Bible Study LOTS of Reasons Why the NIV is NOT a False Bible

[D46]

In almost EVERY version other than the KJV it says "Isaiah," not "the prophets.

Young's Literal Translation doesn't have it as being in Isaiah either. Bottom line is it's not in Isaiah, but in Malachi. That's simple enough to check out, so it's a lie as I stated. The others that have Isaiah are from the Western line of corrupt mss and that's par for why they mention it.

Have a good one, asb4God. I like a man who studies!

 

[asb4God]

Let me try again, in a clearer way.

Mark 1:2-3
2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way"â€â€
3 "a voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "

Malachi 3:1
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.

Isaiah 40:3
A voice of one calling:
"In the desert prepare
the way for the LORD;
make straight in the wilderness
a highway for our God.

Mark's goal is to demonstrate prophetic fulfillment. He does this by noting two prophecies and placing them in one statement. The overwhelming majority of ancient witnesses, including Irenaeus in the early 2nd C. have "in Isaiah" and not "in the prophets." There are various possibilities why Mark chose to say "in Isaiah," but like it or not, that is what he said. If you wish to call this a lie, then you must call Mark a liar and you are treading on dangerous ground because you must attack inerrancy itself to do so. But, hey, it's your call.

Check out this article by a well-known and highly respected biblical scholar for more info.

Scott 8-)

 

[cubedbee]

1 Chronicles 20:5 (KJV) And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

This is what my bible says of 1 Chronicles 20:5 with no italisized words about Goliah or of his brother.

Yes. This is what I said. The NIV and the KJV agree in 1 Chronicles because the phrase "the brother of" is in the original manuscript.

And of 2 Samuel 21:19....


2 Samuel 21:19 (KJV) And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The phrase "the brother of" is italicizedin this verse, and is not in the original manuscript. That's what I was arguing.

Either way you slice it, no indication of Elhanan slaying Goliath. Here's Poole's commentary on this subject.

No, that's not correct. If you slice it the way the original Hebrew scripture read, and just translate 2 Samuel 21:19 into English without taking into account other verses of the Bible, it says Elhanan slayed Goliath.

2Sa 21:19
Ver. 19. Elhanan. The brother of Goliath the Gittite: the relative word brother is not in the Hebrew text, but is fitly supplied out of the parallel place, 1Ch 20:5, where it is expressed. And such defects of relatives are not unusual in Scripture. Thus the word wife is understood, Mt 1:6; Joh 19:25; and father or mother, Mr 15:40,47, compared with Mr 16:1; Lu 24:10; and son, Mt 4:21; Mr 2:14; Joh 21:15; and brother, Lu 6:16, compared with Jude 1:1. Although the place may be and is otherwise rendered, Elhanan, the son of Jaare-oregiro, slew Beth-halachmi, or Lahmi, (as he is called by way of abbreviation, 1Ch 20:5, which is very frequent in the Hebrew tongue,) who was (which words are frequently understood in the Hebrew text) with (so eth is oft rendered, as hath been noted before) Goliath the Gittite, i.e. in his company, bred up with him to the war, and related to him as his brother. Or, he slew Beth-halachmi, a Goliath (or another Goliath) of Gath, or the Gittite. So the name of the giant was Beth-halachmi, who may be here called Goliath, not only for his near relation to him, being his brother, but for his exact resemblance of him in feature, or in stature and strength, or in courage and military skill; as John the Baptist was called Elias for the like reason. Peradventure also, after the death of the first and famous Goliath the Gittite, 1Sa 17:1-58, that name was either given to him by others, or taken by himself.

See, I bolded the point that I was making. The phrase "the brother of" is not in the original Hebrew, the Word of God, and thus the NIV is not in error by translating the original Hebrew, the Word of God, without adding in phrases inferred from other sources.

 

[Solo]

The Westcott and Hort crowd really gets unChristian when you show the error of their translation abilities and faulty Alexandrian manuscripts that they hold dear to. Some scholars tremble when there underhanded methodology is exposed, so they have no alternative but to ridicule and attack those who uphold the truth.

 

[asb4God]

The Westcott and Hort crowd really gets unChristian when you show the error of their translation abilities and faulty Alexandrian manuscripts that they hold dear to. Some scholars tremble when there underhanded methodology is exposed, so they have no alternative but to ridicule and attack those who uphold the truth.

