Bible Study 121 Reasons why the NIV is a false bible

[PHIL121]

Another solution, which is probably the best for most people is to reference from MANY TRANSLATIONS, and then discern the meaning. One should probably never derive any doctrinal stance off something that can only be read in one translation.

That's what I've found works best, as well. I still prefer The Living Bible for simple reading.

 

[Solo]

I'll take unicorns in the KJV and you can take the NIV's removal of the work of Jesus Christ and his salvation through his blood.

You going to ignore what the NIV makes so clear? That argument is certainly based on ignorance of what the NIV actually does state. I'm certainly not going to ignore what either make clear.

One instance as you supply in the unicorn instance does not come close to the garbage of the NIV.

Quite right you are. The certainty of mythical beasts is on a whole other level than alleged omission of verses.

You may continue to slam the KJV over the unicorn portion of translation, but I can assure you that you have no idea what animal is to be translated instead of unicorn. You may say oxe or bull, but you are just guessing. No one is sure as to the specific animal indicated by the word translated unicorn.

The animal was probably the now extinct Bos Primigenius but no one knows for sure.

I do know the NIV and the TNIV are poor translations concerning the Christ, the blood of Jesus, the salvation that God provides as the propitiation for sin, and other doctrine specific to the personage of God the Father, Son, and Spirit.

The KJV is time-tested while the NIV or TNIV is not even close.

 

[Solo]

The NIV rejects the Hebrew texts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

 

[yesha]

I shall answer only the first verse, as an example.

[
Genesis 4:8 KJB "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: AND IT CAME TO PASS, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

NIV - "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD. And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."

The NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass". In fact, the NIV complete concordance will tell you that they have "not translated" this verb a whopping 887 times. Not only does the NIV not translate this verb here but they also added "Let's go out to the field." The Holman Christian Standard also adds "Let's go out to the field". Their own footnotes say this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac but that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

This additional phrase is not found in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV or any Hebrew translation.
]

The verb haya is the second most common verb in the old testament occurring over 3500 times.
It's basic meanings is become, happen, be.
This verb occurs twice in this verse.
And it came to pass (Strong 1961), when they were (Strong 1961)
The interlinear NIV translates this verse as follows:
and-he-was (wayhiy Strong 1961) while-to-be-them (bihyowtaam Strong 1961) in-the-field and-he-attacked Cain at Able brother-of-him and-he-killed-him.

So the niv translates "and-he-was while-to-be-them" as "and while they were". The NIV concordance indicates that the word was translated as [NotInEnglish] and as "were".
This is an issue of a word that doesn't translate well into English. Is the KJV "and it came to pass, when they were" a better translation of "and-he-was while-to-be-them" then the NIV "and while they were"? I would say that they both say the same thing. The while means the same thing as it came to pass when. Does anyone really believe that the 'it came to pass' can't be discerned from the niv translation?

But if the KJV supporter is really concerned about omitting words, then I would like to know what happened the the forth "and" that is in this verse. Consider this translation, where the translator felt that preserving the "ands" is of benefit to the reader.

"And Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field" And it was while they were in the field, and Cain rose against Abel, his brother, and killed him." - Friedman

As for the "let's go out to the field". This again is not a matter of translation, but rather one what did the original say. Some translators felt that the because of it's existence in Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac, it probably was in the original, despite it not being in the Masoretic text. So they include it with a footnote so that the reader may decide for themselves.

 

[PHIL121]

Well, let's see the first post omits the fact, that omitted verses are included in the footnotes (at least in my Bible). Besides that, I don't see much difference in the translations.

Not every omitted verse is in your footnotes.

How would you know? And YES I checked EVERY omitted verse in your list. They are ALL there!

For implying I'm I liar, you get.....IGNORED! :angel:

 

[Solo]

I shall answer only the first verse, as an example.

[
Genesis 4:8 KJB "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: AND IT CAME TO PASS, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

NIV - "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD. And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."

The NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass". In fact, the NIV complete concordance will tell you that they have "not translated" this verb a whopping 887 times. Not only does the NIV not translate this verb here but they also added "Let's go out to the field." The Holman Christian Standard also adds "Let's go out to the field". Their own footnotes say this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac but that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

This additional phrase is not found in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV or any Hebrew translation.
]

The verb haya is the second most common verb in the old testament occurring over 3500 times.
It's basic meanings is become, happen, be.
This verb occurs twice in this verse.
And it came to pass (Strong 1961), when they were (Strong 1961)
The interlinear NIV translates this verse as follows:
and-he-was (wayhiy Strong 1961) while-to-be-them (bihyowtaam Strong 1961) in-the-field and-he-attacked Cain at Able brother-of-him and-he-killed-him.

So the niv translates "and-he-was while-to-be-them" as "and while they were". The NIV concordance indicates that the word was translated as [NotInEnglish] and as "were".
This is an issue of a word that doesn't translate well into English. Is the KJV "and it came to pass, when they were" a better translation of "and-he-was while-to-be-them" then the NIV "and while they were"? I would say that they both say the same thing. The while means the same thing as it came to pass when. Does anyone really believe that the 'it came to pass' can't be discerned from the niv translation?

But if the KJV supporter is really concerned about omitting words, then I would like to know what happened the the forth "and" that is in this verse. Consider this translation, where the translator felt that preserving the "ands" is of benefit to the reader.

"And Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field" And it was while they were in the field, and Cain rose against Abel, his brother, and killed him." - Friedman

As for the "let's go out to the field". This again is not a matter of translation, but rather one what did the original say. Some translators felt that the because of it's existence in Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac, it probably was in the original, despite it not being in the Masoretic text. So they include it with a footnote so that the reader may decide for themselves.

It is interesting that your signature is taken from the Contemporary English Version which is similar to the Good News Bible. The CEV and GNB is more of a paraphrase of scripture than a translation. The translation of the CEV is geared more towards children and uneducated adults with a fourth grade reading level. It is by no means an adequate translation of the original languages. You better go to the NIV if you refuse to study the KJV. I have read the KJV since the age of 9 years old and have no problem understanding it whatsoever. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is much bigger than my ignorance.

 

[von]

"I forget. Who translated the KJV?"Is that a touch of sarcasm? It's called King James for a reason.
The bottom line is this. I could care less about a unicorn, a bull, or an ox. The important thing is that you can't take the blood out of the Bible. And you can't take out that we have to live a holy life or there will be consequences. If you take out the plan of salvation and the importance of our walk with the Lord and what we have to do to get to Heaven then there is was no need for Christ to come. I find it hard to believe that all you have to do is believe that Jesus existed and died on the cross, in order to get to Heaven. Satan believes. The demons believe and tremble. There is a walk that we must walk and if it is left out or simplified how will we know the way?

 

[Free]

"I forget. Who translated the KJV?"Is that a touch of sarcasm? It's called King James for a reason.

No, it isn't sarcasm. I was just wondering what your point was. And, no, King James didn't translate the TR, he only authorized it.

The important thing is that you can't take the blood out of the Bible.

There's plenty of blood in the NIV.

If you take out the plan of salvation and the importance of our walk with the Lord and what we have to do to get to Heaven then there is was no need for Christ to come.

And yet, it is all right there, laid out very clearly, in the NIV. So I don't understand what the problem is. Unless you are getting misinformed by KJVOists.

I find it hard to believe that all you have to do is believe that Jesus existed and died on the cross, in order to get to Heaven. Satan believes. The demons believe and tremble.

Then you misunderstand what it means to believe.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

In light of the follow:

"I forget. Who translated the KJV?"Is that a touch of sarcasm? It's called King James for a reason.

It seems clear that the following information would be useful:

“The King James Version (KJV) is an English translation of the Holy Bible, commissioned for the benefit of the Church of England at the behest of King James I of England.â€Â

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version)

In regards to the “project†of translation check the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James ... he_Project

As for this whole debate, I see it this way. The NIV is in truth a somewhat abbreviated text, however; not to the extent that KJV only people propose. I personally like the New American Standard Bible considering it is one of the most literal translations and it puts in parenthesis what the NIV leaves out, or puts in footnotes.

Some questions that must been asked when looking at the validity of the NIV:

Can unbelievers be informed enough by the NIV to make the crucial decision to accept Jesus Christ and thus receive salvation?

Does the NIV convey a message that is so different from the KJV, or more importantly the original Greek and Hebrew, that it would lead one away from God?

 

[Blazin Bones]

^ Great Post Noc.

Here's a little more from where I see things. Yes, the NIV is a weaker translation as compared to a more word for word KJV or NASB. However, Noc pointed out something very crucial in that we need to ask if someone can still recieve God's true message thru it. I think the answer is yes.

KJVers, you're about to say that if it's a weak translation, how then can it still convey God's true message. While it does not give exact words, one can still learn what God's will is for their life through an NIV.

