What's new
By:
Filters
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!

What Is Wrong With The NIV Bible ?

I have not read this entire thread, but I must say, the guy who wrote the article is a little on the crazy side. While I myself would never use the NIV (for the same reasons), I do think it is helpful for some people and not necessarily demonic. Also, he says that people who believe in lordship salvation are going to hell. Ridiculous. They simply believe they are saved by grace and that this faith will produce works. There are many passages in the NT that state we must be obedient. Yes, the blood of Christ is what cleanses and regenerates us. But I fear if you have Christ as your "savior" and not your lord, you may be in for a surprise at judgement day.
 
Ronnie said:
I've always thought that the NIV was the Non Inspired Version.
Click to expand...
And yet for all the rhetoric in this thread I have yet to see one rational, logical argument to support the outlandish claims being made against the NIV. But I have come to expect that from the KJVO camp. I guess it's always easier to make fun of the other positions than vainly try to support baseless claims.

Besides, no version is inspired, only the original texts are.
 
Ronnie said:
"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."
Click to expand...
Ronnie, my KJV is printed by Zondervan Publishing House. Reckon I better throw it out also?
Westtexas
 
Lewis w this is what i hinted at. This would bring up the kjv only ism on this forum. I already know where this is gonna go. side a tells side b kjv only, and side b says no all version except a few are good and then :fight

We have locked up three of these already.
 
Jason, I'm not advocating the use of any particular version of the Bible. My question for Ronnie is this, he states the NIV is a satanic bible because Rupert Murdock owns the copyrights for it and Zondervan (which Ronnie says Murdock also owns) publishes the NIV and Hustler, thus making it a satanic bible. If my KJV and my NIV both say Zondervan on the inside page, what makes one inspired and one satanic, SOLELY on the publishers name?
 
jasoncran said:
Lewis w this is what i hinted at. This would bring up the kjv only ism on this forum. I already know where this is gonna go. side a tells side b kjv only, and side b says no all version except a few are good and then :fight

We have locked up three of these already.
Click to expand...
Jason this is nothing compared to the arguments on this forum some years back.
 
I'm starting to wonder if this whole mess isn't just another tool of Satan to deter people from reading God's Word. If there is so much talk flying around against the various versions of the Bible, they'll never be able to figure out which Bible is the "right" Bible.
 
Menno said:
Sorry to be this blunt, but you are all MISSING the point.

If God could use a Donkey, I am pretty sure that He can use the NIV to reveal His Word.

However, just to "balance" this a tad:

http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/122.kjverrors.html

(while the website does concludes that they think the KJV is the "best", at least they are honest enough to point out the "errors")
Click to expand...
And that I have absolutely no problem with. :thumb
 
Free said:
Menno said:
Sorry to be this blunt, but you are all MISSING the point.

If God could use a Donkey, I am pretty sure that He can use the NIV to reveal His Word.

However, just to "balance" this a tad:

http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/122.kjverrors.html

(while the website does concludes that they think the KJV is the "best", at least they are honest enough to point out the "errors")
Click to expand...
And that I have absolutely no problem with. :thumb
Click to expand...


Isa:14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! - KJV


Is the word Lucifer in the niv at all? Nope, it isn't. So what does Isaiah 14:12 say instead?


Isa:14:12: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! - niv (non inspired version)


It says satan is the morning star. So I guess it's a given that the niv calls the morning star a negative figure. A force of evil and not good. That is what it says right? Where else does the niv refer to the morning star?


Revelation:22:16: I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star. - niv


2Peter:1:19: And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. - niv


Revelation:2:28: I will also give him the morning star. - niv


So satan and Christ are one and the same in the niv, and in theosophy. There was no reason for this other than satanic subtlety. These people think they are so smart. These Westcott and Hort only people are deceived. It's straight blasphemy is what it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a reason for the morning star reference. It has a lot to do with astronomy and them calling planets, stars, for lack of not knowing about planets. Venus is known as the "morning star". Research the relationship between the king being spoken about in Isaiah 14 and Venus, this morning star.