Please demonstrate the following:

1. Any error of translation abilities that you've seen.
2. Why the Alexandria MSS are "faulty."
3. Why the methodology is "underhanded."
4. Evidence of ridicule and attack.
5. Objective evidence of that which is attaced being "the truth."

Thanks,
Scott 8-)

 

[D46]

I was going away, but I had to come back. If we are to believe what we hear from the critics, then we must accept the notion that the italicized words in the King James Bible do not belong. We are told that the words were added by the translators and are not the words of God. If this is true, then please explain why Luke, Paul, John, Peter, and even the Lord Jesus QUOTE them! New Testament writers and speakers QUOTE the King James italics of the Old Testament:

Psalm 16:8 (KJV) I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

And quoted from the New Testament by Luke...

Acts 2:25 (KJV) For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

Deuteronomy 8:3 (KJV) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Matthew 4:4 (KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Did you notice that the New Testament writers QUOTE the words in italics? This means they WERE actually in the originals! When Jesus said, "It is written..." (Mat. 4:4), he was saying that the word "word" was also written--even if the King James translators didn't have it in the Hebrew Old Testament! Like it or not, the Holy Spirit led them to use the word anyhow! If He didn't, then why did Jesus quote it?

Also, we have the case of WHO killed Goliath again. 2 Samuel 21:19 in the KJV says: "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." The words "the brother of" are in italics. If these words were omitted, then the Bible would say that Elhanan slew Goliath, instead of his brother, which would contradict the fact that David killed Goliath. (In fact, this is exactly how the New World Translation reads!) If you'll check I Chronicles 20:5, you'll see that the italics of II Samuel 21:19 are well justified. Moral: The English sheds light on the English--WITHOUT "the Greek."

Acts 8:37 (KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This verse if completely gone in the NIV I have. This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must first BELIEVE ON CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible such as the NIV, NAB, NRSV, NWT and REB. COMPLETELY GONE! Why? Doesn't take much to figure that one out. Here's a good link on the NIV...

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/Niv.htm

For those who may not be familar with textual criticism another good link...

http://watch.pair.com/another.html

Want to see how perverted and corrupt the glorious NIV is? Just read this link.

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rl ... le/niv.htm

The NIV takes away at least seventeen verses of scripture...

http://rocksteady.co.za/bible/niv-exposed.php

So-let's not laud the NIV too much as it's getting very mundane. I believe the fallacy behind it's "greatness" is all but contemptable.

 

[cubedbee]

I was going away, but I had to come back. If we are to believe what we hear from the critics, then we must accept the notion that the italicized words in the King James Bible do not belong. We are told that the words were added by the translators and are not the words of God.

The translators themselves told us this, so we can certainly trust them. Like I said, the majority of additions are intended to make the verses readable in English.

If this is true, then please explain why Luke, Paul, John, Peter, and even the Lord Jesus QUOTE them! New Testament writers and speakers QUOTE the King James italics of the Old Testament:

Psalm 16:8 (KJV) I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

And quoted from the New Testament by Luke...

Acts 2:25 (KJV) For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

Yes, this is a case where they inserted a phrase to clarify In English what the verse meant. This translation is uncontroversial--the NIV also includes the clause "he is". However, reading Hebrew and translating literally, the clause is missing. Different languages have different grammatical structures---small phrases like these are added to make the Hebrew grammar readable to English speakers.

Deuteronomy 8:3 (KJV) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Matthew 4:4 (KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Another case where there is no question that the word "word" is implied in the original Hebrew. Once again, the NIV includes the "word" in it's translation.

Did you notice that the New Testament writers QUOTE the words in italics? This means they WERE actually in the originals! When Jesus said, "It is written..." (Mat. 4:4), he was saying that the word "word" was also written--even if the King James translators didn't have it in the Hebrew Old Testament! Like it or not, the Holy Spirit led them to use the word anyhow! If He didn't, then why did Jesus quote it?

You have shown two examples of italic words inserted by the KJV that all translations believe should be inserted. That doesn't change the fact that these words don't occur in our Hebrew manuscripts, and it also doesn't mean that every time the KJV translators choose to insert italicized words that they were correct. The majority of times they were, and all other mdoern translations agree with them. The minority of times, and this is what causes some of the disagreements between modern translations and the KJV.

Also, we have the case of WHO killed Goliath again. 2 Samuel 21:19 in the KJV says: "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." The words "the brother of" are in italics. If these words were omitted, then the Bible would say that Elhanan slew Goliath, instead of his brother, which would contradict the fact that David killed Goliath. (In fact, this is exactly how the New World Translation reads!)

Yes, it does indeed read this way. There is an error in the Bible, which is plain to those who can read it. Doesn't mean the Bible isn't inspired--it does mean someone made an error.

If you'll check I Chronicles 20:5, you'll see that the italics of II Samuel 21:19 are well justified. Moral: The English sheds light on the English--WITHOUT "the Greek."

No, this is an example of the KJV translators starting with the false assumption that the Bible is free from errors, and then changing the original Greek manuscript, what the Bible really is, and purposely mistranslating it to eliminate errors like these.

Acts 8:37 (KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This verse if completely gone in the NIV I have. This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must first BELIEVE ON CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible such as the NIV, NAB, NRSV, NWT and REB. COMPLETELY GONE! Why? Doesn't take much to figure that one out. Here's a good link on the NIV...

I have an NIV and a NASB open in front of me, and they both contain the verse. The NASB includes the verse in the regular text, with a note saying some manuscripts don't have the verse. The NIV ommits the verse in the regular text, but has a footnote containing he entire verse. So, I think you highly exaggerate the "COMPLETELY GONE" claims.

The NIV takes away at least seventeen verses of scripture...

You mean the KJV added at least 17 verses of scripture.

So-let's not laud the NIV too much as it's getting very mundane. I believe the fallacy behind it's "greatness" is all but contemptable.

I believe anyone who denigrated a translation of the Word of God that has brought millions to God is contemptable.

 

[D46]

I have an NIV and a NASB open in front of me, and they both contain the verse. The NASB includes the verse in the regular text, with a note saying some manuscripts don't have the verse. The NIV ommits the verse in the regular text, but has a footnote containing he entire verse. So, I think you highly exaggerate the "COMPLETELY GONE" claims.

We obviously have different versions of the NIV. I have a 1979 Zondervan, copywritten by the New York Bible Society that does NOT have this verse. It is completely gone...no marginal references-gone. The NASB I have by Broadman and Holman, 1985, has the verse but, it's explained away and questioned as to it's validity in the notes. It may as well be gone as it cast doubts as to whether it should be there or not. Sadly my Old Scofield(KJV) also cast doubts to this verse which no KJ bible should do but Scofield highly lauds Westcott and Hort in his introduction to his bible and had I known that I never would have purchased that particular bible. Therefore, it's not an exaggeration at all when the facts are in front of you. Perhaps over the years, Zondervan (who, by the way is owned by Harper-Collins of Rupert Murdock fame) got a lot of flack about the verse being omitted and they decided to put it back. Had they followed the Textus Receptus from the beginning, it would have been there as it should.

Many are the words are verses gone from, not only the NIV, but also most, if not all the modern versions. I find it odd that the Received Text was accepted and used for over 400 years before satanically iinspired "scholars" got hold of it to mutilate it for the glory of satan.

Does your NIV have Matthew 18:11? Mine doesn't. It actually jumps from verse 10 to 12. Matthew 18:11 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. What happened to that one?

Mark 11:26 (KJV) But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. This one is gone as well in mine. Another later copy may say, "Verse 26 is not found in the best mss". Well, we all know what the "best" are don't we? Aleph and B of course, from the Vatican.

Luke 9:56 (KJV) For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. Gone from the text in the NIV I have but, explained away in the margin.

John 16:16 (KJV) A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

The phrase "because I go to the Father" is omitted again from the NIV.

This covers only a portion of what's been left out in the gospels alone and by no means covers all. I haven't even begun to touch on the rest of the New Testament. Most people reading a NIV, NASB, KJV or any other, will not habitually read and search for all the marginal notes/comments about a given verse. They naturally assume what they are reading is true and don't have time or don't want to take the time to study the notes. They are missing much by not questioning why a verse has been questioned in a note. They blindly go on their way believing they have all God has to say to them in their choices of bibles. Sadly, they, as you, are mistaken.