If You're looking to grow spiritually, the NIV will only take you so far, and any honest person can see that. However, I know several people who have been brought to Christ through God using a Christian with an NIV, and unless you want to start arguing who is saved and who sin't saved, you can't deny that truth. 8-)

 

[Aslan]

The important thing is that you can't take the blood out of the Bible. And you can't take out that we have to live a holy life or there will be consequences. If you take out the plan of salvation and the importance of our walk with the Lord and what we have to do to get to Heaven then there is was no need for Christ to come.

How is salvation through the blood of Jesus taken out of the NIV? here are a few references to the blood that saves in the NIV. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

Romans 3:25 (NIV): God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Romans 5:9 (NIV): Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

Ephesians 1:7 (NIV): In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace

Ephesians 2:13 (NIV): But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Col 1:20 (NIV): and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Heb 9:14 (NIV): How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Heb 13:20 (NIV): And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

1 Jn 1:7 (NIV): But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin

Rev 1:6 (NIV): To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Fatherâ€â€to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

 

[tzalam2]

Well, THANK YOU for that comment!
The Lord leads me to learn more about His Word, and to supply
pertinent information to most anyone who seems to be going astray.
The path to destruction is broad, and many are on it. I believe these
mis-translations are taking many, many souls to hell.
It grieves my heart to hear yet another decent person being led into a
heretical trap, a mind game, if you will, and they don't seem to be able to
come up from the drowning flood the devil and his filthy minions are covering them with.
If more people KNEW what hell and the Lake of Fire is REALLY going to be like, they'd RUN AWAY from anything even remotely evil.

I digress.

As for the previous poster, who said he believes a person can recieve God's true Word out of other, watered down or outright blasphemous versions, I disagree.
A person can't know the whole truth nor can they CARE to understand it, nor can they properly know God, if they have a false bible, and a shaky,
sand foundation.
Your versions are leading you to hell.
Think about this: the people who made the newer translations have NO FEAR OF GOD'S CLEAR WARNINGS stated in the last book of Revelation.
If a person making up a version of the bible has no fear of what will happen to them, how can you trust that person to lead you into truth about DEEP spiritual matters ?
You can't, and you shouldn't.
If you were studying for a driver's test, and I gave you a choice of manuals to learn from, one being the authoritative Sheriff's Office version,
used for years and years, and guaranteed to make you a licensed driver,
and the other version being a watered down guide, with a lot of laws, and
information about driving, LEFT OUT entirely,
people would think a person was out of their mind for choosing the version that OMITTED MANY KEY SENTENCES.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I believe these mis-translations are taking many, many souls to hell.
It grieves my heart to hear yet another decent person being led into a heretical trap, a mind game, if you will, and they don't seem to be able to come up from the drowning flood the devil and his filthy minions are covering them with.If more people KNEW what hell and the Lake of Fire is REALLY going to be like, they'd RUN AWAY from anything even remotely evil.

That is of course assuming such translations as the NIV and NASB are mis-translations. I have yet to seen any true examples of direct alterations, and or contradictions to the message and understanding found in the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testament. What I have seen is a great deal of emotional sentiments almost completely void of objective truth.

As for the previous poster, who said he believes a person can recieve God's true Word out of other, watered down or outright blasphemous versions, I disagree.
A person can't know the whole truth nor can they CARE to understand it, nor can they properly know God, if they have a false bible, and a shaky, sand foundation.

It should be noted there is a difference between “watered down†and “abbreviated.†Now I might understand your belief that the NIV is watered down but to also assert that on other reputable translations such as the NASB is ridiculous and pretty much completely void of any objective truth, in other words all I see is emotion.

Your versions are leading you to hell.
Think about this: the people who made the newer translations have NO FEAR OF GOD'S CLEAR WARNINGS stated in the last book of Revelation.

Well, this is just incorrect. The meaning and understanding of the NIV is not in contradiction to the original Greek or Hebrew of the New and Old Testament, until you can prove conclusively without a doubt I can only take your words as mere emotion.

…LEFT OUT entirely, people would think a person was out of their mind for choosing the version that OMITTED MANY KEY SENTENCES.

That of course is assuming the verses that are not included are “key†or essential to understanding for insistence the divinity of Christ.

I must say it is perplexing that such words, as you stated tzalam2, are about such translations as the NIV or NASB. Now if the discussion were on the validity of the New World Translation or Joseph Smith Translation I would understand completely, such translations are a direct contradiction of the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testament.

To be honest I have pretty much abandoned reading the NIV for the most part but I do not believe it is “blasphemous†or “going to lead someone to hell.†I think such notions, as I have state before, is purely emotional and void of fact whatsoever.

 

[guibox]

Some questions that must been asked when looking at the validity of the NIV:

Can unbelievers be informed enough by the NIV to make the crucial decision to accept Jesus Christ and thus receive salvation?

Does the NIV convey a message that is so different from the KJV, or more importantly the original Greek and Hebrew, that it would lead one away from God?

I think that in some of the instances that tzalam put forth...yes they can. The fact that so many people on this forum and in Christianity take a surface, knee-jerk reaction to interpreting scripture, an ambiguous verse or completely wrong verse can cause some to misinterpret drastically some important theological concepts.

Case in point...

One of the verses that tzalam didn't put forth that the NIV not only adds/misinterprets but completely distorts is 2nd Peter 2:9

KJV: "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished."

The NIV says this:

"unto the day of judgment while continuing their punishment"

This completely false and not what the scripture is saying. This then gives the impression that they will be punished at death and not at the end of time. Rather then being 'reserved' in the grave which harmonizes with the rest of scripture, we have a scenario similar to Luke 16 which contradicts the scriptures views on the state of the dead and punishment at the end of time, not at death.

Is the KJV not without faults? Absolutely not. It is because of the ambiguity of the KJVs English that has caused much theological error in the interpretation of Daniel, eternal torment, hell and some secret pre-tribulation rapture of souls.

Only an in depth study, faithful to itself with the original languages as references can avoid the pitfalls of false interpretation no matter which version.

Sadly, even KJVites ignore this when they need it as much as the paraphrase users.

 

[von]

The NIV trivializes the walk that follows excepting the blood. I know the KJV is not totally correct but it is correct enough that people died for it's translation and it brought great revival to our nation. Ever since these more liberal versions of the Bible have come about there has not been a great revival and the church has become liberal and lukewarm, which God says He will spew out of His mouth. I think that speaks for itself.

 

[asb4God]

Too Much!

This is so hysterical! And I mean hysterical in both senses of the word: funny and overly wrought with emotion.

The KJV-only-ers have no idea what goes into Bible translation and how translations are made. Nor can they ever give objective information about why they prefer their translations.

I don't suppose a thread like this will help them either because they just don't get it. That being said, I might have to give a basic lesson in Bible translation so that they can see how it works.

Would any of the KJV-only-ers like to provide a verse they would like me to translate - and show how it is translated - so that I can illustrate the process? Pick your most dastardly NIV verse you can think of that takes out the blood or some such thing and I'll do it for you. I can't today (9/12) as I have a double-header softball game tonight. Maybe tomorrow, but we might have something going Wed. night, too, so I'll have to fit it in my schedule.

(What I'll also provide is a basic rundown as to how choices in translation are made considering the date and provenance of various ancient texts and the importance of text families.)

Blessings,
Scott 8-)

 

[Free]

The NIV trivializes the walk that follows excepting the blood.

Did you miss my post on the previous page? This is simply untrue.

I know the KJV is not totally correct but it is correct enough that people died for it's translation and it brought great revival to our nation.

Does this really have to do with it being the KJV or one of the first translations which was mass produced for all people?

Ever since these more liberal versions of the Bible have come about there has not been a great revival and the church has become liberal and lukewarm, which God says He will spew out of His mouth. I think that speaks for itself.

And does this have to do with modern translations or the shift in cultural values altogether since the enlightenment? What you have presented is the "ad hoc" fallacy ("after this therefore because of this").


And of course in all of this, we must bear in mind that the NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation which captures the essence of what is being said. The KJV and NASB are "formal equivalence" translations which attempt to be as close to word-for-word as possible.

Notice that I said "as possible" since anything translated from one language to another, especially a much more precise language such as Greek into a much less precise language such as English, can never actually be word-for-word. So sometimes a dynamic equivalence translation is actually more accurate at getting the meaning across of what the author is saying.

 

[asb4God]

Some Thoughts

I used to have a NIV study bible, but I noticed many differences between the KJV and the NIV, therefore, I threw the NIV in the trash. Thanks for the post Tzalam2.

Let’s just get this straight. You threw a Bible in the trash! Think about it.

Not every omitted verse is in your footnotes. Besides, why omit? When you teach a child how to read, how many letters of the alphabet is it acceptable to leave out? Are you not lying to the child, by the sin of omission?

