KJV and NIV continued

I was not planning to respond to Physics Geek's criticism of my position on the issue of Bible translations However, I have decided to respond now for two reasons. One, I have thought things through a little more. And secondly, I have found more things in the NIV that I have serious issue with.

First though, My response to Geek's criticism.
First of all, I recognize that the King James Version of the Scriptures is a translation. What sets the King James apart from previous English translations is that it went back to the Original Greek and Hebrew texts, while the Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the Original Greek and Hebrew.
I also have never said that God cannot use the NIV or any other translation, because clearly He can, because He is sovereign.
HOWEVER, I firmly believe that the KJV is stronger on matters of theological doctrinal significance, as I outlined in my previous post on this issue.

Mr Geek did point out one Scripture where the KJV seems to obscure Paul's meaning- Galatians 5:12. However, It would seem to me that the doctrine of the Trinity or the issue which I will discuss momentarily are more theologically, doctrinally significant than whether or not Paul was calling for the castration of those who were preaching that one must be circumcised in order to be saved. Notice that Paul does not say that this was God's wish. Instead he says that it was His wish because he was frustrated that some in the Galatian church were listening to them instead of to the right doctrines that Paul was preaching.

Ok onto more of my beef with the NIV

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has this to say regarding the issue of divorce and remarriage
In the KJV, Jesus says this:
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The NIV says it this way
Matthew 5:31 It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.
5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

The difference? "saving for the cause of fornication", vs "except for marital unfaithfulness"
Now this is extremly significant, and I'm going to get to why in a minute, so bear with me. Before we get into why this is extremely important, lets take a look at the Greek word for "Fornication" and its definition
The definitions are from the Strong's concordance
FORNICATION
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

I looked up G4203
G4203
πορνεύω
porneuō
porn-yoo'-o
From G4204; to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry: - commit (fornication).

From these two defintions we see that the Greek word pornia and its related words do not simply deal with adultery, but indeed with all forms of immoral sexual acts, including, incest, adultery, homosexuality, and fornication.

Fornication's basic defintion is sex between two people who are not married to each other. While adultery is a form of fornication, not all fornication is adultery.

Now why is all of this significant?

Because the NIV gives people an excuse for divorce and remarriage, which the Bible calls adultery. People can use this Scripture, with the caveat "marital infidelity", to say that God allows divorce and remarriage, which is not true. Jesus says in multiple passages in the Gospels (Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18) that remarriage after a divorce while the divorced spouse is still alive is adultery against that spouse.

In Mark 1, and Luke 16, there is no caveat regarding fornication, but in both Mattew 5 and Matthew 19, there is this caveat regarding fornication. Why is this caveat there?

Matthew was the Gospel written for a primarily Jewish audience. This is why the Gospel Matthew begins by tracing Jesus' lineage back to King David, and back to Abraham. It is also why Matthew says "This happened to fulfill Scripture" at least 14 times in his Gospel. He is trying to convince the Jews that Jesus is their Messiah.

In Jewish law regarding marriage, the engagment was a very serious thing. One could not break off the engagement, unless there was evidence of fornication (ie, pregancy. This is why Joseph was going to end the engagement with Mary before God spoke to him). The Jewish Law considered the breaking of the engagement to be divorce even though the engaged couple was not yet married. This is why Jesus says to His Jewish audience that premarital fornication, not adultery or "marital infidelity" was a valid reason for divorce.

People have used the this caveat found in Matthew 5 and Mathew 19 to justify sin, and the NIV makes it a whole lot easier with its word choice of "marital infidelity" or "marital unfaithfulness" instead of fornication

The translators of the NIV show a lack of understanding regarding Jewish law and custom that I find disturbing. They should have known the difference between fornication and adultery.