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 ?

Vic C. said:
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
Click to expand...


I guess you don't know what kinds of outrageous things are being taught and believed out there.


Why not just use the name Lucifer when there is no reason to use morning star? Maybe to confuse doctrine? Surely this was the case because there was NO REASON to use the term morning star. Lucifer is the only acceptable interpretation to use in light of the scriptures.
 
jasoncran said:
isiah 14 and ezekiel 28 are the verses on satan/lucifer.
Click to expand...


Men possessed by the Luceferian spirit are the embodiment of Lucifer. Such as the king of Tyre. Satan and man. Demons enter people all of the time. Satan surely is sitting in high places.
 
Vic C. said:
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
Click to expand...


Occult practices have existed for thousands of years. "New age" isn't new. It's the same old garbage in a different package.
 
Ronnie, you seem to be under the impression I am defending the NIV. I am not. Those who have been here for some time know I prefer those translations with roots in the Byzantine text and the TR. I'm no new puppy to Biblical history.

All I was doing is giving to those who may be interested why some versions, most actually, don't say Lucifer. The KJV translation relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate for it's translation, hence it's use of the word Lucifer. The word is more of a title or description than it is a name, which is why it doesn't show up more than once in the KJV and some other Bibles. That is why I also pointed out it didn't

It's all ok though. The name Lucifer is so ingrained in Christianity, mostly anyone would know what is meant. That is why I also pointed out it didn't come to be until the third or fourth century.

Sot if one wants to call him Lucifer, that's fine. But Jesus called him Satan and Satan is what I shall call him also. :yes I just ask that you don't assume I don't know what is being taught out there. I do.
 
Vic C. said:
Ronnie, you seem to be under the impression I am defending the NIV. I am not. Those who have been here for some time know I prefer those translations with roots in the Byzantine text and the TR. I'm no new puppy to Biblical history.

All I was doing is giving to those who may be interested why some versions, most actually, don't say Lucifer. The KJV translation relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate for it's translation, hence it's use of the word Lucifer. The word is more of a title or description than it is a name, which is why it doesn't show up more than once in the KJV and some other Bibles. That is why I also pointed out it didn't

It's all ok though. The name Lucifer is so ingrained in Christianity, mostly anyone would know what is meant. That is why I also pointed out it didn't come to be until the third or fourth century.

Sot if one wants to call him Lucifer, that's fine. But Jesus called him Satan and Satan is what I shall call him also. :yes I just ask that you don't assume I don't know what is being taught out there. I do.
Click to expand...


I am sorry if I sounded harsh. I didn't mean to offend you.
 
JoJo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think Jo Jo, and Jason, as you know that such things should be talked about. Now I have used the NIV, I owned one, gave it away, I would only use it for certain things, like clarity for some things, yes it can be used for certain things, but it is still corrupt. And I am sorry to say it, because Jo Jo you are my friend and I love you, but I must say what I think and feel. I know that everyone will not agree, but that is to be expected.
 
i do not have the niv bible anymore. i threw it away after finding a lot of things that actually contridict the truth found in the other versions that i have. it is also very watered down taking away from the conviction and life that the word of god brings into our lives. they have taken way to much out that is neccesary and added way to much that is unneccesary. i will pick up another niv over the next few days and share scripture from all the verins that i have and the niv so that all can see the truth in it.
 
RND said:
These two videos from Professor Walter Veith do a wonderful job in documenting the problem of the NIV and other translations. I would certainly encourage you to watch these videos because they do shed important light on this subject. Enjoy!

Battle of the Bibles

Changing the Word pt. 1 & 2
Click to expand...
The fact that in the second video he recommends Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, makes him lose all credibility.

Edited to add: that he refers to Riplinger as "Dr. Riplinger," further adds to the loss of credibility.


I still can't help but notice that not one substantial bit of support for all the claims in this thread has been given. This is very telling.
 
chris overy said:
well how can jesus and satan both be the morning star? THIS IS exactly what the niv does. isaiah 14 and revelations 21 or 22.
Click to expand...
Aleady dealt with.
 
ronniechoate34 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm
 
Free said:
RND said:
These two videos from Professor Walter Veith do a wonderful job in documenting the problem of the NIV and other translations. I would certainly encourage you to watch these videos because they do shed important light on this subject. Enjoy!

