The Pastor\’s Pen

An Independent Baptist Preacher\’s Musings and Observations

Take the N.I.V. Quiz

Posted by Pastor Szekely on August 15, 2008

To take the NIV quiz, just answer the following questions from the New International Version (NIV) Bible. If you’d like to use the NIV online, please click on the NIV picture and change the “search” version to “NIV“.

Oh yes…one other thing – the answers to these questions MUST BE TAKEN FROM the actual verses of this translation AND NOT from any footnotes. After completing the quiz, let us know how you did!

1) Matthew 5:44 [fill in the blanks]: “Love your enemies, _______________ them that curse you, ____________  ___________ that hate you, and pray for them that _____________  ______________  ____________ and persecute you.”

2) In Matthew 17:21 what 2 THINGS did Jesus say were required to cast out the devil that was vexing a man’s son?

3) According to Matthew 18:11, what was the very important reason WHY Jesus came to earth?

4) In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted the Lord’s garments at the cross, they were actually fulfilling prophecy…from this verse, write down what was that prophecy.

5) In Luke 22:14, how many Apostles were with the Lord Jesus?

6) According to Acts 8:37, was is THE REQUIREMENT for baptism?

7) What did Saul [soon to be, Paul] ask his Lord Jesus Christ in Acts 9:6?

8] 1 Timothy 3:16 is perhaps THE GREATEST VERSE in the New Testament concerning the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ…in this verse, WHO was manifested in the flesh?

9) 1 John 5:7 speaks to the Three Persons in the tri-unity of God…from this verse, who are these Three?

10) Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the Deity of Christ. In this verse, Jesus says, “I am the A________ and O__________, the ____________ and the ___________. Fill in the blanks from the NIV.

→This brief quiz is intended to point out that there are differences in translations of the Bible. All these questions can be answered with the Authorized Version, or King James Version [KJV] Bible.

→My question is [and yours ought to be]: WHY? Why are there differences in the translations…major differences, and not just differences in spelling, grammer, etc, as it’s been touted?

→Did God say it or didn’t God say it? Did God speak His Word specifically, or did He give a general thought that would be left up for us to figure out what He was meaning? For example: When a parent tells his child, “Take out the trash and clean your room“, that parent means, “Take out the trash and clean your room“. It does not mean “take out the trash” only or “clean your room” only. The child may only “take out the trash“, but that’s not everything his parent told him to do.

WHAT SAY YOU? WHY DOES THE NIV AND THE AV [or, KJV] CONTAIN DIFFERENCES IF IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE THE VERY WORDS OF GOD? …hhhmmmm…

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Take the N.I.V. Quiz”

  1. Great quiz. People need to realize that these other versions are nothing more than Satan’s perversions of God’s masterpiece. Keep up the great work.

  2. AMEN, my brother!!!

    Thank you for your comments ~ Lord bless!

  3. Kate said

    This is an awesome quiz 🙂

  4. Thank you, Kate!!!

    Lord bless!

  5. Michael said

    I’m not necessarily a fan of the NIV but have you ever learned a foreign language? If you had and knew the process of translation it would make all the difference. I believe you are confusing the “Inspiration” of the original writers with the “Translation” work of later years.

    If your belief is for KJV only then tell me if you have an origianl 1611 version which is very hard to read or do you have the updated version of today’s KJV that everyone walks around with?…and I’m not talking about the New King James Version. Does your KJV contain the apocrapha (books which are only found in the Catholic bible that protestants consider not inspired). The original 1611 KJV contained these.

    If you do have an original KJV then read the preface. The translators spoke of laboring in their translation to find the right words. Is that inspiration? They also wrote of the benefit of reading and studying other translations. The translation team that wrote the King James version in the 17th century wrote this!

    I like the KJV and use it at times in my study and preaching but my problem isn’t with it as much as it is with the passing on of ignorance as education. I am a Baptist preacher too brother. You are harming the Kingdom work with this stance on KJV only. Use it, preach from it but don’t speak of what you do not know.

    God bless.

  6. Michael said

    Me again. I’ve been looking through your postings after I left my note above. I don’t necessarily agree with all your thoughts but I heartily AMEN your passion for God and His unwavering truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes the world. I’ll drop by again. Some very good stuff. Preach the word brother. May God bless every work of your hands that brings Him glory.

  7. Great to hear from you, Michael…and thank you for clicking in!

    Let me try to respond to your above comments…

    I have learned French. I can’t speak it too fluently, partly because no one else around me speaks it [I guess]. It’s one of those, “If you don’t use it, you’ll lose it” things [I guess].

    Michael, check this out. In English we would say this phrase: “Do you speak French?”, but in French its, “Parlez vous Francias?”, or “Speak you French?”. See the difference in the translation? DO you speak French vs. SPEAK you French – If we were to follow what the English translators did with the Authorized Version, the “DO” would be in italics and the noun and verb would be swapped around.

    I’m not confusing inspiration vs. translation at all. The NIV has been translated from a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT. Surely you know and must admit to that.

    Also, I do not believe the KJV translators were inspired; I believe they translated the Inspired Word of God into English and the very Words of God have been preserved for the English-speaking people in the Authorized Version.

    Think about this: IF a translation team as godly as the translators of the Authorized Version were to translate a Bible expressly from the Masoretic Text [O.T.] and the Textus Receptus [N.T.], I’d definitely be interested in it.

    AND: I DO NOT believe the Authorized Version can be used as a tool for translation into another language. I think there are some out there that believe this, but I don’t. I have to say that to get the Bible in a different language, that Bible would have to be translated from the Masoretic and Textus Receptus texts.

    Let me ask you this, Michael – you said I’m “harming the Kingdom work with this stance on KJV only”…how’s that? First, you may be grouping me in with those who think the KJV CORRECTS the Greek and Hebrew. This I DO NOT believe. I do believe the KJV is God’s preserved, inspired Word for the English-speaking people. How can THAT be harming the Kingdom? What version do you memorize? What version do you have the people you pastor memorize? Why? Why can’t they memorize any version? Is this just your preference, or are you held to a conviction on the Bible you use, study, and preach from?

    You also said, “Use it, preach from it but don’t speak of what you do not know.” What do you know about the various translations? As an ensample to the flock, what do you tell them about WHY different versions [translations] say different things and are missing different words? What do you tell someone who asks you why the Ethiopian Eunich’s testimony wasn’t included in Acts 8?

    I know these are a lot of questions, Michael, but please think on them. I’d love to see you be held to one Bible and take a stand for that Bible. I hope you don’t believe in Dynamic Equivalence but hold to the Verbal and Formal Equivalence techniques of text translation.

    Lord bless you, and thank you for having this dialogue with me!

  8. Michael said

    Mike (what a fine name that points to obvious high character… 🙂 )

    First, let me share my delight in your thoughtful dialogue. I hope this does not come across as a generalization but only an observation of a small selection… the three “King James Only” folks I have met and talked to face to face were very hostile, ill-informed, and unwilling to even discuss anything but their own view. They tended to question my salvation, my inclination to Satan’s work, and my usefulness to God in His work. I am already blessed to be able to discuss with a brother such as yourself.

    I will try and answer your questions though I have taken note that you did not take the time to answer any of mine. How do you deal with the apocrypha being part of the “inspired” text? How do you deal with the updates done between the original 1611 version and what you use now? How do you explain the translators comments in their intro to such as laboring with the text vs inspiration not to mention that they even give some credit to translations of men that preceded their work? How do you explain the translators comments in the intro regarding the beneficial nature of using other translations?

    Concerning translation…a Greek professor could do this better than me. As you said “if you don’t use it…”. Well, I am using it but not like in seminary and it has faded some. There are probably better examples but let’s look at doxa. This same word is translated in the King James three different ways within just a few verses. In John 8:50 it is “glory”. In John 8:54 it is “honour”. In John 9:24 it is “praise”. It is the same word! It has to do with context and trying to get across the meaning intended. In some places all translations agree unanimously. In others, though it does not change the gospel message, they may disagree about shades or nuances and thus give us a different word much like the KJV does within itself. Different words doth not a Satanic work necessarily make.

    Yes, I realize there are different manuscripts relied upon to varying degrees. I’m guessing that a discussion in increased reliability the closer you get to the original is not a path we want to tread down. Therefore I want go there right now.

    Concerning myself…as a young boy my family was not focused on God. I was taken to church on Sunday mornings for a while as a child but that was the end of our faith. At that time, I had a KJV and memorized for Sunday school in such. As God began to move in my heart in late high school / early college I bought myself an NIV as I was struggling with the old English of the KJV. It was this NIV that I spent my time in for several years after my salvation at 19. A few years later as I was feeling a call to full time ministry I purchased an NASB and used it primarily though I would refer to other translations for those “shades” and “nuances” I mentioned before…kind of a poor man’s commentary. I studied and preached from the NASB for 3 years in volunteer ministries. I preferred the NASB and probably would have stayed with it for preaching and such but my pastor purchased a nice NKJV for me and I have used it since. I still at times refer to other translations to give clarity to a word or phrase. What do I have God’s Word memorized in?…some KJV, some NIV, some NASB, some NKJV, very very little in Greek. I don’t feel less of a Christian, less empowered, less knowledgeable of the truth, or the like due to this.

