Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

 

[gordon777]

It is a fallacy because you’re beginning with the assumption that those verses are supposed to be there to begin with. You first have to prove that those verses are most likely in the original autographs and then you can make your argument. You can’t begin with the KJV.

Of course you can begin with the KJV, it is the version that gave the bible to the ordinary man and away from the control of Catholic priests.

God wanted man to hear directly himself, and that is why this time, is the latter rain, to go with the early rain.

NIV does change things from the KJV, and it is simple to know why, because the end is right here and now, and corruption and the corrupot, are all that remains on earth. ( if they wish to dent that, I will prove that.)



James 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is a fallacy because you’re beginning with the assumption that those verses are supposed to be there to begin with.

No, it is not a fallacy. It might be a mistake for you to assume they were not. Both the nature of the omission and the inclusion in early letters from the church fathers make it likely for them to be there. Many of them question the divinity or character of Christ, something very likely to have been there and easily a target for those against Christ.

You first have to prove that those verses are most likely in the original autographs and then you can make your argument. You can’t begin with the KJV.

As you see, I do not. On the other hand, you have to prove they were not. Many of t he texts make no sense when omitted and make complete sense when there.

 

[Free]

Of course you can begin with the KJV, it is the version that gave the bible to the ordinary man and away from the control of Catholic priests.

God wanted man to hear directly himself, and that is why this time, is the latter rain, to go with the early rain.

It is better to begin with the actual manuscripts, is it not?

NIV does change things from the KJV, and it is simple to know why, because the end is right here and now, and corruption and the corrupot, are all that remains on earth. ( if they wish to dent that, I will prove that.)

That is begging the question.

 

[Free]

No, it is not a fallacy.

Yes, it is. You must first begin with the Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence and show that the verses are there and that they were likely in the original autographs.

It might be a mistake for you to assume they were not. Both the nature of the omission and the inclusion in early letters from the church fathers make it likely for them to be there.

The best manuscript evidence strongly suggests they weren't there. That is precisely why they don't appear in newer versions. The KJV manuscript evidence is outdated and poor compared to the much larger manuscript evidence we now have.

Many of them question the divinity or character of Christ, something very likely to have been there and easily a target for those against Christ.

To suggest those verses which were supposedly removed were done so to target the deity of Christ, is to ignore the many verses remaining that prove the deity of Christ, some of which are more clearly stated than in the KJV. So, if verses were removed, it clearly is not the case that the deity of Christ was targeted.

As you see, I do not. On the other hand, you have to prove they were not.

Yes, you do. You made the claim that verses were removed, so the onus is on you to prove such. To shift the burden of proof onto those you disagree with is another fallacy.

Many of t he texts make no sense when omitted and make complete sense when there.

Can you provide an example?

 

[gordon777]

It is better to begin with the actual manuscripts, is it not?


That is begging the question.

Faith is in Jesus Christ, to believe it is He that died for us, which is to believe in the truth, ( the Spirit is truth, and it is the Spirit that bears witness. 1 John 5:6.)

As testified, we believe in Jesus Christ through the testimony of the Apostles of the Lord( they were eye witnesses, and so is the Holy Ghost which God has given to those who obey Him.)





John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.




God gives the faith, through His Spirit, an thew Spirit gives witness, by being in us, and the words being Spirit and life.

The original manuscripts will not give anyone faith, nor the Spirit, this is entirely by Jesus Christ. Anyone who seeks something original, and has not gotten faith from the first scriptures they came across( called by God) wont ever find the faith of Jesus Christ.



1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.




And yes, I will prove the wisdom of this world and men of this world is foolishness.



1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 

[gordon777]

To suggest those verses which were supposedly removed were done so to target the deity of Christ, is to ignore the many verses remaining that prove the deity of Christ, some of which are more clearly stated than in the KJV. So, if verses were removed, it clearly is not the case that the deity of Christ was targeted.

That's correct, the verses that give faith in Jesus Christ, are all that man needs, and original manuscripts it seems you concur, are not required for further faith, because there is one faith, ( Ephesians 4:5.) and belief in the rising of Jesus Christ from the dead is that faith, which we have available at all moments since Jesus Christ was preached in all the world. ( the Spirit needs to be given for man to believe and understand in the Spirit of Christ., original manuscripts and men's wisdom/understanding, do not give the Spirit, God, does, and all is Spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14.)




Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

 

[gordon777]

The bible version that counts, is the exact opposite to what the wise in this world/scholars, the princes of this world, all claim it to be.

It is one thing only, it is Christ and Him crucified.

That is the wisdom of God( foolishness to natural man/the wise of this world/ the disputer of h.ids world, who is nowhere now.)

God reveals all through His Spirit, and all eyes that see original manuscripts, see what they think they should see, but for those who love God, God lets their eyes see Him (God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him, must worship Him in Spirit, and in truth. John 4:24, which is this testimony, and thew ones who reject it, follow debate, and strife, not God at all, and we can avoid those who are wise in evil, but conveniently simple concerning what is good.)





Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.



1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

 

[gordon777]

When anyone does not bring the doctrine which is according to godliness, God shows it is because they do not consent to wholesome words of Christ, they are perverse disputers, of corrupt minds, they are the ones destitute of the truth. They are proud and know nothing( the prideful scholars are nor chosen and choose their own understanding instead of that of the Spirit, given to those despised in life, so no flesh glories in the presence of the Lord.

They also it is testified, are ever learning but never able to come o the knowledge of the truth( not in original Greek.) and they are only fools, as they are revealed for their FOLLY.





1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

 

[OzSpen]

It’s simply not the case. This morning I was reading out of John and checked the NIV against other translations and they had inserted a word that really changed the meaning that was in no other version. Sure enough it was not in the Greek.

Dorothy,

Please, please provide examples to which you refer. Otherwise I'm left to consider it is your bias.

Oz

 

[jaybo]

It’s true that the NIV removed a great deal and there’s no fallacy in the statement.

What are your qualifications as a translator? Otherwise, saying that the NIV removed a great deal has no basis.

 

[jaybo]

Yes, it is. You must first begin with the Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence and show that the verses are there and that they were likely in the original autographs.


The best manuscript evidence strongly suggests they weren't there. That is precisely why they don't appear in newer versions. The KJV manuscript evidence is outdated and poor compared to the much larger manuscript evidence we now have.


To suggest those verses which were supposedly removed were done so to target the deity of Christ, is to ignore the many verses remaining that prove the deity of Christ, some of which are more clearly stated than in the KJV. So, if verses were removed, it clearly is not the case that the deity of Christ was targeted.


Yes, you do. You made the claim that verses were removed, so the onus is on you to prove such. To shift the burden of proof onto those you disagree with is another fallacy.


Can you provide an example?

It seems obvious that Dorothy Mae has made the classic error of making the facts agree with her preformed, biased opinion, regardless of any actual basis.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes, it is. You must first begin with the Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence and show that the verses are there and that they were likely in the original autographs.


The best manuscript evidence strongly suggests they weren't there. That is precisely why they don't appear in newer versions. The KJV manuscript evidence is outdated and poor compared to the much larger manuscript evidence we now have.


To suggest those verses which were supposedly removed were done so to target the deity of Christ, is to ignore the many verses remaining that prove the deity of Christ, some of which are more clearly stated than in the KJV. So, if verses were removed, it clearly is not the case that the deity of Christ was targeted.


Yes, you do. You made the claim that verses were removed, so the onus is on you to prove such. To shift the burden of proof onto those you disagree with is another fallacy.


Can you provide an example?

What are your qualifications as a translator? Otherwise, saying that the NIV removed a great deal has no basis.

I can and do read a great deal asking questions and getting answers.

There’s two choices for those who are confronted with doubts about their favorite translation. They can look into the allegations or they can shoot the messenger. The NIV changes the meaning with the end result of believers understanding less about God and his ways. The result is seen if you go through the titles of discussion sites such as this or talk with believers. Instead of being able to reasonably exchange views on scripture, there are threads on cloud pictures, just believe there’s a god and you’ll be saved and my dog is dying. I’ve heard a few modern popular preachers openly insisting God is a mystery. If they read the NIV and subsequent publications, it’s not surprising.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy,

Please, please provide examples to which you refer. Otherwise I'm left to consider it is your bias.

Oz

This is an example of what I mean by either look into the matter or shoot (insult) the messenger. You could find this out if you wanted to truth. There’s a lot more but here’s a start:

1. Matthew 17:21 — COMPLETELY removed .
2. “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
3. Matthew 18:11 — COMPLETELY removed.
4. “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
5. Matthew 21:44 — removed in the footnotes
6. Matthew 23:14 — COMPLETELY removed.
7. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”
8. Mark 7:16 — COMPLETELY removed.
9. Matthew 12:47 — removed in the footnotes
10. “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
11. Mark 9:44 — COMPLETELY removed.
12. “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
13. Mark 9:46 — COMPLETELY removed .
14. “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
15. Mark 11:26 — COMPLETELY removed.
16. “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
17. Mark 15:28 — COMPLETELY removed .
18. “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
19. Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) — There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text; and right under the line it says: The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.)
20. Luke 17:36 — COMPLETELY removed.
21. “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
22. Luke 22:44 — removed in the footnotes
23. Luke 22:43 — removed in the footnotes
24. Luke 23:17 — COMPLETELY removed.
25. “(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)”
26. John 5:4 — COMPLETELY removed .
27. “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
28. John 7:53-8:11 — removed in the footnotes
29. Acts 8:37 — COMPLETELY removed. It’s deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic.
30. “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.”
31. Acts 15:34 — COMPLETELY removed .
32. “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.”
33. Acts 24:7 — COMPLETELY removed.
34. “But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,”
35. Acts 28:29 — COMPLETELY removed.
36. “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.”
37. Romans 16:24 — COMPLETELY removed.
38. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”
39. I John 5:7 — Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed. In the NIV it says,”For there are three that testify:”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It seems obvious that Dorothy Mae has made the classic error of making the facts agree with her preformed, biased opinion, regardless of any actual basis.

As I said, just shoot the messenger.

I’m very sure I’ve examined the facts much more than those who don’t want to do so. It’s part of wanting truth. I’ve searched to see what things be so. But one cannot show the truth to those who prefer their already chosen view.

In the end, the proof is which Bible has produced Christians who understand Jesus.

 

[Free]

I can and do read a great deal asking questions and getting answers.

So do I; so do a lot of people. Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they have studied less or asked fewer questions. To think otherwise is spiritual pride.

There’s two choices for those who are confronted with doubts about their favorite translation. They can look into the allegations or they can shoot the messenger. The NIV changes the meaning with the end result of believers understanding less about God and his ways.

The NIV doesn’t change meanings. Again, you are committing the fallacy of begging the question.

The result is seen if you go through the titles of discussion sites such as this or talk with believers. Instead of being able to reasonably exchange views on scripture, there are threads on cloud pictures, just believe there’s a god and you’ll be saved and my dog is dying.

So, Christians aren’t allowed to discuss life?

I’ve heard a few modern popular preachers openly insisting God is a mystery. If they read the NIV and subsequent publications, it’s not surprising.

If you can fully understand God, then he is a god of your own making. It is impossible for finite minds to fully comprehend God; there is much that remains a mystery.

This is an example of what I mean by either look into the matter or shoot (insult) the messenger. You could find this out if you wanted to truth. There’s a lot more but here’s a start:

1. Matthew 17:21 — COMPLETELY removed .
2. “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
3. Matthew 18:11 — COMPLETELY removed.
4. “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
5. Matthew 21:44 — removed in the footnotes
6. Matthew 23:14 — COMPLETELY removed.
7. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”
8. Mark 7:16 — COMPLETELY removed.
9. Matthew 12:47 — removed in the footnotes
10. “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
11. Mark 9:44 — COMPLETELY removed.
12. “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
13. Mark 9:46 — COMPLETELY removed .
14. “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
15. Mark 11:26 — COMPLETELY removed.
16. “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
17. Mark 15:28 — COMPLETELY removed .
18. “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
19. Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) — There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text; and right under the line it says: The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.)
20. Luke 17:36 — COMPLETELY removed.
21. “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
22. Luke 22:44 — removed in the footnotes
23. Luke 22:43 — removed in the footnotes
24. Luke 23:17 — COMPLETELY removed.
25. “(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)”
26. John 5:4 — COMPLETELY removed .
27. “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
28. John 7:53-8:11 — removed in the footnotes
29. Acts 8:37 — COMPLETELY removed. It’s deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic.
30. “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.”
31. Acts 15:34 — COMPLETELY removed .
32. “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.”
33. Acts 24:7 — COMPLETELY removed.
34. “But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,”
35. Acts 28:29 — COMPLETELY removed.
36. “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.”
37. Romans 16:24 — COMPLETELY removed.
38. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”
39. I John 5:7 — Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed. In the NIV it says,”For there are three that testify:”

You copied this. Please post the source as per the ToS.

 

[andy pandy]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

The New King James Version. You won't get anything better.

 

[andy pandy]

The bottom line. All versions are a waste of time unless the Holy Spirit leads you into all truth. Without that, you are up the creek without a paddle.

 

[OzSpen]

I can and do read a great deal asking questions and getting answers.

There’s two choices for those who are confronted with doubts about their favorite translation. They can look into the allegations or they can shoot the messenger. The NIV changes the meaning with the end result of believers understanding less about God and his ways. The result is seen if you go through the titles of discussion sites such as this or talk with believers. Instead of being able to reasonably exchange views on scripture, there are threads on cloud pictures, just believe there’s a god and you’ll be saved and my dog is dying. I’ve heard a few modern popular preachers openly insisting God is a mystery. If they read the NIV and subsequent publications, it’s not surprising.

Dorothy,

Please give us 5 examples of where the NIV has changed the meaning so that we understand less about God and His ways.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The bottom line. All versions are a waste of time unless the Holy Spirit leads you into all truth. Without that, you are up the creek without a paddle.

Andy,

Does that mean you take no notice of the grammar and syntax of sentences and paragraphs?

Oz

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy,

Please give us 5 examples of where the NIV has changed the meaning so that we understand less about God and His ways.

Oz

Oz,
I’ll start with two I thought of with no effort. I dislike long posts so let’s keep it short for now.

ps 51:5
NIV Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

KJV
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Let’s look at the Greek

Behold	Interjection
5771 [e]	בְּעָו֥וֹן bə-‘ā-wō-wn	in iniquity	Prep-b | N-cs
2342 [e]	חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי ḥō-w-lā-lə-tî;	I was brought forth	V-Pual-Perf-1cs
2399 [e]	וּ֝בְחֵ֗טְא ū-ḇə-ḥêṭ,	and in sin	Conj-w, Prep-b | N-ms
3179 [e]	יֶֽחֱמַ֥תְנִי ye-ḥĕ-maṯ-nî	conceived me	V-Piel-Perf-3fs | 1cs
517 [e]	אִמִּֽי׃ ’im-mî.	my mother

Clearly the NIV writer inserted his personal theology whereby the unsuspecting think God sees babies as sinful. I’ve noticed the impact this has on those who hold that false view of God. (Jesus said the population of Heaven is like the little children so that is not Gods view of babies.)

John 14:30 misleads as to the ways in the spiritual world

NIV I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,

KJV

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

This is a typical example of the NIV writer assuming they understand the meaning and so freely change the words. They do not understand that Jesus was saying that the Devil has nothing IN HIM. It’s not a hold OVER but actually in. The Devil has an entry into the lives of many people and so has something IN them. If one wants freedom, one needs to understand this and fight that battle.

I can give this more thought. I’m not a KJV only and read several translations. But in my own reading I’ve noticed information in the KJV that brings understanding is missing in other translations. In places the KJV makes sense whereas the NIV doesn’t. (A good example is when the men couldn’t cast out a demon. Jesus says in the NIV, “his kind only comes out by prayer” which makes no sense since all the demons they did cast out only came by prayer, 100%. The KJV reports, “this kind only come out by prayer and fasting,” which makes perfect sense. This is a way of the Lord’s power in dealing with demons lost in the NIV.)

Now I also know the history of the greek copies and supposedly “oldest” texts so I’m fairly knowledgeable and less likely to despise the positions of others as I see others do who have challenged me on this. You asked with respect. They asked with jeering. I hesitate to throw pearls of understanding to those who already allow themselves to despise.