One “omits†what is not original. This is “why omit.†How do we know what is most likely original and what is not? By careful study – in the original languages – using all the knowledge we have of text criticism. The NIV is responsible when it places in the footnotes alternative readings from ancient texts, but it is almost always more charitable in this practice than intellectually required because in most instances, there really is little argument as to the most likely original.

Why does it never occur to KJV people that just perhaps the KJV adds verses? We have far more manuscripts available today than did the translators of the KJV and TR, and this is why the NIV and NASB use notes to state that certain verses aren't in the oldest manuscripts, or that most manuscripts do not contain certain verses. But it is error to simply think that other versions are wrong because they seemingly omit verses.

Exactly!

Tzalam responds to the above thusly:

Because most people who adhere to the KJV have done sufficient research into the origins of the bible versions, and know the KJV is faithfully translated, and trustworthy.

No they haven’t. This is silliness. The greatest amount of translation work has been done by non-KJVers and it is typically the KJVer that seeks to justify bad scholarship in the silliest of manners.

One example will suffice: It is well-known among scholars that the best text family is the Alexandrian text type. There is no intellectually honest disagreement about this. This is largely due to the academic nature of Alexandria – largest library in the ancient world – as a center of learning. They were meticulous in their transmission of texts. Because of this, Alexandrian texts are generally preferred to either Byzantine, Western or “other,†though also because these other text types, especially Western are more paraphrase and take much more liberties with the text, ironically, just what KJVers claim about the NIV! Furthermore, the textus receptus relied more heavily on Byzantine texts. So, the KJVers obviously have a large stake in arguing against using the Alexandrian texts as preferred? How do they argue? By saying that because Alexandria was in the center of non-Christian civilization – Egypt – it can’t be trusted. Yeah, that’s sound methodology!

For a good background on why the KJV is the only reliable
Bible text, please read here: http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/

One of the opening statements on this site says the following with respect to text criticism, which is the science behind determining what the likely original is to an ancient text: The experts want to impress you, so they make it sound complicated. But the bottom line is that there are two different texts from which Bibles are translated, and only one can be correct. Choosing the right one is not the realm of Greek and Hebrew scholars, either.

Let me translate this for you: “Don’t let them there smarty-pants try to git you all confused like. They’re just wiley servants of the devil!!†How silly is this? Only the simple fall for this kinda junk.

It amazes me that those who attack the KJV as being a book of errors would stand for the NIV as being a good version even though it was just shown to have many, many errors.

Actually it wasn’t shown to have any errors at all. There was merely a list of translation differences produced. Nobody demonstrated that the KJV was accurate and the NIV was inaccurate.

My 22 years of Christian experience in my 50 years of life have shown me the errors in liberal theology and the books that they adhere to.

My 18 years of Christian experience in my 38 years of life and advanced theological education have shown me the errors in true “liberal†theology and the books they adhere to, as well. Your definition of “liberal†is skewed – although you clearly use the term “liberal†as a weapon to be fashioned against anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe.

I am begining to see why so many "Christians" just live anyway they want and think nothing is a sin. Almost every church I know uses the NIV version. What a shame, they aren't even getting a chance to know the truth. I realize that the KJV is not exactly right, but it is the closest. I feel safe in saying that if we had the original Bible there would be alot more required of us. Out of curiosity who translated the NIV?

You are equating carnal Christianity with the use of the NIV. What evidence do you have that this is the reason and not some other? Or is this just your subjective observation? What is your objective basis for believing the KJV is the closest to the original?

The KJV is time-tested while the NIV or TNIV is not even close.

In what was is it “time testedâ€Â? Because it has been around the longest? Is that what wins? It has proved to be the least accurate due to its reliance on the textus receptus and its failure to utilize the many texts that have been found over the last couple hundred years. Frankly, as one who can translate the text, the KJV “is not even close.â€Â

Here's a little more from where I see things. Yes, the NIV is a weaker translation as compared to a more word for word KJV or NASB.
If You're looking to grow spiritually, the NIV will only take you so far, and any honest person can see that.

I don’t see what makes it a “weaker†translation than the KJV. It is slightly weaker than the NASB only inasmuch as the NASB is word for word so you get a real sense of the flow of the original language when reading it. But the “dynamic equivalence†of the NIV is so much better than the KJV precisely because it brings the meaning of the text to light in a way that the KJV just doesn’t. Let’s get this straight: if we want people to take up the Bible and read, and get saved, and learn to grow in faith, then giving them a Bible in a written style almost 400 years old is just silly. We want people to actually read the Bible, not wonder what the heck is going on like reading Shakespeare. Furthermore, any Christian can grow to full maturity with the NIV or with the KJV or with the NASB or any of the rest. It is silly to suggest otherwise.

