What's Wrong With The NIV Bible ?

[felix]

How can it be erred when "Hades" and "Gehenna" dont appear once in the Authorized KJV?

What is the word "hades" in the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary?

Your search [word => 'hades' ] did not return any results.

In KJV,

• Jonah 2:2 sheol in hebrew is translated as hell - which is clearly wrong.
• Acts 2:27 hades in greek is translated as hell - which is clearly wrong.
• Matt 5:22 gehenna in greek is also translated as hell - (which is correct).

sheol/hades is more like a grave - a place for souls after death. gehenna is a place of fire and torment.

Regarding NKJV, it is much better and more correct than KJV when looked into original texts. I had seen all critiques myself and none is convincing when truly analyzed.

 

[WIP]

The only way to understand the Bible in it absolute true form is to read the actual original letters and transcripts, not copies, reprints, or translations. Anything else is subject to criticism, error, translation issues, etc. Ever play the game in school where the teacher whispers something in someone’s ear and then they pass the message along to the next person and so on? Does the last person ever hear the same message as the first? <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
The best we can hope for is to trust that those who translated the text from the original documents exercised due diligence. Did the translators from King James’ court do so? How about all the others that have done likewise? I like referring to the King James because it is one of the first translations but because it is so difficult to understand I often reference the NKJV. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
The only way to know the answer is to be able to read the actual transcripts from the original writers of the Bible and compare the translation to it. Of course, that would mean that your own translation would be accurate. I certainly don’t have the ability to do that even if I could get my hands on those transcripts so I am left to trust that God has provided me with appropriate translation(s) for me to understand what He wants me to understand. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
For this reason I have a hard time nit-picking the meaning of scripture based on any one single word in the text. Believe “on†Jesus or believe “in†Jesus. You cannot serve both God and “mammon†or you cannot serve both God and “wealth†or you cannot serve both God and “money.†Which is the correct translation and does it really matter so long as you got the point about where you must place your trust?<O:p</O:p

 

[Mike]

I can understand someone who believes a certain Bible translation is the most accurate, but I'll never understand the person who believes that it is perfectly translated; that it is somehow set apart from other translations. In today's age people can find affirmation for any idea that has been put in their heads. I could find a group of people who believe we originated from Mars, and get affirmation every day. They would feed my Passion for this notion. I could drop quotes from them, and I would feel validated. I could push this hard and cause division.

Never mind that life on Earth didn't start on Mars. I would be excited about what I've been told, and engaging with these people would fule my excitement. It might not be until I separate myself from these fringe people that I could separate myself from the idea that the origin of life is Mars.

I'm not making light of this. Actually, I find it quite disturbing.

 

[ronniechoate34]

The best we can hope for is to trust that those who translated the text from the original documents exercised due diligence.

Your hope is misplaced, and if that's the best that you have to hope for then you may as well forget the Bible all together.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Your hope is misplaced, and if that's the best that you have to hope for then you may as well forget the Bible all together.

So, you discount what he said ... but offer nothing in return?

Why bother posting at all?

 

[WIP]

Your hope is misplaced, and if that's the best that you have to hope for then you may as well forget the Bible all together.

I must not have been too clear about what I meant or you have taken my statement out of context. I'm not talking about salvation. I'm talking about the validity of the various translations of the Bible and that includes any and every translation save for the first original manuscripts, which have been translated, written, printed, and of all things sold by human hand.

My trust, as I already said, is that God leads me to the translations that provide me with the knowledge I need to get from them. He knows what I need and I trust He delivers. The Holy Spirit will guide me.

 

[ronniechoate34]

I must not have been too clear about what I meant or you have taken my statement out of context. I'm not talking about salvation. I'm talking about the validity of the various translations of the Bible and that includes any and every translation save for the first original manuscripts, which have been translated, written, printed, and of all things sold by human hand.

My trust, as I already said, is that God leads me to the translations that provide me with the knowledge I need to get from them. He knows what I need and I trust He delivers. The Holy Spirit will guide me.

If the best that you can hope for is that those who kept God's words kept them pure, then does not that leave room for error? If you believe that there are errors in the Bible then aren't you suspending your belief in God and trusting in men to give you the correct word of God?

 

[WIP]

There is room for error unless we believe the translations were God-inspired as much as the original text. But if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

I didn't say I thought there were errors. What I've been saying is that we spend too much time picking the translations apart word by word and not really looking at them thought for thought. This is why it is so important to read, understand, and meditate on the Word and not the words.

Give 10 people the task of translating the original text into English or any other language and you will get 10 different results. Does that mean nine or even all ten of them are wrong? Absolutely not! They could all be accurate but different.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and so I'm not inclined to doubt the validity of the translations I read without first reading them.

In the end I think this kind of discussion has no real end because it really turns into a vicious circle between whether one trusts a translation or not. Without the actual original text to validate it against AND a very fluent understanding of the original text (all of it) it is not possible in human terms to do so. In the end we are left with trusting God for guidance.

 

[ronniechoate34]

There is room for error unless we believe the translations were God-inspired as much as the original text. But if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

I didn't say I thought there were errors. What I've been saying is that we spend too much time picking the translations apart word by word and not really looking at them thought for thought. This is why it is so important to read, understand, and meditate on the Word and not the words.

Give 10 people the task of translating the original text into English or any other language and you will get 10 different results. Does that mean nine or even all ten of them are wrong? Absolutely not! They could all be accurate but different.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and so I'm not inclined to doubt the validity of the translations I read without first reading them.

In the end I think this kind of discussion has no real end because it really turns into a vicious circle between whether one trusts a translation or not. Without the actual original text to validate it against AND a very fluent understanding of the original text (all of it) it is not possible in human terms to do so. In the end we are left with trusting God for guidance.

The thing is that even from the first year that the revision was published in 1881 there were people who realized that there is problems with the work. You can't label those people who had the concerns as conspiracy theorists, in fact they were respected men who called this revision into question. I doubt if people in 1881 even knew a whole lot about conspiracy theorists.


The revision wasn't widely accepted by many people in the beginning, it had to grow on the people. And now, in this late time, it's flourishing like never before.


I know this, I will never forget the conviction that I experienced as a child on my own trying to understand something of God. I had never heard of any kind of dispute over different bibles at that time, and I didn't for several years after that, until one day I decided to look into the issue. was not surprised by what I found.


I really disagree with you wholeheartedly when you say that you believe that being a "conspiracy theorist" has something to do with it.


Also, it's off topic, but you should take a look at what the Psalms say.


Psalms:2:1: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psalms:2:2: The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psalms:2:3: Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.


What do you believe that this scripture is about if not a conspiracy?

 

[WIP]

What I meant by not being a conspiracy theorist is that I am not one to automatically believe that a particular translation was contrived by a group of people with the sole intent to deceive and that I would give a translation benefit of doubt until I can see for myself that it is ill-conceived.

As far as the rest of this discussion is going, I'm not liking the direction it is taking very much and so I will elect to respectfully bow out.

 

[Free]

How can it be erred when "Hades" and "Gehenna" dont appear once in the Authorized KJV?

This is a case of circular reasoning if I have ever seen it, unless of course you believe that the NT was written in King James English and not in Greek.

The whole point is that the Greek texts, the language the NT was written in, use hades and geenna, or gehenna, not to mention tartarus, which are three different concepts or places but at lease one, and probably two, of which is incorrectly translated as "hell" in the KJV.

The Hell Words of the Bible

 

[Pizzaguy]

There is room for error unless we believe the translations were God-inspired as much as the original text. But if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

I didn't say I thought there were errors. What I've been saying is that we spend too much time picking the translations apart word by word and not really looking at them thought for thought. This is why it is so important to read, understand, and meditate on the Word and not the words.

Give 10 people the task of translating the original text into English or any other language and you will get 10 different results. Does that mean nine or even all ten of them are wrong? Absolutely not! They could all be accurate but different.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and so I'm not inclined to doubt the validity of the translations I read without first reading them.

In the end I think this kind of discussion has no real end because it really turns into a vicious circle between whether one trusts a translation or not. Without the actual original text to validate it against AND a very fluent understanding of the original text (all of it) it is not possible in human terms to do so. In the end we are left with trusting God for guidance.

Emphasis mine, of course. An excellent post, WIP. I can tell a WIP post even without looking at who posted it.

 

[ronniechoate34]

What I meant by not being a conspiracy theorist is that I am not one to automatically believe that a particular translation was contrived by a group of people with the sole intent to deceive and that I would give a translation benefit of doubt until I can see for myself that it is ill-conceived.

As far as the rest of this discussion is going, I'm not liking the direction it is taking very much and so I will elect to respectfully bow out.

Okay.

 

[ronniechoate34]

If someone can't trust in God to keep His promise to keep His words pure, then I don't see how they can trust in God at all. After all, if one can't trust God to keep His Word concerning one thing then why bother believing in the rest?

 

[kiwimac]

God never promised to keep his words pure.

 

[westtexas]

God never promised to keep his words pure.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12: 6-7 (KJV)

 

[kiwimac]

That is not what that verse means. In Psalm 12.6-7 it's not the words that are being promised for preservation, it's the poor and needy people (in verse 5). Verse 6 is kind-of a parenthesis from 5, where 7 picks up after.

Moreover this interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 is taken straight from Dr. Wilkinson's book. While he didn't originate the idea, he caused it to become widespread among the general public by those who copied from his book. So, the idea was nurtured by a CULT OFFICIAL, and a couple of dishonest copyist "authors" who didn't bother to check the VERACITY of the work from which they were copying.

And, it's not a "mistranslation" in V7, but it IS a paraphrase. The Hebrew is singular 'him' (as the Geneva Bible reads), but it's obvious that the context is about more than one person, so the AV1611 translators subbed the plural "them" for the singular "him", and indicated this in a marginal note in the AV 1611. That note reads, "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.".

The KJVOs didn't bother to check out that note, which is omitted in later KJV editions, or, more likely, given their history of deceit, DELIBERATELY ignored it, trying to cash in on the fact that 'him' is a personal pronoun indicating a person, while 'them' is an impersonal plural pronoun which may indicate people or things. The KJVOs lied and said this 'them' referred to God's words, while deliberately keeping silent about the fact that the Psalms are SONGS, and David was using "artist's license" while accurately writing the knowledge that GOD had given him.

Source

 

[ronniechoate34]

That is not what that verse means. In Psalm 12.6-7 it's not the words that are being promised for preservation, it's the poor and needy people (in verse 5). Verse 6 is kind-of a parenthesis from 5, where 7 picks up after.



Source

That's just a stretch that doesn't even work.


Kiwimac, you are hard to stomach.

 

[kiwimac]

That's just a stretch that doesn't even work.


Kiwimac, you are hard to stomach.

Ronnie,

You can ignore the evidence until you are blue in the face. However, the Hebrew and the English of the sentence make it quite clear that the verse refers to verse 5. Let me post the entire passage:

5 “Because oppressed people are robbed and needy people groan,
I will now arise,†says the Lord.
“I will provide safety for those who long for it.â€
6 The promises of the Lord are pure,
like silver refined in a furnace and purified seven times.
7 O Lord, you will protect them.
You will keep each one safe from those people forever.Psalms 12:5-7 (GW)

It is quite clear even in the KJV that what the Psalmist is saying here is that God will protect the poor and oppressed, those whom verse 5 says God is "arising to provide safety for."

 

[ronniechoate34]

Ronnie,

You can ignore the evidence until you are blue in the face. However, the Hebrew and the English of the sentence make it quite clear that the verse refers to verse 5. Let me post the entire passage:



It is quite clear even in the KJV that what the Psalmist is saying here is that God will protect the poor and oppressed, those whom verse 5 says God is "arising to provide safety for."

What's clear to me is that sin is everywhere, and people aren't really getting saved at all.


No matter what everyone thinks about it, it seems to me as if God hasn't really blessed ther niv at all.