    It is true that in recent years past I would aim new adult believers with no church background and some young children towards the NIV as a first Bible. I do NOT believe this hinders them from finding God but it was done to remove any possible obstacle to spending time in His Word. The NIV is written on about a 6th grade level. Vocabulary but mostly grammar structure of translations like the KJV and NASB are more on the 11th and 12th grade level which can be a stumbling block to some. A few years ago after an encounter with an aggressive KJV only person I sat down and did a lot of study and research. I am growing more and more uncomfortable with the NIV’s deletion of certain verses or phrases though I do NOT believe that it changes the gospel message of the Bible. In the NIV, Jesus is still God and still the only way to reconciliation and forgiveness. Someone can still come to Christ using such but I do not believe that it is good stewardship of His Word that has been preserved through the ages. The NIV is no longer where I point them to.

    I have NO problem with you preferring and defending the superiority of the King James Version. My problem comes with thinking that the other translations keep folks from God. Not all other English translations are works of Satan to pull us away from Him. I personally think Satan hates the NIV as much as the KJV as both glorify Christ. I’m worried that some issues, even important ones such as this, can become so overemphasized that the debates can be used of Satan to get the Body of Christ to attack itself and expend more energy and time in bickering and less in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to a world that is sick, hurting, dying, and hell-bound!

    I have more to say but I wonder if this is already not too much to be uploaded to your site. I look forward to your response and to your answering my questions. Have a blessed day brother.

    Michael (there’s that name again…though this time it is identifying at a man of much lower prominence and talents… 🙂 )

  9. G’day Michael!

    “I will try and answer your questions though I have taken note that you did not take the time to answer any of mine.”

    You are right, and I apologize – how rude of me. Let me get to them…

    #1: “How do you deal with the apocrypha being part of the ‘inspired’ text?”

    Here’s the way I deal with that: During the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholics pronounced the apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with “unwritten tradition” are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God.

    I believe many of the early English versions contained the apocrypha for 2 basic reasons: 1) there was a general acceptance of the apocrypha during the Dark Ages, and 2) there was a case made to include those books so that a “Scriptural analysis” could be done against them to show them false.

    For example:

    –Tyndale’s Bible (in 1525) places them by themselves as “uninspired.”
    –Coverdale’s Bible (in 1535) does likewise, and with the following title: “Apocrypha: The books and treatises which among the Fathers of old are not reckoned to be of authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are found in the Canon of the Hebrews.”
    –Matthew’s Bible (in 1537) and Taverner’s Bible (in 1539) place the Apocrypha between the Testaments.
    –The Authorized King James Version (in 1611), like the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible [1568] before it, places them in an appendix.

    The apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629, and by 1827, it was excluded permanently.

    Now obviously, I didn’t type this from memory 🙂 I wanted to give you some of my notes on how I developed my way of thought. I DO NOT believe the apocrypha should be included in the Canon for various reasons [I can give them to you, but that’s going to take up more space – I will though if you’d like], and I believe they were uninspired books compiled with the Inspired Word because through the Dark Ages there was a general acceptance of them [catholics] AND because they were given for a critical analysis by the Scriptures [protestants].

    #2: “How do you deal with the updates done between the original 1611 version and what you use now?”

    Well, the “updates” that I’ve seen and studied were spelling changes and errors made from the printers of the Bible. To my knowledge, there were no changes or updates to the text from 1611 to 1769. Can you point those out to me?

    #3: “How do you explain the translators’ comments in their intro to such as laboring with the text vs. inspiration not to mention that they even give some credit to translations of men that preceded their work?”

    You know the old saying, “Give credit where credit’s due”…there were good and accurate translations before the work on the Authorized Version…For example: the Coverdale Bible (English), the Valera Bible (Spanish), and Tyndale’s Bible (English). I’m pretty sure these were considered “good and accurate” and they preceded the Authorized Version, so I can agree that the translators gave credit where credit was due.

    As far as their comments on “laboring with the text vs. inspiration”, that’s never really struck me or lead me to further study on it. Off the cuff my first thoughts are they wrestled with words like baptizo. Of course, the translators transliterated that Greek word to “baptize”…why? Because it means “to dip; to plunge; to immerse”…even though that was a problem to a bunch of Anglicans, they still stayed true to the text and not their own beliefs.

    #4: “How do you explain the translators’ comments in the intro regarding the beneficial nature of using other translations?”