If all prefaces of the NIV read as the one I have, there is a statement close to the last paragraph by the "Committee on Bible Translation", that starts out, "Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals." Would anyone want to read a bible such as this? They fall short for sure, but; the King James is the only faithful and true word of God and man can attack it all they want, but; it will stand when no other does and has fallen by the wayside. The NIV and others have indeed "fallen short" and they admitted but, I find it odd that the KJ is the only bible modern skeptics and learned "scholars" who fancy themselves as knowledgeable, attack and question. They don't compare and attack the NASB vs. the NIV or compare and question the NLT with the Living Bible, it's always the King James. Why? Because it's the one satan hates the most because he knows it to be the true and unadulterated by man, word of God.

If the Bible only contains God's Word, but no one knows which parts are His Word and which parts are not, what good is that? And why argue over perfect inspiration, if God has not preserved His Word? And what about all those translations? The whole problem comes down to this: Can you and I get a hold of God's pure Word; and if we can, where? I submit that it is found in its entirety in the King James Bible. Odd enought, it wasn't attacked until about 200 years or so back but, it has stood the test of time and it is a bible most believers read and cherish.

If your bible is not translated from the Masoretic text you don't have the true word of God. You have a facsimile from the good ol' boys from Alexandria who would like nothing more than to sell you short with their satanically inspired masterpieces.

You mean the KJV added at least 17 verses of scripture.

No, the King James didn't add...it was Rome that added. Although Alexandrian scholarship subtracted from the Word, Roman tradition added to the Word. Rome took Alexandria's diluted bible and added to it according to its traditions. This resulted in the corrupted bibles which we still have with us today. The New Testament was being corrupted by men who claimed to be correcting it even before all of the New Testament books were written (2 Corinthians 2:17). There have always been and will always be those who handle, "the word of God deceitfully" (2 Corinthians 4:2). The two major motives for changing the word of God are Scholarship and tradition. Scholarship, as found in Alexandria, usually subtracts from the Word while tradition, as found in Rome, usually adds to the Word. These two influences explain the corrupted bibles of today.

 

[Solo]

Sadly my Old Scofield(KJV) also cast doubts to this verse which no KJ bible should do but Scofield highly lauds Westcott and Hort in his introduction to his bible and had I known that I never would have purchased that particular bible.

Here is an interesting article on C.I. Scofield:

http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/fi ... ofield.htm

 

[D46]

One of Cyrus’s first suspicious moves involved in producing his Reference Bible was to take an unnecessary trip to the British Isles for research. He immediately sought out the controversial scholars Westcott and Hort in London. These two polecats guided him in how to alter the King James Bible so that it would be compatible with the dispensationalist teachings he was recruited to promote. Scofield preferred the Revised Version of the Bible, which was largely the product of his mentors Westcott and Hort and was based on corrupted manuscripts born in Alexandria, Egypt and espoused by the Vatican. (There is much information available concerning the Occultic beliefs and activities of Westcott and Hort).

However, he knew that if he coupled his notes with the RV they wouldn’t sell very well because the KJV far surpassed the RV in popularity. Even today the KJV greatly outnumbers the Revised Version. So he used the KJV, but in many areas where the two versions differed doctrinally, especially where his doctrine was concerned, he placed a footnote giving a supposedly more correct rendering, which almost always agreed with the RV. The serpent asked “yea hath God said?†in the garden. Scofield took after his father by placing doubt on the word of God and offering a shameful substitution.

Thanks for that link, Solo. When I bought that particular KJV of Scofield's I was under the impression that it was one of the best printed bibles as for quality, there was available. Hence, that was one of my reasons for it's purchase and for the hightly praised study notes incorporated in his bible. I didn't need another bible-just wanted it for comparison with my old Holman Master Study Bible I bought back around '85. I was sorely disappointed when I began reading this Scofield.

Even in the Introduction p. iv, Schofield says at the top, "The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tragelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek Textus Receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship.

So, we have another of satan's scribes injecting the poisonous pen of doubt in yet another bible, but; this time he attacked the King James by inserting doubtful claims and misleading information. Shame on you, Scofield!!

 

[D46]

Here's another interesting article on Scofield....

http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_vers ... tnotes.htm