Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    564

    The NIV Challenge

    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 _______:"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1959 View Post
    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 Christís 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 _______:"
    Oh now you're making me wish to find an NIV! I use KJV.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,804
    Hi TruthSeeker,

    You bring up a very important question - How are we supposed to understand the textual variations in the original Greek text of the Bible? Since we don't have the original autographs of Scripture, how do we establish which ancient texts are correct, and which have errors?

    Some folks have suggested that the KJV is the "final authority" but that doesn't make sense to me because the KJV is an English translation, and the question is about the original Greek manuscripts. But still, I do believe that there are many things that indicate God had His hand on the KJV in a special and important way.

    But as for the NIV - it is one of the worst translations of God's Word that I have seen. Indeed, it's not really a "translation" at all because they added ideas to the text that are not in the original. For example, they often translate the Greek word sarx (flesh) as "sin nature" which is absurd in the extreme. The Bible says nothing about a "sin nature." That concept is entirely foreign to the text.

    I'm glad you brought this up. It should be a fruitful discussion.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hi TruthSeeker,

    You bring up a very important question - How are we supposed to unde
    But as for the NIV - it is one of the worst translations of God's Word that I have seen. Indeed, it's not really a "translation" at all because they added ideas to the text that are not in the original. For example, they often translate the Greek word sarx (flesh) as "sin nature" which is absurd in the extreme. The Bible says nothing about a "sin nature." That concept is entirely foreign to the text.

    I'm glad you brought this up. It should be a fruitful discussion.

    Richard
    My personal pet peeve with the NIV is the translation of Pleroma in Roman 11:25 as 'full number" in support of the dispy theology. It's an open and blatant misrepresentation of the intent of the passage. Pleroma is used only a few verses earlier as 'fullness' or filling. In vs 25, It's talking of the filling of Grace, truth and love of God and the Spirit to individuals in the nations of international Roman empire so that the prophecy of God making individuals still within national Israel jealous unto faith that was prophecied in Deut 32:20. Part of the yet elect of national Israel would come to faith though the mercy shown to them by those belivers in the nations. And he was probably primarily referring to prior to the desolation, but is applicable still, though the national covenant ended.
    God had not cast off those of national Israel.... even though some may be enemies of the gospel, some were yet elect to recieve God's Mercy through the mercy shown them.... even as Paul was once an enemy of the Gospel.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,804
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    My personal pet peeve with the NIV is the translation of Pleroma in Roman 11:25 as 'full number" in support of the dispy theology. It's an open and blatant misrepresentation of the intent of the passage. Pleroma is used only a few verses earlier as 'fullness' or filling. In vs 25, It's talking of the filling of Grace, truth and love of God and the Spirit to individuals in the nations of international Roman empire so that the prophecy of God making individuals still within national Israel jealous unto faith that was prophecied in Deut 32:20. Part of the yet elect of national Israel would come to faith though the mercy shown to them by those belivers in the nations. And he was probably primarily referring to prior to the desolation, but is applicable still, though the national covenant ended.
    God had not cast off those of national Israel.... even though some may be enemies of the gospel, some were yet elect to recieve God's Mercy through the mercy shown them.... even as Paul was once an enemy of the Gospel.
    I'm unsure if that is a poor translation or not. I checked Thayer's and he reviews the full spectrum of meanings of pleroma and he lists its use in Romans 11:25 as a special case where it means "full number." The meaning you suggest has a lot of merit, but I'm not certain it really fits with the context in this case.

    My pet peeve with NIV is their introduction of a concept entirely foreign to the Bible, namely, sin nature. Believe it or not, that's how they often translated the word sarx which means flesh. On this count alone, the NIV is exposed as an abominable translation which is good for little more than lining bird cages or starting fires.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I'm unsure if that is a poor translation or not. I checked Thayer's and he reviews the full spectrum of meanings of pleroma and he lists its use in Romans 11:25 as a special case where it means "full number." The meaning you suggest has a lot of merit, but I'm not certain it really fits with the context in this case.

    Richard
    One of the dangers of Lexicons and dictionaries is that IF they define a word by their own personal interpretation of it's biblical usage or the consensus interpretation of it's biblical usage, it then becomes an acceptable definition of the word. Its a cyclical error which becomes embedded in future lexicons. Joe and I had touched on this a little a few months back.(or was it you). Thus can we really trust lexicons and dictionaries in every instance and circumstances if they are compiled by fallible, subjective men?.

