What Is Wrong With The NIV Bible ?

[Fembot]

 

[JoJo]

Lewis!! You know I love you always! I use the NIV and I'm not offended. There's nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

 

[Lewis]

I love you too, Jo Jo, you are in my heart, and I am having fun with this, I really am, I am not angry.

 

[JoJo]

Awwwwwwww! What a sugar.

The way I see it, Lewis, is that if God didn't want me using the NIV, He would have moved me through the Holy Spirit to steer clear of it. I haven't had that happen, even after reading the talk against it on this forum and in other places. My NIV Bible has been through a lot of stuff with me and God has spoken to me through it many, many times. I just think the NIV has been very misunderstood. No hard feelings. Love you lots!

 

[jasoncran]

did someone say torturing?

 

[Menno]

Sorry I forgot to post where I got that from http://www.wordsoftruth.net/NIV2002.htm And yes that post was to long, and where is your proof that I am wrong, the NIV is corrupt, and that is all there is to it, the only offended is the ones who use it. Are you all ready to kill me yet ? Will I be stoned or blind folded and shot to death, or thrown on the rack ?

I do not use the NIV, and I am offended in the way that material you are posting is presented. I wonder if you read through the whole of the "wordsoftruth.net" website? Hopefully, you do not play in a band or have any other music besides "singing" in your churches, because according to "wordsoftruth" the word "play" is not found in the New Testament in regards to music. (http://www.wordsoftruth.net/centerofdiv ... hority.htm)

Sorry. but I am not buying into his legalism.

 

[Lewis]

Sorry I forgot to post where I got that from http://www.wordsoftruth.net/NIV2002.htm And yes that post was to long, and where is your proof that I am wrong, the NIV is corrupt, and that is all there is to it, the only offended is the ones who use it. Are you all ready to kill me yet ? Will I be stoned or blind folded and shot to death, or thrown on the rack ?

I do not use the NIV, and I am offended in the way that material you are posting is presented. I wonder if you read through the whole of the "wordsoftruth.net" website? Hopefully, you do not play in a band or have any other music besides "singing" in your churches, because according to "wordsoftruth" the word "play" is not found in the New Testament in regards to music. (http://www.wordsoftruth.net/centerofdiv ... hority.htm)

Sorry. but I am not buying into his legalism.

So don't buy it.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Pretty sad state of affairs when Christians fight over which translation should be used while labeling some as twisted or heretical or dangerous or pick your evil pronoun. Come on folks...we have better things to burn calories on.

 

[Lewis]

I am not fighting Aero

 

[Free]

Sorry I forgot to post where I got that from http://www.wordsoftruth.net/NIV2002.htm And yes that post was to long, and where is your proof that I am wrong, the NIV is corrupt, and that is all there is to it, the only offended is the ones who use it. Are you all ready to kill me yet ? Will I be stoned or blind folded and shot to death, or thrown on the rack ?

What's interesting is that either the site I gave or the site you gave has plagiarized from the other.

 

[Menno]

http://www.wordsoftruth.net/NIV2002.htm[/url] And yes that post was to long, and where is your proof that I am wrong, the NIV is corrupt, and that is all there is to it, the only offended is the ones who use it. Are you all ready to kill me yet ? Will I be stoned or blind folded and shot to death, or thrown on the rack ?[/color]

I do not use the NIV, and I am offended in the way that material you are posting is presented. I wonder if you read through the whole of the "wordsoftruth.net" website? Hopefully, you do not play in a band or have any other music besides "singing" in your churches, because according to "wordsoftruth" the word "play" is not found in the New Testament in regards to music. (http://www.wordsoftruth.net/centerofdiv ... hority.htm)

Sorry. but I am not buying into his legalism.

So don't buy it.[/quote:1134929j]

I am not, but have you investigated this yourself or are you merely rely on the word of this website you posted?

 

[Menno]

Sorry I forgot to post where I got that from http://www.wordsoftruth.net/NIV2002.htm And yes that post was to long, and where is your proof that I am wrong, the NIV is corrupt, and that is all there is to it, the only offended is the ones who use it. Are you all ready to kill me yet ? Will I be stoned or blind folded and shot to death, or thrown on the rack ?

What's interesting is that either the site I gave or the site you gave has plagiarized from the other.

According to "wordsoftruth" - he offers his "material" for free.

 

[Drew]

A theologian whom I greatly respect (and some people here will already that I am referring to NT Wright) has argued that the NIV does indeed have some translation problems, especially with respect to Paul. But, of course, no translation is perfect. However at least 2 NIV "errors" that I know of have significant impact.

1. In Romans 3, somewhere towards the end, the NIV offers the phrase "righteousness from God", whereas, for example, the NASB renders the same (greek) phrase as "righteousness of God". Huge, huge difference, as I suspect you can see - the former refers to an "imputed" righteousness, the latter to God's own righteous behaviour. I am convinced by arguments that the NASB rendering is the correct one, but that's a complicated argument which I will not get into here.

2. In Romans 11, we get this from the NIV: "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news". However, the word "Israelites" (or equivalent) appears in no Greek manuscripts and the NIV translators have engaged in "interpretation". That's no crime, but again for reasons I cannot get into right here, I think the NIV interpretation is incorrect and context suggests that Paul is actually referring to Gentiles who have not believed.

In both these cases, the alleged "errors" have significant theological impact. I am not saying that other translations are not also problematic.

In any event, I think the proper way to discuss this issue is to address technical matters of translation and not make arguments how the company that sells the NIV also sells the Satanic Bible. I suspect that the paper used in many Bible translations comes from the same paper company who sells to pornographers. But that is hardly an argument to impugn those Bible translations.

