The NIV challenge

[Mellontes]

NIV Quiz

Instructions: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.
Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes, but from the text).

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, __________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________
7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
18. An important verse concerning Jesus as Lord, what did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
22. How does Colossians 1:14 refer to the redeeming power of Christ’s shed blood?
23. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
24. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
25. The three Persons of the Trinity according to First John 5:7 are?
26. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

[mattrose]

1. The Bible is the final authority? I thought all authority had been given to Jesus?
2. Why would we ignore footnotes when they give extra information?
3. Is the maker of this list dedicated to God's word, or the words of a particular translator or team?
4. Isn't there a good case to be made for following older manuscripts?
5. Aren't verse numbers much later additions? And if so, why get upset when there are verse number issues?
6. Shouldn't we be more interested in what the passage actually (originally) said than whether the verse can be of good use in defending a specific doctrine?

[steve]

Good points, Matt.

Clearly the post is driven by "King James Only" convictions. Much as I do not care for the NIV, the objections here, for the most part, have to do with differences between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text—thus, not the NIV, per se, but all modern translations (because they all use the Alexandrian Text).

King James Only types take it as a starting assumption that the Textus Receptus is the authoritative standard and that any translation depending upon older manuscripts is part of some kind of conspiracy against the truth. Unfortunately, there is so much superstition in these assumptions as to discredit their whole argument. In my opinion, the Textus Receptus may have a good claim to being superior to the Alexandrian Text, in some passages, but these KJV-Only types discredit the whole inquiry by their unfounded assumptions.

[Mellontes]

Good points, Matt.

Clearly the post is driven by "King James Only" convictions. Much as I do not care for the NIV, the objections here, for the most part, have to do with differences between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text—thus, not the NIV, per se, but all modern translations (because they all use the Alexandrian Text).

King James Only types take it as a starting assumption that the Textus Receptus is the authoritative standard and that any translation depending upon older manuscripts is part of some kind of conspiracy against the truth. Unfortunately, there is so much superstition in these assumptions as to discredit their whole argument. In my opinion, the Textus Receptus may have a good claim to being superior to the Alexandrian Text, in some passages, but these KJV-Only types discredit the whole inquiry by their unfounded assumptions.

I am not at all sure as to the position of the one who invented this quiz, but I hardly think it fair for you to say "KJV only types" as if you knew for sure. There are some very strong points mentioned in this quiz that the NIV tends to completely ignore. No translation is inspired. All have their "certain" difficulties - some more than others...You might want to check out the "bloodlessness" of the NIV to other translations. It is quite revealing.

And just for the record, I am opposed the KJV onlyites out there...

[mattrose]

I don't know, to me the quiz seems to take the KJV as the standard and then point out differences in the NIV as if they are necessarily problems. But such, of course, does not follow.

I know Steve isn't a huge fan of the NIV, but I think it has more to do with how it DOES sometimes translate than what it chooses NOT to include. By and large, the NIV excludes some phrases b/c the best evidence suggests they weren't original.

[steve]

You might want to check out the "bloodlessness" of the NIV to other translations.

I assume that this means a tendency to omit references to the redemptive merits of the blood of Christ (some translations have been known to replace the word "blood," in a few passages, with the word "death").

Since the invitation was made, I conducted a rapid survey of the occurrence of the word "blood" in connection with the atonement in the New International Version. I found the following:

Act 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Rom 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-

Rom 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace

Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Hbr 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hbr 13:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

1Pe 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

This does not appear to exhibit a squeamishness about mentioning the blood of Christ. I looked in the King James Version and found, I think, one additional reference (I might have missed a verse somewhere). It was in Colossians 1:14, where the Textus Receptus includes the reference to blood and the Alexandrian text does not. Just from this brief survey, I don't think the data justifies the term "bloodlessness" as a feature of the NIV.

[selah]

1. The Bible is the final authority? I thought all authority had been given to Jesus?
2. Why would we ignore footnotes when they give extra information?
3. Is the maker of this list dedicated to God's word, or the words of a particular translator or team?
4. Isn't there a good case to be made for following older manuscripts?
5. Aren't verse numbers much later additions? And if so, why get upset when there are verse number issues?
6. Shouldn't we be more interested in what the passage actually (originally) said than whether the verse can be of good use in defending a specific doctrine?

Numbers 1, 4, 5 and 6 seem to be good general markers to keep one on track while researching the scriptures. Thanks!

[AaronBDisney]

I have no desire to do so, but, if I were going to attack the NIV, I would do so based on its interpreting, rather than translating the words of its original.

I do like the two versions that use the Textus Receptus. I've always been pretty much and anti-KJV only guy that reads only the KJV - but I have no qualms at all with those that choose otherwise. But the fact that the NIV translators (for lack of a better word) looked at an entire statement, translated it in their minds, reworded it in English, and copyrighted it does kind of bother me.

If I'm correct, I believe the NASB is a word for word translation of the Alexandrian. If I trusted more to the Alexandrian text, I'd personally be a fan of that version most likely.

[Jill]

.

[jaimassee]

As an lds, I do not own an NIV nor a NKJV Bible. I am sort of bound to the KJV Bible as It is both used at church, and is the version I had as a kid. Portions of the KJV Bible may also be found in the book of mormon, as you may already know. Other translations of The Bible begin to sound confusing to me and at times even disruptive. I would hope however that this would not get in the way of my being able to continue study with other Christians rather than with Mormon's only. And since an LDS Bible study is not in LDS tradition, I may indeed know nothing of the Christian religion outside of my own reading. Now is the NIV Bible to be the standard Christian translation?

I believe the NIV has now surpassed the KJV as the most used Bible in protestantism. How come you don't use the JST? I've attended a handful of mormon meetings (an LDS seminary class at Arizona State being the most recent) and often wondered why they preferred the KJV to the JST.