Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study 121 Reasons why the NIV is a false bible

Free- No, I did not miss your post. It just seems to me that if verses are omitted and meanings are changed, then it isn't giving people the whole story.

As far as revivals, have you seen any life changing revivals in the world lately?
 
Solo said:
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.
And which "Word of God" would that be? The KJV? It most certainly has changed what the Greek manuscripts state that are behind the TR.

Solo said:
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.
So why don't you approve of and argue for the versions which are older than the KJV? On the one hand though, this raises a good point: we should go even older and all learn koine Greek and stick to reading the manuscripts themselves.


von said:
It just seems to me that if verses are omitted and meanings are changed, then it isn't giving people the whole story.
And what didn't you understand before about the likelihood of the KJV adding verses and that its meanings may not be the best, or even correct? Is it wrong that the NASB changed "unicorn" to "ox"?

von said:
As far as revivals, have you seen any life changing revivals in the world lately?
No, not really. But if you still want to believe that this is the result of modern versions, I will call you on your illogical reasoning and we'll see where that leads.
 
Free said:
Solo said:
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.
And which "Word of God" would that be? The KJV? It most certainly has changed what the Greek manuscripts state that are behind the TR.

Solo said:
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.
So why don't you approve of and argue for the versions which are older than the KJV? On the one hand though, this raises a good point: we should go even older and all learn koine Greek and stick to reading the manuscripts themselves.


von said:
It just seems to me that if verses are omitted and meanings are changed, then it isn't giving people the whole story.
And what didn't you understand before about the likelihood of the KJV adding verses and that its meanings may not be the best, or even correct? Is it wrong that the NASB changed "unicorn" to "ox"?

von said:
As far as revivals, have you seen any life changing revivals in the world lately?
No, not really. But if you still want to believe that this is the result of modern versions, I will call you on your illogical reasoning and we'll see where that leads.

I studied the differences between the KJV and the NIV years ago and was convinced then of the inadequacies of the NIV. I now see how the NIV has laid the path for the much more inadequate translation of the gender-neutral TNIV. It would be easier for you to study the differences now than when I did as you have the internet, so you might give it a go. I didn't have the internet when I compared the KJV and the NIV.

I have had no problem with the KJV. If I have a question or need a word study I used to use an exhaustive concordance and lexicons, now I have an almost unlimited online resource library.

Surely you don't have a problem with me using the KJV Bible? It's pretty easy to understand with the Holy Spirit's guidance.

PS The Hebrew word re'em that was translated unicorn in the KJV is of an animal that is unknown. In the older, standard, and modern translations, Re'em is translated wild ox, strong ox, rhinoceros, wild bull, mountain ox, Reem, and buffalo.

Bos primigenius was most likely the animal that was the one referred to by the name re'em, but it is currently extinct and noone knows for sure what animal is meant. The word re'em has been translated into numerous languages as 'one-horn', and is probably why the KJV, Webster Bible, and Third Millenium Bible render re'em as unicorn.
 
tzalam2 said:
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.

All I see is someone trying to limit the Power of God. Tzalam2, you do realize, the KJV is just a translation too, right. If you're going to claim literalness, as correctness, then study the bible in greek and hebrew.

Tzalam2, my Bible say that who ever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. It say's that no man comes to the father but through Jesus. No where does it say those of us who speak english can only experience salvation through a KJV bible. However, I'd be more than happy if you could show me such a passage.
 
von said:
Free- No, I did not miss your post. It just seems to me that if verses are omitted and meanings are changed, then it isn't giving people the whole story.

As far as revivals, have you seen any life changing revivals in the world lately?

I have seen a life changing revival. But if you're not seeing them, maybe it's you who needs to lead one, with the KJV or not.

Von, who says you need to have an REV infront of your name to start a revival. Preach his word, and let Christ Revive!
 
I have been using a NIV Bible for 9 and a half years now, and I know -without a doubt - that I'm destined for Heaven. I'm just as saved as Paul.

I'm not a Bible-study scholar or anything, but I do know that my Bible has served me well. I do know that there are omitted verses, but I can find them in my footnotes. The plan of salvation is found in my Bible just as it is in KJV. I also have all the instructions of how a Christian should live in it.

I have to agree with what Timothy said about translations and revivals. Two or three years ago my church had a revival in which we had around fifteen come to Christ, and I'm sure that many of them had NIV Bibles. If they didn't before, then I'm sure they did after their baptisms because we give Bibles to each person we baptise, and I know that good, easy-to-understand Bibles are bought for these people.

As far as studying the Bible in its truest form, you're going to have to find the versions in Greek and Hebrew. That's what the Bible was mainly written in. Any English version is a translation.
 
I am concerned about the omissions that the NIV makes, but I am more concerned about the change of meaning within the NIV of many verses. It doesn't take much research on the Internet to find the many differences between the KJV and the NIV, and where the original meaning from the original texts has changed. I am especially concerned about the TNIV which is worse than the NIV but sponsored and translated by the same groups.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html
http://www.cbmw.org/tniv/categorized_list.php
http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/Niv.htm#Questions
 
(KJV) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. {8} And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This is not entirely acurate either. It should read.

(YLT) "because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one; and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one."

The brackets are there because the words contained in them are not in the original manuscripts.
 
Gendou Ikari said:
(KJV) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. {8} And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This is not entirely acurate either. It should read.

(YLT) "because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one; and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one."

The brackets are there because the words contained in them are not in the original manuscripts.
Here is some further information on the verse of 1 John 5:7-8

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven…
That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentarie ... =5&verse=7

1 John 5:8

And there are three that bear witness on earth…
To the same truth of the sonship of Christ:

the Spirit, and the water, and the blood;
by the "Spirit" is not meant the human Spirit or soul of Christ; for however that may be a witness of the truth of his human nature, yet not of his divine sonship: and moreover cannot be said to be a witness in earth; rather the Gospel, called the Spirit, which is a testimony of Christ's person, office, and graces and is preached by men on earth; or else the gifts of the Spirit bestowed on men on earth, both in an extraordinary and ordinary way, by which they have been qualified to bear witness to this truth; or it may be the Holy Spirit itself is intended, as he is in the hearts of his people here on earth, where he not only witnesses to the truth of their sonship, but also of the sonship of Christ, and is that witness a believer has within himself of it, mentioned in (1 John 5:10) . By water is designed, not internal sanctification, which though an evidence of regeneration and adoption, yet not of Christ's sonship; but water baptism, as administered on earth in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and which is a noble and standing testimony to the proper, natural, and eternal sonship of Christ: and by "blood" is intended, not justification by the blood of Christ, but rather the blood of the saints, the martyrs of Jesus, who have shed it on earth, in testimony of their faith in the Son of God, and thereby sealing the truth of it; or rather the ordinance of the Lord's supper, which is the communion of the blood of Christ; and represents that blood which was shed for the remission of sins, and has a continual virtue to cleanse from all sin, which is owing to his being the Son of God. The three witnesses on earth seem therefore to be the Gospel, attended with the Spirit and power of God, and the two ordinances of baptism, and the Lord's supper:

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentarie ... =5&verse=8
 
All I see is someone trying to limit the Power of God.

Boy, does the devil have YOU blinded. The prince of this world is your king, right now?

Tzalam2, you do realize, the KJV is just a translation too, right.
JUST a translation? Your ignorance is showing. You should be blushing now.


If you're going to claim literalness, as correctness, then study the bible in greek and hebrew.
I have studied both. Hebrew more than Greek. I studied Hebrew under a RABBI, who incessantly attempted to convert me to Judaism. You can't begin to understand Hebrew, until a Rabbi teaches you. You learn to read the Torah strictly, precisely, and you learn to translate the old-fashioned way. Never is Jesus mentioned, if a Rabbi teaches you Hebrew, so, there's no chance of the Hebrew lessons or translations being skewed. Strictly the alef beyt, vuh eevrit, ahnee lohmayd. Vuh, ahnee gomair aht hah sheeoor.
(a little rusty, but, give me a week, and I'll be fluent again)

Tzalam2, my Bible say that who ever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. It say's that no man comes to the father but through Jesus.
So does mine,
and, yes, calling on the Name of the Lord is part of confessing with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believing in your heart God raised Him from the dead, and no, you don't even NEED a bible to do that!
SO, your attempt to derail me isn't working.
It's a fact that if a person is truly born again, the Holy Spirit resides in them, and the Holy Spirit teaches them all TRUTH.
It's not "just coincidence" that people who are born again, and yielding, not quenching the Holy Spirit within them, are drawn to, and PREFER the KJV.
Jesus says, 13: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
It doesn't surprise me that MANY people dislike the KJV, that there is a BROAD array of bible choices.

Nice try, but, this is so off track I'm not going to spend time on it right now.
No where does it say those of us who speak english can only experience salvation through a KJV bible. However, I'd be more than happy if you could show me such a passage
 
More Thoughts

Solo said:
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.

We can argue all day long as to what constitutes “conservative.†We have different interpretations of the term. I know many biblical scholars. They are all conservative and some believe in women in ministry and other doctrines that you would not call conservative. Of those biblical scholars who hold to such doctrines, NO truly liberal scholar would call them liberal, nor would their fellow conservative scholars who teach alongside them, nor would any of them agree that the positions are liberal positions. I don’t think that word means what you think it means. :wink: (Princess Bride)

Solo said:
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.

Free Responds:
Free said:
So why don't you approve of and argue for the versions which are older than the KJV? On the one hand though, this raises a good point: we should go even older and all learn koine Greek and stick to reading the manuscripts themselves.

Exactly!

Here is something to consider: read any verse in your Bible in English. Now hear this: The Bible Does Not Say That! That’s right. It says something else. It says whatever it says in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek not English. If you want to know what it really says, read it in Greek. Absent an ability to do that, we must trust that the translators have taken care in providing true and accurate translations, as far as they are able given the triple hindrances of (a)time (b)language and (b)context. We are 2,000 – 5,000 years distant from the originals, written in another language in a completely different context than our own. If you don't have knowledge of the original languages, probably the best thing to do - I think someone already mentioned this - is to study in parallel. Read what 10 or 15 different versions say. Compare the ones that agree and contrast those that disagree. Which versions are left out in the cold? This doesn't necessarily mean that the majority are correct, but it is a good starting point.

You still haven’t demonstrated why an older Bible translation is better than a newer one. In fact, you are among a very small number of people who believe this for obvious reasons. Ancient text discoveries since the KJV demonstrate far more accurately what the likely originals were. I still promise to demonstrate this fact through an objective presentation leaving all subjectivity aside. I would appreciate you or von providing me with a verse you would like me to tackle so that I can’t be accused of picking an easy one. I am up for the challenge. (I’ll give you ‘til Wednesday pm to offer me a passage and then I’ll pick one on my own from the list provided upthread.)

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

You still haven’t demonstrated objectively how any of these are “false doctrines.†You have simply said they are. This is circular reasoning. You say that a doctrine is false if you believe the doctrine is false. That is your only basis for such a belief. I don’t think that’s a healthy way to look at this.

Timothy said:
Von, who says you need to have an REV infront of your name to start a revival. Preach his word, and let Christ Revive!

That’s the most worthwhile thing said yet! Thanks, Timothy!

Scott 8-)
 
Agreed

Solo said:
I am especially concerned about the TNIV which is worse than the NIV but sponsored and translated by the same groups.

I am also generally concerned with the TNIV. I don't use it. I like some of what they did, but they also made a number of decisions I wouldn't have made. However, any human alive today can still get saved and grow to maturity with the TNIV. To think otherwise is to miss a lot.

Scott 8-)
 
KJV:
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

The Message version: 9Say the welcoming word to God--"Jesus is my Master"--embracing, body and soul, God's work of doing in us what he did in raising Jesus from the dead. That's it. You're not "doing" anything; you're simply calling out to God, trusting him to do it for you. That's salvation. 10With your whole being you embrace God setting things right, and then you say it, right out loud: "God has set everything right between him and me!"
11Scripture reassures us, "No one who trusts God like this--heart and soul--will ever regret it." 12It's exactly the same no matter what a person's religious background may be: the same God for all of us, acting the same incredibly generous way to everyone who calls out for help.

NASB: 9that (A)if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (B)believe in your heart that (C)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11For the Scripture says, "(D)WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
12For (E)there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is (F)Lord of (G)all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

NIV: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[a] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentileâ€â€the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

See any differences?
Lost people: NO
Saved people: YES
If you don't see any differences in translations, I hope and pray
you make SURE you're born again, real soon. Today is the day of salvation.
 
What a Riot!

tzalam2 said:
All I see is someone trying to limit the Power of God.

I see something, too. :wink:

tzalam2 said:
Boy, does the devil have YOU blinded. The prince of this world is your king, right now?

I too see a bit of blindness. :wink:

tzalam2 said:
JUST a translation? Your ignorance is showing. You should be blushing now.

Actually, it is just a translation. It is not a compilation of the original texts. Those do not exist. Therefore, all representations of the Bible in the world today are mere translations of ancient documents.

tzalam2 said:
If you're going to claim literalness, as correctness, then study the bible in greek and hebrew.

I know I have.

tzalam2 said:
You can't begin to understand Hebrew, until a Rabbi teaches you.

This is nonsense. Rabbi's do not have the Spirit of God - something I continually hear you KJVers say is so crucial to understanding the text. (And I am Jewish by birth.)

tzalam2 said:
You learn to read the Torah strictly, precisely, and you learn to translate the old-fashioned way. Never is Jesus mentioned, if a Rabbi teaches you Hebrew, so, there's no chance of the Hebrew lessons or translations being skewed.

What, exactly, is the "old-fashioned way"? Rabbinical translations/interpretations are so frought with error. One of the chief manners of interpretation is called "Pesher" which interpretations are said to reveal "mysteries" in the text that are hidden from normal eyes. They are also heavily dependent upon Midrashic interpretation which most often reveals entirely new layers of meaning the rest of us would scoff at. This method seeks both the mystical and what is "hinted" at as well as exegetical study. Talk about confusing and muddying the waters. This is not the way for Christians to translate/interpret Scripture.

tzalam2 said:
It's not "just coincidence" that people who are born again, and yielding, not quenching the Holy Spirit within them, are drawn to, and PREFER the KJV.

I have yet to meet a new believer who is "drawn to" or "prefers" the KJV. Not only is it not coincidental, it is likely non-existent. This is a subjective observation on your part that those who get saved and join your KJV-only fellowship use the KJV. It is anecdotal and nothing else.

tzalam2 said:
Jesus says, 13: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

It doesn't surprise me that MANY people dislike the KJV, that there is a BROAD array of bible choices.

Choosing a word from a biblical text (broad) and then using that word in a sentence completely unrelated to the text is hardly relevant application of that passage. The passage is specifically related to those who chose paths OTHER THAN CHRIST, not other than KJV! Your misinterpretation of this passage is a false teaching all by itself! I hope you see that.

Scott 8-)
 
More Laughs

tzalam2 said:
See any differences?
Lost people: NO
Saved people: YES
If you don't see any differences in translations, I hope and pray
you make SURE you're born again, real soon. Today is the day of salvation.

You are a laugh! I saw no differences between the KJV and NIV. They say the same thing. I guess I'm not really a Christian. Thank God! I have you to help me see the light that I'm not saved. :wink:

I think I even mentioned upthread that I was pretty sure you KJV-only-ers thought non-KJV users weren't saved. I guess I am proved right. And even though I believe you are saved, that doesn't mean you aren't "off" a little.

See you in Heaven. :)

Scott 8-)
 
All I see is someone trying to limit the Power of God.

Boy, does the devil have YOU blinded. The prince of this world is your king, right now?

Was this directed at me?
 
Gendou- I realize that there are people who think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, however that is why I say a person can not take one scripture out and make a doctrine out of it. It is obvious that that doesn't even make sense, that they are one being, and if we read the "whole" book people should be able to see that this is not the case.


I was raised in church all of my life. I have seen the church go from what it was to what it has become. Believe me there has been a great change over the years and those older people who have been raised in the church know what I'm talking about. Something has cased this change. Does anyone have any ideas as to what brought those changes? I know you all disagree with me, and I'm not saying that using different versions of the Bible is the cause, but if important things are omitted, then why wouldn't it possibly be the cause? Or are you NIV'ers saying that the verses that are omitted are not important?
 
Ok

von said:
but if important things are omitted, then why wouldn't it possibly be the cause? Or are you NIV'ers saying that the verses that are omitted are not important?

Von,

Pay attention. I'm going to repeat what I have already said innumerable times and what others have also said. Either you aren't reading any of what we write or you are choosing to ignore this point. The only other explaination I can conceive of is that you are very intellectually challenged. I will go with one of the first two possibilities for now.

Here we go...are you ready...???

THINGS ARE NOT OMITTED in the NIV. THINGS ARE IMPROPERLY ADDED TO THE KJV! (I know I'm shouting, I like to shout. - The English Beat)

Do you get it? It isn't that we agree with you that things are omitted but we just don't care. We KNOW that the issue is not one of omission.

Something tells me you still don't follow.

Scott 8-)
 
Much has been shown where the NIV omits scripture and changes the meaning of scripture. Any one that says that there is no difference between the two is being deceptive or is in self-denial mode. :o

That is my last word as those who continue on the NIV side just don't see.
 
Wrong

Solo said:
Much has been shown where the NIV omits scripture and changes the meaning of scripture. Any one that says that there is no difference between the two is being deceptive or is in self-denial mode. :o

That is my last word as those who continue on the NIV side just don't see.

You don't see, my friend. That is clear to almost everyone here. But I am going to demonstrate the reality of translation so that you can see how it is really done. Then, your remarks will be interesting to note.

What you fail - or perhaps are incapable of seeing because of your own chosen blindness - is that what the NIV "omits" is rather "text that should not be in the KJV in the first place." The NIV omits bad KJV text. That is the closest to explaining this as I can get.

Scott 8-)
 
Back
Top