 

[ronniechoate34]

HarperCollins Publishers is one of the world’s leading English-language publishers. Headquartered in New York, the company is a subsidiary of News Corporation. The house of Mark Twain, the Brontë sisters, Thackeray, Dickens, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Maurice Sendak, Shel Silverstein, and Margaret Wise Brown, HarperCollins was founded in New York City in 1817 as J. and J. Harper, later Harper & Brothers, by James and John Harper. In 1987, as Harper & Row, it was acquired by News Corporation. The worldwide book group was formed following News Corporation’s 1990 acquisition of the British publisher William Collins & Sons.


http://www.harpercollins.com/footer/companyProfile.aspx


# Book Publishing

* HarperCollins




http://www.newscorp.com/management/index.html


Keith Rupert Murdoch, (US: /?ru?p?rt ?m??d??k/; born 11 March 1931) is an Australian-born American media mogul. He is the founder, a major shareholder, chairman and managing director of News Corporation (News Corp).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HynaTooUA


"Would it surprise you that the holder of the Copyright of the New International Version Bible also holds the copyright for Hustler magazine - pornography. Rupert Murdock, called "Media's prince of Darkness" by Chicago columnist Mike Royco, owns the copyright & exclusive printing rights on the most sold newer Bible version in the world, the NIV (through Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, which he owns). Murdoch also owns the copyright on another corrupt Bible version, the Amplified Version."


Murdock owns the company that owns the company that owns the company... That is how it is done; everything in big business is done by Corporations?this is to protect the owner from lawsuits, etc. In the big business world there are few one-owner companies. Every company on the stock market, just about, is a corporation. So, for example: If I own McDonald's, and McDonald's Corporation trademarked the Big Mac Sandwichâ„¢; then I, as owner of McDonald's, hold the trademark on the Big Mac Sandwich.

Likewise, when one buys a publishing house, he becomes the owner of all the copyrights which that publishing house holds.


http://biblestudysite.com/answers34.htm#3


Main article: The Satanic Rituals

The Satanic Rituals was published as a companion edition to The Satanic Bible, and contains descriptions of a number of other rituals, many of them very elaborate. Both books are published by Avon and remain in print.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible


Avon Red bestows the best, most sophisticated erotic fiction available in the industry, written by the most talented authors. Avon Red is at the forefront of this up-and-coming genre and continuously brings stories so steamy and sensual you'll need a hot shower after reading.


http://www.harpercollins.com/Imprints/Avon/About.aspx


Who is Avon? It's Harpercollins of course. Take a look at their site.


Rupert Murdoch's Growing Porn Empire
The New American ^ | March 14, 2006 | William Norman Grigg

Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:23:06 AM by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch (Council on Foreign Relations), whose international holdings include the supposedly conservative FOX News channel, "has been secretly building a stable of wholly-owned pornographic channels for his [British] Sky subsidiary," reported Rupert Steiner of London's The Business on February 12. "The Business has learned that Sky now owns and operates its own pornographic channels -- the 18+ Movies section -- after years of hosting third-party content only."

Previously, under British licensing rules, Rupert's Sky network was required to provide porn content produced by other networks. Having learned of porn's profit potential, however, Murdoch is developing his own original smut content, as well as "entering into partnerships with companies that broadcast pornographic television channels on Sky, such as Sport XXX Babes, XXX Housewives, and Playboy. Sky has agreed [to] retail distribution agreements with these companies. With Playboy, for instance, Sky now not only hosts the channel but sells its service, and collects and shares in the revenues from Playboy customers."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... 6824/posts


And people believe that this man holds the true Word of God?

 

[Menno]

Robert Murdoch? Why is that name familiar? Doesn't he own some media outlets as well? Some that broadcast news?

Huh....

 

[ronniechoate34]

Robert Murdoch? Why is that name familiar? Doesn't he own some media outlets as well? Some that broadcast news?

Huh....

Many many media outlets. Fox news, Fox Network, Twentieth Century Fox, newspapers galore. Etc, etc, etc., ad- nauseam.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Pretty sad state of affairs when Christians fight over which translation should be used while labeling some as twisted or heretical or dangerous or pick your evil pronoun. Come on folks...we have better things to burn calories on.

There is nothing that burns like the truth.

 

[Menno]

Robert Murdoch? Why is that name familiar? Doesn't he own some media outlets as well? Some that broadcast news?

Huh....

Many many media outlets. Fox news, Fox Network, Twentieth Century Fox, newspapers galore. Etc, etc, etc., ad- nauseam.

Just find it interesting that "conservatives" will trust Fox News to bring them the news from the same person who makes money off of porn while the same time attempting to connect the NIV with porn.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Robert Murdoch? Why is that name familiar? Doesn't he own some media outlets as well? Some that broadcast news?

Huh....

Many many media outlets. Fox news, Fox Network, Twentieth Century Fox, newspapers galore. Etc, etc, etc., ad- nauseam.

Just find it interesting that "conservatives" will trust Fox News to bring them the news from the same person who makes money off of porn while the same time attempting to connect the NIV with porn.

Fox news broadcasts disinformation. The agents are obvious and I believe that I know what they are up to. I think that they are trying to invoke a civil outbreak. I have noticed two things happening more and more recently. A focus on racial issues and the affairs of government. Both of these issues are powder kegs. Once the people revolt then the rounding up of the people can begin.

 

[Free]

"Would it surprise you that the holder of the Copyright of the New International Version Bible also holds the copyright for Hustler magazine - pornography. Rupert Murdock, called "Media's prince of Darkness" by Chicago columnist Mike Royco, owns the copyright & exclusive printing rights on the most sold newer Bible version in the world, the NIV (through Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, which he owns). Murdoch also owns the copyright on another corrupt Bible version, the Amplified Version."

I've already addressed this. The copyright of the NIV is owned by the International Bible Society.