    I would have to refer you back to my answer to “giving credit where credit’s due”. I believe they did benefit by comparing what was previously translated from the “original languages” to English. Is there anything wrong with that?

    Now…on to other things…

    You said, “They tended to question my salvation, my inclination to Satan’s work, and my usefulness to God in His work.”

    I know you know this, but Michael, you know I’m not saying these things. I’m in this with you to try and be a blessing to you. Yes, I’m letting you know “where I stand”, but it is good that you know where you stand, and if you’re unsure where you stand, I pray to be a help to you.

    I liked reading your testimony – thank you for giving it. I noticed after the KJV you moved to the NIV and then to the NASB. You said, “I preferred the NASB and probably would have stayed with it for preaching and such but my pastor purchased a nice NKJV for me and I have used it since.” So…do you see each translation as saying even some “small things” differently? Aren’t there differences between the NIV, NASB, and the NKJV? I know there are, but have you found them? Logically, there has to be, or why else would these be published? Are you okay with that. I know that’s a question, but I didn’t put on a question mark because I’m not trying to be glib or mean – I pray before you answer, you’d really think about it.

    Finally Michael, I am not here to bicker. You know where I’m coming from – I believe God gave us His very Word (inspired); and He made sure we had His very Words in our language (preserved); and I am held to God telling us His Words in one way and not in various ways through different English translations. I don’t believe my KJV corrects the texts from which it came, but I can confidently stand and say that It is the Word of God for the English-speaking people…in one translation, and not a few or many English translations.

    So there you have it – thanks for enduring through all of this…and BTW: Great first name!!!

    Lord bless!

  10. I am growing more and more uncomfortable with the NIV’s deletion of certain verses or phrases though I do NOT believe that it changes the gospel message of the Bible. In the NIV, Jesus is still God and still the only way to reconciliation and forgiveness.

    Michael, since when is the Gospel the only thing true believers are to contend for? Jude teaches us to contend for the faith – that is the body of doctrines the apostles gave to the NT churches. It contains more than just the Gospel (ie. how to be saved). If a Bible does not contain all the Word of God, how can believers live by every word of God? (See Matthew 4:4) They cannot. That means that those believers with watered-down or compromised Bibles will have a watered-down Christianity; therefore will not please the Lord (See Romans 10:17 and Hebrews 11:6) inasmuch as their faith falls short (and faith is based on the Word of God – twisted/deleted/added Scripture will create a faulty faith in the extent that it is changed).

    No one is saying the modern versions don’t contain the Gospel in them somewhere – but there are two things to consider here:

    1) How much change will be tolerated before something is considered no longer to be a Bible? Given enough continual change, and eventually there WILL be “Bibles” that contain none of the Gospel. As a matter of fact, I think there are some out there already – they would fall under the label paraphrases (though still marketed as Bibles) and slang versions. I cannot remember all the names, but I think one is called the Ebonics Bible (something like that). There is also New World Translation of the Jehovah’s (false) Witnesses – which is translated from the same manuscripts as the mv’s, and some mv’s even contain changes reflective of the NWT – such as John 1:18, where Jesus is referred to as the “only begotten GOD.”

    2) Adding and subtracting and changing enough of the text of the Bible makes the Gospel – which is clear in the original texts and in the KJV – unclear. For example, in the KJV, the necessity of blood being shed for our sins is a major doctrine – in many mv’s it not so. Keep changing and taking away phrases and verses, and eventually certain Bible concepts might be taken out altogether. When will you (and other mv proponents) cry out against this? Or is the change so gradual that the average professing Christian will never even notice that the message of salvation their version preaches is no longer the Gospel God gave. The NKJV already changes enough passages to make salvation a process (ie. “being saved,, “perishing,” etc.).

  11. Nate Youngblood said

    Hello,

    I do not think that there are logical grounds for arguing that KJV is the only good translation or even should be used exclusively. The NIV was translated by a highly esteemed group of scholars (my grandfather being one of them) that were better educated and had better knowledge of recent archeological finds then any of the KJV scholars. The KJV used much newer manuscripts that contained errors and additions not in the original texts. The Dead Sea scrolls were an invaluable find that helped us get even closer to the original manuscripts. To say that a bible written in the 1600’s old English, funded by an evil king, and using erroneous manuscripts is a better, more accurate translation than the NIV is simply illogical. It sounds like it’s time for an upgrade. 🙂

  12. Jacquelyn said

    It is perfect time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to bbe happy.
    I’ve read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things orr suggestions.
    Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this
    article. I want to read even more things about it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: