What Is Wrong With The NIV Bible ?

[RND]

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

The fact that in the second video he recommends Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, makes him lose all credibility.

I'm concerned about this POV Free. In the second video Professor Veith never mentions Gail Riplinger's book, not even once. Would you mind documenting the minute mark of the second video where you say he does? Thanks in advance.

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

Would you mind giving us the minute mark where Professor Veith refers to Gail Riplinger as "Dr."?

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.

Wow, I'd say the Isaiah 14/Rev. 22 point is substantial.

 

[Free]

The fact that in the second video he recommends Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, makes him lose all credibility.

I'm concerned about this POV Free. In the second video Professor Veith never mentions Gail Riplinger's book, not even once. Would you mind documenting the minute mark of the second video where you say he does? Thanks in advance.

He sure does mention it, from 3:53-4:17ish--"Recommended Books."

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

Would you mind giving us the minute mark where Professor Veith refers to Gail Riplinger as "Dr."?

It's near the end of the above time frame, maybe a little after--4:13.

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.

Wow, I'd say the Isaiah 14/Rev. 22 point is substantial.

It isn't, for the reasons given in both mine and Vic's previous posts on the matter.

 

[Lewis]

Wow, I'd say the Isaiah 14/Rev. 22 point is substantial.

I would say so too RND

 

[Free]

Wow, I'd say the Isaiah 14/Rev. 22 point is substantial.

I would say so too RND

Wow! Really? Has no one read the previous posts on the matter?

 

[RND]

The fact that in the second video he recommends Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, makes him lose all credibility.

I'm concerned about this POV Free. In the second video Professor Veith never mentions Gail Riplinger's book, not even once. Would you mind documenting the minute mark of the second video where you say he does? Thanks in advance.

He sure does mention it, from 3:53-4:17ish--"Recommended Books."

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

Would you mind giving us the minute mark where Professor Veith refers to Gail Riplinger as "Dr."?

It's near the end of the above time frame, maybe a little after--4:13.

Thanks Free. I missed that and I've seen this video a few times now. What is your concern about Dr. Riplinger? BTW, she is a university professor so the title doctor is appropriate. Many sources refer to her as doctor.

It isn't, for the reasons given in both mine and Vic's previous posts on the matter.

Ok. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

 

[RND]

Wow, I'd say the Isaiah 14/Rev. 22 point is substantial.

I would say so too RND

Yeah, I agree. The NIV seeks to replace Satan with Jesus in this important part of scripture.

 

[Free]

What is your concern about Dr. Riplinger? BTW, she is a university professor so the title doctor is appropriate. Many sources refer to her as doctor.

She might teach at a college but she does not have a doctorate, so she should not be referred to as 'Dr.' My concern about her? She has a BA in Interior Design and MA in Home Economics. She is absolutely unqualified to be writing books on such serious a topic as Bible versions; she is far from being a biblical scholar.

Yeah, I agree. The NIV seeks to replace Satan with Jesus in this important part of scripture.

No, it does not. That is an utterly fallacious argument.

 

[RND]

She might teach at a college but she does not have a doctorate, so she should not be referred to as 'Dr.' My concern about her? She has a BA in Interior Design and MA in Home Economics. She is absolutely unqualified to be writing books on such serious a topic as Bible versions; she is far from being a biblical scholar.

We are all brethren and priests in the Kingdom of God so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her qualifications.

Heck, I'm a landscape designer that writes occasionally about the Bible. Frankly Free, I think you are simply looking for reasons to dismiss her.

The Bible says that God gives certain gifts to people. Are you suggesting that God couldn't have given this woman a gift to show us these differences?

Yeah, I agree. The NIV seeks to replace Satan with Jesus in this important part of scripture.

No, it does not. That is an utterly fallacious argument.[/quote] I disagree.

 

[Free]

She might teach at a college but she does not have a doctorate, so she should not be referred to as 'Dr.' My concern about her? She has a BA in Interior Design and MA in Home Economics. She is absolutely unqualified to be writing books on such serious a topic as Bible versions; she is far from being a biblical scholar.

We are all brethren and priests in the Kingdom of God so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her qualifications.

Heck, I'm a landscape designer that writes occasionally about the Bible. Frankly Free, I think you are simply looking for reasons to dismiss her.

But here is the problem: she writes as though she is authoritative about the things she is writing, and people, very unfortunately, believe her. I've dismissed her a long time ago after reading this article:

http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

Her lack of knowledge about biblical scholarship can be clearly seen. The irony is the amount of attack people will do against the NIV and such, yet few things are more harmful to the Faith than someone like Gail Riplinger, yet no one says a word.

Yeah, I agree. The NIV seeks to replace Satan with Jesus in this important part of scripture.

No, it does not. That is an utterly fallacious argument.

I disagree.

And yet, you, nor anyone else, has responded to my rebuttal of that argument. Simply saying "I disagree" does not constitute a rebuttal. My point stands.

 

[RND]

But here is the problem: she writes as though she is authoritative about the things she is writing, and people, very unfortunately, believe her.

So you think it's impossible that God can't work through this woman no matter what her qualifications are?

I've dismissed her a long time ago after reading this article:

http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

Thanks I'll read it.

Her lack of knowledge about biblical scholarship can be clearly seen. The irony is the amount of attack people will do against the NIV and such, yet few things are more harmful to the Faith than someone like Gail Riplinger, yet no one says a word.

You'd have to give me an example or two.

And yet, you, nor anyone else, has responded to my rebuttal of that argument. Simply saying "I disagree" does not constitute a rebuttal. My point stands.

I never saw your rebuttal so......

 

[RND]

[youtube:1dkafab9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAr5FdNqnfI&feature=related[/youtube:1dkafab9]

 

[JoJo]

...and so the distractions continue.

The Enemy would LOVE for NIV readers to put down their NIV Bibles and never pick them up again, don't you see? The Enemy LOVES confusion and distraction and delights in seeing God's children bicker over differences such as opinions about translations.

You know, I was perfectly content with my NIV Bible until just recently. Then I started reading people's opinions and observations and speculations and interpretations. Now when I pick up my Bible, there are questions in my mind: Is this the right Bible? Is this really God's Word? Is this Bible "evil"? Perish the thought! This, the same Bible that God used to help me get through my son's cancer (among other things) and uses to help people break free from addiction, abuse, illnesses, and sinful lifestyles. The NIV Bible has undoubted saved many a soul...and yet it is condemned by some people! I'll never understand it.

Note to Lewis: This is nothing against you or your opinions. I want you to know that. I know you only have good intentions.

 

[vja4Him]

Here's Romans 10:9 from the King James Bible, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Now here's Romans 10:9 from the perverted NIV... "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The Bible never requires us to make Jesus our "Lord" to be saved, only trust Him as our Savior (John 14:6).

You've got to be kidding... This is the epitome of human wisdom... I can't believe anyone would even argue this point. :help

It's like saying, "Jesus is Lord", but I'm a Christian, so he aint my Lord, he's my Messiah (Christ).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

Jesus is both our Lord and Savior.

Amen! And you can also turn this around, and show that the NIV actually has a higher count of certain words, when compared with the King James Bible.

 

[chris overy]

this is the problem. with any new translation of the bible in todays world they have to cahnge wording. it is like running a business. mcdonalds and burger king can not both sell the big mac. this is the problem with any new translation. they add and take out to perposley make it different from the others in order to claim its uniqueness in the truth. this is part of the reason that christianity is so confusing and full of lies in the churches today.

 

[ronniechoate34]

this is the problem. with any new translation of the bible in todays world they have to cahnge wording. it is like running a business. mcdonalds and burger king can not both sell the big mac. this is the problem with any new translation. they add and take out to perposley make it different from the others in order to claim its uniqueness in the truth. this is part of the reason that christianity is so confusing and full of lies in the churches today.

Practicing the faith, that's what caused people to reject the revised bible in the first place. I am not trying to be mean when I say this but it certainly was not their intelligence. If they had relied solely on that then they may have wound up being taken away from the true faith by vain philosophies and the rudiments of the world. Perhaps some men knowing better went along with spreading this revised bible anyway having the admiration of other men in mind and not God. No, these bibles have been a wound to brotherhood and true worship of our Lord Jesus Christ. Have nothing to do with them. They were founded in darkness and nothing is any stronger than its foundation. Just look at the people that founded our public schools and the way that particular plank of communism has taken shape in our country.

 

[Free]

So, after 9 pages, is it fair to say that no one has any support for all these accusations against the NIV?

 

[ronniechoate34]

So, after 9 pages, is it fair to say that no one has any support for all these accusations against the NIV?

Take a look at history. People used the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles prior to the 1611 AV. When the AV was published it was not overwhelmingly received right away, but a short time changed that fact. There was such a low demand for the other bibles in print that they simply went out of print. The AV set the world on fire. It sparked the inquisition and saved many many people. The AV was preached throughout the world. It's safe to say that God used and blessed this Bible. It's also apparent that the translators were raised up by God to fulfill this very purpose.


And now for the contrast. The 1881 revised bible was created by men who had leanings that were obviously not of the true faith. The revision was kept a secret and forged in darkness so that the leading Bible Scholars and Theologians of the day would not get to speak out until after it had been thrust upon the unsuspecting public, and immediately they did sound the alarm. The revisionist have ties by association to theosophical ideas and harebrained thoughts concerning worship and the true nature of Jesus Christ. These "new age" bibles divided the church and have brought in heretical doctrines.


Do you see the contrast? It's like light and darkness, black and white.

 

[Free]

So, after 9 pages, is it fair to say that no one has any support for all these accusations against the NIV?

Take a look at history. People used the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles prior to the 1611 AV. When the AV was published it was not overwhelmingly received right away, but a short time changed that fact. There was such a low demand for the other bibles in print that they simply went out of print. The AV set the world on fire. It sparked the inquisition and saved many many people. The AV was preached throughout the world. It's safe to say that God used and blessed this Bible. It's also apparent that the translators were raised up by God to fulfill this very purpose.


And now for the contrast. The 1881 revised bible was created by men who had leanings that were obviously not of the true faith. The revision was kept a secret and forged in darkness so that the leading Bible Scholars and Theologians of the day would not get to speak out until after it had been thrust upon the unsuspecting public, and immediately they did sound the alarm. The revisionist have ties by association to theosophical ideas and harebrained thoughts concerning worship and the true nature of Jesus Christ. These "new age" bibles divided the church and have brought in heretical doctrines.


Do you see the contrast? It's like light and darkness, black and white.

But you are just doing what I said--making accusations without any proof.

 

[ronniechoate34]

For anyone who is interested in Gail Riplinger's response to James White.


http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html

 

[ronniechoate34]

So, after 9 pages, is it fair to say that no one has any support for all these accusations against the NIV?

Take a look at history. People used the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles prior to the 1611 AV. When the AV was published it was not overwhelmingly received right away, but a short time changed that fact. There was such a low demand for the other bibles in print that they simply went out of print. The AV set the world on fire. It sparked the inquisition and saved many many people. The AV was preached throughout the world. It's safe to say that God used and blessed this Bible. It's also apparent that the translators were raised up by God to fulfill this very purpose.


And now for the contrast. The 1881 revised bible was created by men who had leanings that were obviously not of the true faith. The revision was kept a secret and forged in darkness so that the leading Bible Scholars and Theologians of the day would not get to speak out until after it had been thrust upon the unsuspecting public, and immediately they did sound the alarm. The revisionist have ties by association to theosophical ideas and harebrained thoughts concerning worship and the true nature of Jesus Christ. These "new age" bibles divided the church and have brought in heretical doctrines.


Do you see the contrast? It's like light and darkness, black and white.

But you are just doing what I said--making accusations without any proof.

Where is your proof that it's wrong?