is the same. But how it is put has a different context.

No arguments from my side. Its best to refer what one finds best for meditation and then we have the spirit of God for guidance.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 23 Nov 2016 8:28:05 AM Close

Dear Joe,

There are two parts in the verse according to KJV.  The second part is missing in NIV, CJB and some other versions and my concern is for this second part only now in this thread. Our discussion took the turn towards the first part (without connecting to the second part) which is not necessary at present here.

If you have anything to say about the second part, its importance and the like, you may please continue the discussion.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 24 Nov 2016 1:03:52 AM Close

Hi Kristian,

My point has always been that the ommission can happen because of the intepreation of different texts. How one relates to the first sentence and then connects to the second one. It seems that was missed. As I stated earlier, different intepretation have different renders for the verses. Some translation, the first portion was enough. Some other translation, the continuation is there or was needed. 

You cannot ignore the first part. Because if the second part is omitted, where has it been omitted from? There is contextual understanding of the first part of the sentence. So you have to ask yourself the question. Does it have so much relevance? Since whoever are IN Christ or have UNION in Christ or any other way you put it, will/should WALK in the spirit. It is understood. Thats not an assumption but a fact of being a Christian and a believer.

Yes, it would have been better if the second part was there. But then again. he who is guided by the spirit knows, inteprets and meditates on the deeper things of God.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 24 Nov 2016 10:09:08 AM Close

You have written that I cannot ignore the first part. I did not say that we have to ignore the first part and there is no second opinion for me about what it says. My concern is, the second part should not have been ignored. If Paul has written this verse with two parts (and I believe this verse in his writing comprises of two parts), in what authority the persons or the institutions copying the original manuscript have taken out the second part? Is this taking away from the words of God not a sin (Re: 22:19)?

You have stated that your point has always been that the omission can happen because of the interpretation of different texts. Copying the original text is not a work of interpretation, but a work of copying exactly as in the original text. Trust in God, America says that those who translate ought to translate, not mistranslate, omit, add to, rewrite, paraphrase, and offer personal commentary. By reading your statement, I see that the omission of the second part is not a serious issue for you. The translators of the Bible from Greek would do translating only after a thorough research of available Greek texts. Seemingly modern time translators have preferred the Critical Text over the Traditional Text for some reasons of their own. This is where, I look that Satan plays the game.     

You have rightly said that since whoever are IN Christ or have UNION in Christ or any other way I put it, will/should WALK in the spirit, it is understood. The consequences for not walking in the spirit also have been narrated throughout the chapter. The fact being so, the very existence of the second part is compelling. Compromising with Satan’s trick is dangerous.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 26 Nov 2016 1:17:16 AM Close

Hello Kristian

  1. The people who have put in efforts to translate and intepret the verses using critical text, NU etc. have all done based on some form of judgement. This is true for KJV as well. How can one be sure that the verses that are translated are exactly what is written apart from the fact that the scholars says so? Unless of course, one goes into studyng and then substantiating it. Even then what is assurance people believe you on it? None, you have to have faith and trust in God 
  2. We can see many sites like this saying that the NIV or any other translation are not the right word of God. My question here is, is it really that bad? Since I do not see the NIV Bible teaching about worshiping of Satan or substantiating any of the sins as righteousness. I referred to my old NIV bible today. The one I had been gifted in 1986 to read the word of God because it was easier to understand. Interestingly, all the verses that people keeping frothing about gone missing, are there as foot notes. Case in point and explanation: http://www.mikeleake.net/2015/07/on-those-missing-verses-in-your-esv-and-niv-bible.html
  3.  Everything is serious. But being judgemental about the people who translate the word of God is equally serious. Now for example the KJV has a preface which praises the King for his dedication to having the Word of God interpreted correctly. The truth was that he wanted the Bible out for political reasons rather than spiritual. Now you decide, do you really want to go there with the argument of reading the word of God that came out for political reasons?

The point at the end I always made is that there is a need for meditation and we have the spirit of God in us for discernment which is the right word of God.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : quazi   View Profile   Since : 5 Dec 2016 6:54:25 PM Close

So which manuscript copy is correct and represents the original writing? What I understand from the posts is that, kjv and niv translated from different manuscript copies. For me both convey the same meaning , but kjv has additional emphasis to reinforce the initial part.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 8 Dec 2016 7:02:20 AM Close

Dear Quazi,

In the absence of original writing, a believer needs to choose only one Greek text of NT to follow as equivalent to the original writing.  For this, I look into the context of the subjects dealt. For instance, in this case of Roman 8, if we closely read verses 4 to 9, 12 and 13 and understand what has been said, we can realize how the KJV version of Roman 8:1 is worth in its full form. This KJV is the derivative of Traditional Text of Greek NT and it is my strong conviction that Traditional Text is in line with the original writing. The second part of the verse 1 in KJV cannot be just an additional emphasis as you mentioned, because no one has the authority to add their own words to ‘support’ God’s words. God’s words are self supportive. For me, the second part of the verse in KJV is not an additional (added) emphasis, but an integral part of the verse.

As read in the ‘gotquestions.org’, it was in 1881, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, the two persons printed the first Critical Text dismissing the Traditional Text as an inferior one. ‘gotquestions.org’ supports Critical Text, but I do not. It is said that most of the modern time translations are made based on the Critical Text and this Critical Text itself underwent several revisions.  

Please go through Roman 8:10 as given below and find out whether the two versions share the same meaning or give different meanings.

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness – Roman 8:10 (KJV)

But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness – Roman 8:10 (NIV)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top