I believe these mis-translations are taking many, many souls to hell. It grieves my heart to hear yet another decent person being led into a heretical trap, a mind game, if you will, and they don't seem to be able to come up from the drowning flood the devil and his filthy minions are covering them with. If more people KNEW what hell and the Lake of Fire is REALLY going to be like, they'd RUN AWAY from anything even remotely evil.

You have yet to demonstrate that these are “mistranslations.†You have also failed to demonstrate that the NIV promotes heresy. You have also failed to demonstrate that any of this leads to hell. Is this suppose to scare us or something? What a joke.

As for the previous poster, who said he believes a person can receive God's true Word out of other, watered down or outright blasphemous versions, I disagree. A person can't know the whole truth nor can they CARE to understand it, nor can they properly know God, if they have a false bible, and a shaky, sand foundation. Your versions are leading you to hell.

You have yet to prove there is anything blasphemous about any other translations or that it is a false Bible. You also clearly do not understand the nature of salvation if you think the NIV or another translation is insufficient to lead someone to salvation. I am getting the feeling that you are one of those Christians who goes to a “you must go to my church, church, or you are going to hell†kind of church.

Think about this: the people who made the newer translations have NO FEAR OF GOD'S CLEAR WARNINGS stated in the last book of Revelation.

Think about this: you have no idea how to understand that verse in the present discussion’s context.

The fact that so many people on this forum and in Christianity take a surface, knee-jerk reaction to interpreting scripture, an ambiguous verse or completely wrong verse can cause some to misinterpret drastically some important theological concepts.

I like this. In fact, it is the KJVer who takes a “surface, knee-jerk reaction to interpreting Scripture.†I agree that “an ambiguous verse or completely wrong verse can cause someone to misinterpret drastically some important theological concept,†but it is far more likely to occur with the KJV simply because it cannot justify its translation decisions in many areas that are easily explained.

The NIV trivializes the walk that follows excepting the blood. I know the KJV is not totally correct but it is correct enough that people died for it's translation and it brought great revival to our nation. Ever since these more liberal versions of the Bible have come about there has not been a great revival and the church has become liberal and lukewarm, which God says He will spew out of His mouth. I think that speaks for itself.

First, you have not demonstrated that the NIV fails to communicate the importance of Christ’s shed blood. Nor can you. It is impossible, as another poster has already demonstrated. Second, what evidence do you have that the presence of non-KJV translations are responsible for the lack of revival and the Church becoming “liberal and lukewarm.†I think another poster explained what lgical fallacy that is.

My take is that (a)one can get saved and experience Christ and sanctification with ALL translations and (b)this is all simply a way for the uneducated to dismiss the findings of the educated and scholarly. It is a defense mechanism, which allows one to simply ignore what the “smart fellers†are saying because of insecurity. That is what this is all about.

Scott 8-)

 

[asb4God]

One More Thing

This is probably also about a changing world and certain people having a real hard time dealing with it. They lash out at "modernism" in many of its forms and when they see the Church looking more modern than they like, they lash out at those who are also modernising. Another defense mechanism, anyway.

Scott 8-)

 

[Solo]

Re: One More Thing

This is probably also about a changing world and certain people having a real hard time dealing with it. They lash out at "modernism" in many of its forms and when they see the Church looking more modern than they like, they lash out at those who are also modernising. Another defense mechanism, anyway.

Scott 8-)

Modernism and change of God's word might lead some to believe that the apostacy is here, especially since the Word of God is unchanging. Remember that the falling away from sound doctrine is one item of two to come prior to Jesus returning to gather his elect from the four corners of the earth.

I have read from liberal conservatives since you have opened my eyes to the fact that some so-called conservatives have agreed with many liberal understandings. The individuals that you posted as conservative scholars in one of your posts turned out to be more liberal behind their conservative disguise, and some were part of the rewrite of the NIV into the TNIV which was gender-neutral. Many conservative scholars are against the TNIV because of the inaccuracies, and twisting of meaning.

I see that the KJV has been around for approximately 400 years while the NIV is less than 30 years old. The KJV is much more time tested than the NIV; plain and simple.

Defense mechanism indeed. The Holy Spirit always lifts a red flag for me whenever a false doctrine is present.