    There would seem to be no reason to add "full number" as a 'special interpretation' other than to support the interpretation of it's use in this verse.

    My personal belief is that this interpretation is the 'only' interpretation that fits with the very context of the chapter and with the surrounding chapters especially since Paul includes (and almost focuses on) the 'jealousy factor' that would be used to irrevocably call some of the remaining elect from within the end generation of yet unbelieving national Israel. The 'jealousy factor' and the testimony of the filling of the Holy Spirit within the believing individuals from the nations was source by Paul from Deut 32 !!! and quoted in Rom 10:19.
    The summary verses of Rom 11:28-32 and it's emphasis of NOW, (in 60 AD and referring to after the filling of God has been coming into the nations. Of course this principle can and does continue even though 'national Israel' of the mosaic covenant and genealogical seed has ended. But the dispensational teaching that 'all "national" Israel will be saved' is a great hinderence.

    Question. When were sins removed from 'Israel"
    Question 2. What do you think/feel/believe would be a better meaning for this context; especially in view of the doctrinal precedents Paul set forth in the Previous chapters of Romans AND how he has defined "all Israel" to mean those of the covenant of Mercy, Grace, Election... including those of the nations receiving Mercy.
    Question 3. What does the word "so" mean in vs 26.
    Last edited by EndtimesDeut32/70AD; 02-04-2010 at 11:27 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hi TruthSeeker,

    You bring up a very important question - How are we supposed to understand the textual variations in the original Greek text of the Bible? Since we don't have the original autographs of Scripture, how do we establish which ancient texts are correct, and which have errors?


    Richard
    A couple of the reasons for many of the textual variants are because of an Aramaic word which have 2 or more known meanings, known as split-words. What this shows is one translator seeing the Aramaic word and choosing one meaning to translate it, while another looks at the same word and chooses the other meaning.

    Another reason is the dead sea scroll Aramaic script in particular has many words which often are very easy to mistake one word for another, where a translator into Greek saw an Aramaic word and mistook it for another one.

    This most certainly does not explain every single textual variant, but it does help with many dozens of them throughout the text.

    Ron

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,804
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    A couple of the reasons for many of the textual variants are because of an Aramaic word which have 2 or more known meanings, known as split-words. What this shows is one translator seeing the Aramaic word and choosing one meaning to translate it, while another looks at the same word and chooses the other meaning.

    Another reason is the dead sea scroll Aramaic script in particular has many words which often are very easy to mistake one word for another, where a translator into Greek saw an Aramaic word and mistook it for another one.

    This most certainly does not explain every single textual variant, but it does help with many dozens of them throughout the text.

    Ron
    That's an interesting approach, but that implies that the Greek text is just a translation and not the original. I know you have said you find this idea appealing, but it has the unintended consequence of implying that God has not given us His Word since the oldest manuscripts are all Greek. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. I'm familiar with the tradition that says Matthew's Gospel was originally Aramaic, and some say Hebrews too, but I know of no evidence to suggest that Paul letters were not originally Greek.

    So if our Greek NT is just a fallible translation, then we are bereft of a truly inspired NT.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    That's an interesting approach, but that implies that the Greek text is just a translation and not the original. I know you have said you find this idea appealing, but it has the unintended consequence of implying that God has not given us His Word since the oldest manuscripts are all Greek. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. I'm familiar with the tradition that says Matthew's Gospel was originally Aramaic, and some say Hebrews too, but I know of no evidence to suggest that Paul letters were not originally Greek.

    So if our Greek NT is just a fallible translation, then we are bereft of a truly inspired NT.
    Just know that the prior to the dead sea scrolls, the oldest old testament manuscripts were in Greek too, the oldest Hebrew manuscript being the Masoretic text, dated about 900 AD. Not having any originals, old or new testaments, is not grounds for dismissing evidence found which could indicate what language an original would have come from. Since there are no originals at all, we can look at archeological evidence, historical evidence, and comparing the Greek manuscripts with the Aramaic Peshitta to find logical reasons for many of the manuscript differences. God has given us his word, and we have it preserved, both in Aramaic copies as well as Greek copies, and now in virtually every language on earth. I believe the evidence points to Aramaic originals.

    Ron
    Last edited by gregoryfl; 02-04-2010 at 07:17 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •