What's Wrong With The NIV Bible ?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Lewis, Jan 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lewis

    Lewis Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    15,483
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Christian:
    Yes
    I was just reading this and thought that I would post it. I have been reading stuff about the NIV for years, but I have not talked about it in a while, you can read the whole article at the below link.
    Something's Missing!
    <table width="20%" align="right" border="0"> <tbody><tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"> [​IMG]</td> </tr> </tbody></table> ​
    So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were eviscerated (disemboweled) from the Bible by the NIV authors? Hundreds of words, phrases, and even entire Bible verses were removed from the Word of God by the NIV butchers. Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV either. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, et cetera. One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.”
    Yes, that's right, the NIV butchers removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of truth and justice could any professed Christian use the New International Version? Yet, it's the most popular bible version sold on the market today. If I had a billion dollars, I'd make an offer to churches all across America. I'd exchange brand new King James Bibles for their perverted NIVs. I'd give them new Bibles for their old corrupt bibles. They would first have to give me their NIVs so I could BURN THEM! I'd burn every NIV I could find.
    The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the King James Bible! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, i.e., so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If I am to live for God, then I need an “every Word” Bible. We have it thank God, in the inspired King James Bible! The Bible is truth!
    In sharp contrast, modern Bibles are corrupt and; therefore, produce corrupt teachings. Just the fact that the NIV translators completely removed the critically important Word, “GODHEAD” from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 is reason enough to run away from the NIV as fast as you can.
    That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. The word "sodomite" is completely gone, as is the words: fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit. I'm not kidding, go check for yourself! It's not surprising that the word “sodomite” is completely gone.
    Why Would Anyone Use the NIV?

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2011
  2. Free

    Free Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    AB, Canada
    :nono2 Why do you post something that is so utterly fallacious and divisive?

    Just a quick glance before I go to bed shows that the NIV has "Messiah" at John 1:41 and 4:25. Not to mention the many times it refers to Jesus as "Christ" or "the Christ," which means "Messiah." The "Holy Ghost" isn't removed, he's referred to as the "Holy Spirit" which is a superior rendering.
     
  3. Tailgunner

    Tailgunner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    England
    Christian:
    Yes
    Lewis, I agree with you about the NIV, but I'm not a KJV-onlyist. I think the KJV is an extremely good translation, but I don't think that version itself is "inspired" in that it's the only valid English translation. It's inspired because it's the Word of God, and was very carefully and prayerfully translated into English.

    Incidentally, what do you think of the Geneva Bible of 1560?

    TG
     
  4. Adstar

    Adstar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    762
    Location:
    Australia
    Christian:
    Yes
    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:biggrinoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->
    Is Jesus the Cornerstone or is Jesus the Capstone?​


    This is something even more serious i have found in the niv bible.


    The NKJV states that Jesus is the Cornerstone.

    Matthew 21:42
    Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘ The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.This was the LORD’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

    Mark 12:
    10 Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘ The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

    Acts 4:
    11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’

    1 Peter 2:
    6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “ Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.â€

    The NIV has changed this to turn Jesus into the Capstone:

    Matthew 21:
    42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes' ?

    Mark 12:
    10 Haven't you read this scripture: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ;

    Acts 4:
    11 He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. '

    But alas thanks be to the Ancient of Days the righter of the NIV where not thorough with their twisting of the scriptures and left the following true cornerstone reference in 1 Peter 2 so as to undermine their own deeds.

    1 Peter 2:6 NIV
    For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."


    So what’s the big deal you may ask between Jesus being the Cornerstone or the Capstone?

    If you take the time to search the internet using the terms "capstone" and "horus" you will see who the NIV is claiming Jesus is. I am sure there are more than a few occultists who reach for a NIV to reveal to new comers just who they think Jesus is.





    All Praise The Ancient Of Days
     
  5. Lewis

    Lewis Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    15,483
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Christian:
    Yes
    Because I should post what is out there, we should be able to discuss such things on this board, that is what we are here for.
     
  6. Free

    Free Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    AB, Canada
    This is not serious at all and is fallacious, just like the majority of KJVO arguments. A quick study will show that the NIV correctly follows the KJV in these passages.

    Two different Greek words/phrases are used, the one being used in Matt, Mark and Acts, and the other in 1 Pet 2. The first is translated in the KJV (and several other versions) as "head of the corner" and in the NIV as "capstone." It comes from two Greek words, kephale, meaning "head," "the head of," "supreme," "chief," and gonia, meaning "corner." Kephale is also used many other times in the NT including Eph 1:22, 4:15 and 5:23, in speaking of Christ being the head of the Church and the husband being the head of the wife. There is an "aboveness" in the meaning. Hence, "capstone" fits.

    The second word, akrogoniaios, is used only twice in the NT and is translated as "a chief corner stone" in the KJV and as "a chosen and precious cornerstone" in the NIV.

    It's amazing how a little actual study can go a long way, isn't it?
     
  7. Mike

    Mike Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    14,843
    Location:
    Michigan, U.S.
    Christian:
    Yes
    Wow! Free beat me to the punch. I had only to read the list of words that were supposedly stripped from the NIV to realize this article is flawed and driven by bias. If they have this list of words that they claim to not be in the NIV, I have to throw it out. The NIV is not a word-for-word translation; rather it is written to convey the meaning of each verse as opposed to translating each word. This, for me at least, brings more meaning out of it.

    I'm not about to engage in a debate with KJV only members, as this tends to go no where and divides. I've said my piece, and I'll leave it at that. IMHO, this was very unnecessary. :shame
     
  8. Lewis

    Lewis Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    15,483
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Christian:
    Yes
    Like I said I like posting what is out there, I use to hate the NIV but in recent years I have let up off of it. I am still a KJV & Amp user, but this argument will always go on. My thing is though people learn stuff when they see the stuff that is out there, so I will continue to always post controversial stuff, I have been doing that for the last 5 years here.
     
  9. Bob Carabbio

    Bob Carabbio Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    474
    Location:
    Glenn Heights, TX
    Nothing, of course.

    Personally, I use the KJV - since I've been reading it for over 60 years, and I know most of the "Work Arounds" for the Areas of lousy translation, and obsolete terminology. And, of course, when I want to look something up - I'll do it using KJV language - which is all I've really ever known.

    But there's no Significant issue with the NIV, and I've heard that it's "Easier to read". Maybe so.

    The Bible is the Bible is the Bible. One's as good as another, and the Holy Spirit can lead/guide from one as well as another.
     
  10. WIP

    WIP Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,390
    Location:
    Central Minnesota, USA
    Christian:
    Yes
    Should we concern ourselves with individual translations of words when it is the story in its entirety that matters?

    Can any phrase of one language be translated exactly the same into another language? I think it is rare to be able to translate word for word from one language to another. Sentence structure alone prevents this so you have to translate the context and meaning and not the individual words.

    Give three different persons the same phrase in English and ask them to translate that phrase into French and I bet you'll get three slightly different variations but all three will have the same meaning.
     
  11. darrell

    darrell Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    I think the NIV is easier to read in the sense that it uses contemporary english as opposed to 500 year-old english.
     
  12. jasoncran

    jasoncran Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    38,271
    Christian:
    Yes
    mike. i dont think you are christian because you read that niv.

    seriously, i dont like the niv, not because of its a bad translation just not my thing.

    and lewis, if are worried about the charachter of the person who translated that book, then king james is one charachter you should be concerned about.
     
  13. Lewis

    Lewis Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    15,483
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Christian:
    Yes
    Ahhhh Jason I said no such thing.
     
  14. Scotth1960

    Scotth1960 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    752
    Location:
    Erie PA
    Dear friend, I do not think people should be critcizing Bible versions, but should just use them all WITH STUDY AND PRAYER. All Bible have SOME GOOD IN THEM. But even the KJV makes mistakes; "Holy Ghost" should be "Holy Spirit". "Propitiation" should be "expiation". Hebrews 6:6 should not have the word "if" in it, as that is a false, Calvinist interpretation of the text. In Erie PA
    Scott H. PS Galatians 5 in the NIV is more readable and more appropriate and more accurate than the KJV, "the righteousness for which we hope" instead of the more wooden, more "literal" "hope of righteousness" of the KJV. The NIV has the meaning exactly.
     
  15. Tailgunner

    Tailgunner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    England
    Christian:
    Yes

    Scott, if I'm not mistaken, I believe ghost was the common word for spirit in the early 17th century. I do happen to like the KJV - its what I grew up reading, but I also know many people have difficulty reading the language of that time.

    TG
     
  16. Free

    Free Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    AB, Canada
    That very well could be. What is interesting though is that in John 4:24, the KJV states "God is a Spirit" and not "God is a Ghost." If "God is a Spirit" then it would be more consistent to use Holy Spirit rather than Holy Ghost.


    The point being that to say the NIV removed "Holy Ghost" is utterly false.
     
  17. Tailgunner

    Tailgunner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    England
    Christian:
    Yes
    You're right, Free. I stand corrected.

    TG
     
  18. Free

    Free Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    AB, Canada
    :) It wasn't meant as a correction. I was agreeing with you and it is likely that ghost meant the same as spirit. I just find the KJV a little inconsistent, that's all. My last statement wasn't towards you, I was just reiterating an earlier point showing the typical lack of logic in KJVOism, as seen in the OP.

    I have no problem with the KJV or if people prefer it. I do, however, have a problem when all logic and reason are thrown out the window in claiming that one version only is of God and the rest are "perversions," as it is often said.
     
  19. Tailgunner

    Tailgunner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    England
    Christian:
    Yes
    Yes, Free, and I don't agree that the KJV is somehow "inspired" in the way the Onlyists try to say it is. It's a translation, just like others. A good one for the times, but that's all.

    TG
     
  20. Scotth1960

    Scotth1960 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    752
    Location:
    Erie PA
    Dear Tailgunner, No translation is inspired, only the original Greek (and at one time Hebrew) texts are God-breathed (THEOPNEUSTOS). The KJV is not the only word of God, it is one of many Words of God (Bibles). But I do not believe the NIV has the word "ghost" for Holy Spirit. It never removed ghost, it just did not translate pneuma as ghost but as Spirit. Can any one show us where the NIV says "Holy Ghost" (sic)? Not even the ONT (Orthodox New Testament), which is an updating of the KJV based on Greek Orthodox Church tradition is without problems, but who will correct it except for another Greek Orthodox Christian. No member of the GOC claims personal infallibility for himself/herself. In Erie PA Scott H.
    PS In some places the NIV holds to the Deity of Christ where the KJV does not; in other places, the KJV supports the Divinity of Christ where the NIV does not. It depends on which verse of the NT is being referenced. See D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.
    q.v.
    :pray:nod:clap
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page