Vaster,

I do not know where you get this concept relative to the points I am making. I agree with you on the method of inspiration. Of course it was the Bible authors who were inspired, and not the text itself. However, God has promised to preserve His Word, and says that not one jot nor one tittle will pass from the law till all be fulfilled. In Revelation we are told what happens to those who add or subtract "from the words of this book." That does not sound to me like God respects those who meddle with the words.

The fact remains that the real issues in translation are clouded by issues in source manuscripts used for said translations. If you want to study deeply, take a look at Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, from which the NIV is largely translated.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Simply because so many of your examples were so trivial that only if you were of the belief that God handed down the KJV English translation similar to how Muhammed is supposed to have got the Koran can they be at all relevant. That 2.4 cm equals 1 inch means that the same information is transmitted wichever one you use and you will only mourn the loss of the number 2.4 if you believe that there is something "written by divine hand in stone kind of holy" about that particular number rather than with the length that it points towards.

GC,

Bring out the big guns!

I'm still cleaning their barrels, and getting them loaded.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok, so this is still a "minor" issue with some, but it is nonetheless a rather intriguing study. This is rather incomplete, but touches on a few points of interest. A more thorough study could be done by looking at a broader range of words on this topic in order to include a greater number of texts.

As for the "big deal," it will come soon, but I am still compiling my sources for it.

So, for a look at "Nakedness and Sexuality" in the KJV and NIV, see the following post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:6, KJV)	“ ‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:6, NIV)
While one must necessarily uncover nakedness in order to have sexual relations, the reverse is not true. The NIV, here, has chosen to interpret the text's meaning for you, to the exclusion of other possibilities. NOTE: The word "nakedness" in the KJV in this and every other text in this post are translated from the same Hebrew word. Watch what the NIV does with this word in English at various times.
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (Leviticus 18:7, KJV)	“ ‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. (Leviticus 18:7, NIV)
Here the NIV introduces the concept of "dishonor" which was not present in the text. This is a simple command. It would be more than a mere "dishonor" to disobey it. As subsequent texts will show, it would be a crime worthy of death.
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. (Leviticus 18:8, KJV)	“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. (Leviticus 18:8, NIV)
Again, we see that the NIV is converting the term "uncover nakedness" to "sexual relations," effectively choosing our meaning for us. That this is narrowing the scope from what the Bible may have intended will be soon demonstrated. And, again, the NIV adds to the text. The concept of "dishonor" has been introduced, taking the place of the word "nakedness" in the original.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. (Leviticus 18:9, KJV)	“ ‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. (Leviticus 18:9, NIV)
It would seem that, according to the NIV translators, it is not a problem to see the nakedness of one's kin. Is this a "look but don't touch" policy? Look ahead to verse 17 of chapter 20 for more.
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:11, KJV)	“ ‘If a man sleeps with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:11, NIV)
Notice the agenda of the NIV in this verse and those following. It translates "lie with" in various ways, as "sleep with" in this case.
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:12, KJV)	“ ‘If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:12, NIV)
Again, the NIV affirms the stance that "lie with" equates to "sleep with."
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13, KJV)	“ ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13, NIV)
Now, in this highly controversial verse in our times, the NIV has reverted to the KJV form of "lie with." Why not "sleep with?" Why not "have sexual relations with" as in the next verse? Why the inconsistency here?
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. (Leviticus 20:15, KJV)	“ ‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. (Leviticus 20:15, NIV)
And now, as opposed to the previous verse, the NIV quickly changes the "lie with" to "have sexual relations with."
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. (Leviticus 20:17, KJV)	“ ‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible. (Leviticus 20:17, NIV)
Here the KJV and the NIV are in contrast. To see someone uncovered (i.e. naked) is a much broader concept than that of having "sexual relations." The NIV has chosen to apply the command to just a small portion of the original intent. "Look but don't touch" again! (See below)
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. (Genesis 9:22, KJV)	Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. (Genesis 9:22, NIV)
Here the NIV contradicts itself in cooperating with the KJV to translate the Hebrew word as "nakedness." In this case, the word is obviously not referring to "sexual relations," and therefore the NIV translators had no choice but to accept the broader definition.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. (Genesis 9:23, KJV)	But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. (Genesis 9:23, NIV)
As we see in the story, the brothers were careful not to even "see" their father's nakedness. This has nothing to do with "sexual relations," as the NIV also concurs in this case. Once again, this is the same Hebrew word as used in Leviticus.
Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? (1 Samuel 20:30, KJV)	Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? (1 Samuel 20:30, NIV)
The Hebrew word for nakedness becomes a euphemism for childbearing in the NIV in this case.
Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man. (Isaiah 47:3, KJV)	Your nakedness will be exposed and your shame uncovered. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one.”   (Isaiah 47:3, NIV)
And here, the words "uncovered" and "nakedness" are used together, which the NIV translators have interpreted to mean "have sexual relations" in most other passages. In this text, however, they choose another meaning for us, showing that even they recognize there is a broader scope to the phrase. So the question remains, why have they narrowed the scope with their translation in those other passages?
Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward. (Lamentations 1:8, KJV)	Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean. All who honored her despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she herself groans and turns away.   (Lamentations 1:8, NIV)
And here, again, the NIV has followed the KJV. This is all well and good, but why did they not accept this same meaning in Leviticus?
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. (Ezekiel 16:8, KJV)	” ‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. (Ezekiel 16:8, NIV)
This is an interesting one. In place of uncovering, we have covering. But what does it mean to be "old enough for love?" I might have expected the NIV to drift to another translation here.
In thee have they discovered their fathers' nakedness: in thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution. (Ezekiel 22:10, KJV)	In you are those who dishonor their fathers' bed; in you are those who violate women during their period, when they are ceremonially unclean. (Ezekiel 22:10, NIV)
The NIV again adds to the text. Two concepts here are not in the original: "dishonor" and "ceremonially unclean." Perhaps the NIV translators view this uncleanness as no longer applicable, but again, they have chosen our interpretation for us. Keep in mind that in the New Testament, at the cross, the ceremonial system is ended. However, Leviticus 18 contains a great deal of truth which we still follow today, including not marrying close relatives, not participating in bestiality or homosexuality, etc. Can we be blameless in ignoring the laws concerning a woman's period by calling them merely "ceremonial?" Was it "ceremonial" to follow these other sexual regulations too? This is laying the ground work for the modern "PC" movement towards legalizing homosexuality.
So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister. (Ezekiel 23:18, KJV)	When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. (Ezekiel 23:18, NIV)
Of all places where "discovered nakedness" or "exposed nakedness" might have been discussed in the Bible, it is interesting that the NIV has not chosen to translate this as "have sexual relations" as they did throughout Leviticus 18. Of course, the broader term here is more correct.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

To start, the first point regards the word transcribed as ['erwâ]. The biblical hebrew dictionary says:
nakedness, genitals, shame; euphemism for sexual intercourse (uncover the nakedness), curse formula (to the shame of your mother's nakedness), indecency (shameful thing).

It looks like the meaning is different when the word occurs alone compared to when it occurs in a set phrase, just as many words do in English or Swedish.

This seems to covers the bulk of your objections.

The placement of the comma also changes the meaning, therefore, this is also a concern, even in the KJV.

In other words, no version/translation is a perfect translation of the original, or close to original text.

Yet, my concern is not whether the version/manuscript is a "perfect translation" as there will always be variation, but when it is purposely changed as it is apperant in the Minority Text which Westcott-Hort used for their version and later became the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version amd others. It is a well know fact that Westcott-Hort gave great weight to two corrupted manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph)which was very bad.

The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes.

The Minority Texts were corrupted by Egyptian gnosticism with many changes. The gnostics were a group that did not believe:
"In the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins." so you can see where it would be problematic a translation to say the least.

Daryl,

Punctuation can make very many differences in shades of meaning. The following examples are simply classic! The only difference between the following two letters is punctuation and capitalization.



I'm still working on the really BIG issue with the NIV. It parallels the above example of change in meaning, but does so with far more "editing" than mere punctuation would allow.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.