Battle of the Bibles

Changing the Word pt. 1 & 2
Click to expand...
The fact that in the second video he recommends Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, makes him lose all credibility.

Edited to add: that he refers to Riplinger as "Dr. Riplinger," further adds to the loss of credibility.


I still can't help but notice that not one substantial bit of support for all the claims in this thread has been given. This is very telling.
Click to expand...


Yeah some of her facts were a little off. But not all of them. You can refer to these things as he is discussing them for history on the names and people. I found him to be accurate.


What else was she wrong about besides Dr. Logsdon's association with one of those corrupt veresions? She was off about that but he did record his testimony before he passed away. He talked like his involvment was not all that Riplinger said it was. Powerful testimony though. There is also a record of one translator losing his voice. I don't know for certain about that one.
 
You know what.


All of you are much kinder than what I expected you to be. Please forgive me for that and thank you for being friendly.


I would like to share my testimony with you.


I may have already done that so if I haven't and you'd like to hear it pm me and I will.
 
Lewis W said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm[/quote]


Yes,,I do get angry about it. I really would like to see them quit thinking they are so smart and humble themselves. I could sway on this matter, and don't think I haven't been tried but it's not going to happen. I am not going to go down like that.
 
Free said:
chris overy said:
well how can jesus and satan both be the morning star? THIS IS exactly what the niv does. isaiah 14 and revelations 21 or 22.
Click to expand...
Aleady dealt with.
Click to expand...



Really, when? There was no reason to call Lucifer the morning star in that passage. Don't tell me they mean the same thing because they still had zero reason to translate it that way. None. Unless they wanted to take a poke at Jesus Christ, which they did.
 
Ronnie said:
Yeah some of her facts were a little off.
Click to expand...
Some of her facts? I strongly suggest you read this: http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

"According to my computer, we just began page 39. If after this amount of time anyone still thinks Gail Riplinger has anything of substance to say regarding the Bible, history, the biblical languages, or textual criticism, there is nothing more I can say that would be of benefit. The facts are plain. But those dedicated to Riplinger's theories and speculations are rarely impacted by any kind of factual rebuttal.

Gail Riplinger's works have been reviewed, and rejected, by numerous Christian leaders and scholars. For most, it's a waste of time to even discuss the issue, since it's so obvious that she is a troubler of the brethren, a woman who is out of control, setting herself up as an expert on topics about which she knows nothing at all. Her inability to function as a scholar is plain to anyone who wishes to see. The impact she has had in disrupting churches, damaging missions work, and in generally causing trouble, is hers to answer for.

In closing, though, we should actually be more troubled about what Gail Riplinger's work says about the church as a whole. Where has discernment gone? Why didn't someone sit her down a long time ago and try to straighten her out? And what is worse, why are men to this day letting her go on her merry way, spreading falsehoods, and even encouraging her in such activities? I have been informed (but have not taken the time to verify) that Mrs. Riplinger was recently granted an honorary doctorate by Jack Hyles for her work, New Age Bible VersionsI Can someone explain how a person who doesn't even have the first bit of undergraduate training in any of the fields relating to Bible translation can be given an honorary doctorate for having produced the most error-filled volume on the topic ever to grace the planet? Is "acrostic algebra" the stuff of doctorates? One may well forgive Gail, for she is obviously deceived; but what of the many others who encourage her to continue on in her path of disturbing the work of the Church? Might not they be even more liable? It would seem so.

James White

September, 1996"

ronniechoate34 said:
Free said:
chris overy said:
well how can jesus and satan both be the morning star? THIS IS exactly what the niv does. isaiah 14 and revelations 21 or 22.
Click to expand...
Aleady dealt with.
Click to expand...
Really, when? There was no reason to call Lucifer the morning star in that passage. Don't tell me they mean the same thing because they still had zero reason to translate it that way. None. Unless they wanted to take a poke at Jesus Christ, which they did.
Click to expand...
There is very good reason to use 'morning star' in Isa 14. This has been dealt with. It is a very misleading, deceptive argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top