Note this "star" is really a planet; a counterfeit star. ;)

a morning star

THE morning star. :D

Young's literal Translation Bible says:

12 How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.
 
Ahh, Vic beat me to the punch while I was in another topic.

"Lucifer" is a Latin term carried over from the Vulgate, that means "light-bearing" (both Strong's and Merriam-Webster are in agreement on this). This "morning light-bearer" is Venus and is a metaphor for the king in that passage. It is significant that Isa. 14:12 is the only place in all of Scripture that the word Lucifer is used, at least as a noun.

Ronnie said:
So satan and Christ are one and the same in the niv, and in theosophy. There was no reason for this other than satanic subtlety. These people think they are so smart. These Westcott and Hort only people are deceived. It's straight blasphemy is what it is.
Click to expand...
And this argument is precisely one of those poor, misleading arguments that I am referring to. Not only is the 'morning star' connection misleading, as has been pointed out, the NIV never tries to hide the deity of Jesus. Indeed, as I have pointed out previously in this thread, the NIV is significantly clearer than the KJV in John 1:18. The NIV is full of references to the deity of Jesus, so if W&H tried to take them out, as KJVOists claim, they did an absolutely terrible job of it. But that isn't the case at all. They have simply used different manuscript evidence.
 
Have you ever heard of "new" thinking?


http://www.worldcentrefornewthinking.or ... p=5166&l=1


If you look at the link you might get the feeling that this is indeed not "new" thinking at all but it's actually built on a foundation of old ideas that have spiritual roots. This is esoteric doctrine that these people teach. They won't see you unless you meet their requirements, and only one of those is that you donate a million dollars to their cause. And that's a must.


Anyways the point is that Westcott and Hort used this logic when revising the Bible.


We have entered a time in the church now in which men are leaning heavily on what their preachers teach and are setting the whole council of God aside. They do this to their peril. The revision wasn't warmly received and the translators didn't expect it to be. That's why they did it in secrecy. They were men who were thinking ahead, they had a vision.
 
The whole point of theosophy is to instill "proper human relations" into mankind. Does this sound like peace to you? They seek to unify the religions. Hey you can see it everywhere. Would you like to see a picture of the Pope kissing the Koran. I am sure it's available somewhere. Look this up. These people are masking Lucifer worship in a shroud of Christianity. This is not anything new. It has only been growing in followers since it's introduction. About 2,000 years ago.


popekiss.jpg
 
Ronnie, I'm not trying to propose any idea or new thinking whatsoever. I see a verse like this and ask why the difference. Why? Because I questioned why people called Satan, Lucifer, in the first place. Years ago I came up with the very same explanation as is in Free's post. It all made sense; Lucifer is a carryover from the Latin to English and originally was referring to the King of Babylon. It was about the third or fourth century when Luke 10:18 and Isaiah 14:12 were paralleled.

So, it was hundreds of years prior to new thinking or any age of enlightenment. A little Biblical history goes a long way in helping to understand context.

For me, he's Satan and will always be called Satan. :yes
 
satan and lucifer aren one and the same? Most churches teach otherwise. lucifer was the devil before he fell. He was the leader of worship in heaven.

correct me if this is off. Even the jw's say the same.
 
jasoncran said:
satan and lucifer aren one and the same? Most churches teach otherwise. lucifer was the devil before he fell. He was the leader of worship in heaven.

correct me if this is off. Even the jw's say the same.
Click to expand...
I always took Satan to just be a generic name for evil of men and spirt, while Lucifer was a specific person/angel. Satan can be the emodiment of evil, but Lucifer can use Satan to his advantage. They can be one in the same, yet different entities.

That is how I interprited that, but I could be wrong. :yes
 
Hey Jason and Lance, that would make a great Bible Study topic. There's no doubt the King of Babylon and others in the OT are a type of devil or of the Spirit of the Evil One. I'd be very interested in reading the Biblical evidence that Lucifer was the actually name of an angel in Heaven. After all, even Jesus referred to him as Satan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top