Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,757
Joined: September 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,634
Posts51,160
Members927
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,432
Tom 3,448
chestnutmare 2,915
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,757
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 15
Pilgrim 11
John_C 2
Johan 1
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
TWU Denied Law School Accreditation
by Tom. Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:14 AM
Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text
by Pilgrim. Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:43 AM
Messianic Judaism
by Tom. Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:29 AM
Doctrine and Philosophy
by Tom. Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:02 PM
The PCA's Slide Into the Homosexual Abyss Accelerates
by Anthony C.. Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:10 PM
John the Baptist
by Nigel J. Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:01 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. #45448
Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:51 PM
Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:51 PM
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 224
England
E
English Rose Offline OP

Enthusiast
English Rose  Offline OP

Enthusiast
E
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 224
England
Try Answering These From Your NIV

By Rex L. Cobb

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).


Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."


According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?


According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?


According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?


In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.


In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________


According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?


According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?


In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?


In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?


In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?


According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?


In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?


John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?


What happened each year as told in John 5:4?


In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?


In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?


What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?


Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.


Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?


Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.


First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?


In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?


Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?


Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.


What does the NIV have against Jesus?
Find out what else is missing!



Very interesting, don't you think? I know most use the KJV here, thanks be to God. sincerely, English Rose


Re: A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. [Re: English Rose] #45449
Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:11 PM
Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:11 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
P
Peter Offline
Old Hand
Peter  Offline
Old Hand
P
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
1.44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (easier to just get the entire verse pasted in)
2. Not present in the text but the footnote says this: Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29. Which indicates this verse isn't found in every manuscript.
3.Not present in the text but the footnote says this: Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10. Which indicates this verse isn't found in every manuscript.
4. Pilate's first name isn't given. Matt. 27:2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.
5. When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. Prophet's name isn't given.
6. Just cast out demons.

Rose do I need to go on? It is obvious that Rex L. Cobb: a. Dislikes the NIV and considers it a substandard translation. b. Holds to King James Onlyism.

There is obviously better translations than the NIV but Cobb's arguement doesn't hold water. Please remember that one of the reasons that the AV was created was because King James didn't like the Geneva Bible which was used by the majority of the Puritans and other Protestants. Read this article here.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Re: A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. [Re: English Rose] #45456
Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:32 AM
Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:32 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 23
Hyderabad, India
Mike Jeshurun Offline
Plebeian
Mike Jeshurun  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 23
Hyderabad, India
SPIRIT BEHIND THE MODERN VERSIONS

A lot has been said concerning the modern versions of the Bible. I admit that I am no scholar nor have been privileged to study either Hebrew or Greek to convincingly debate on this. But I have been blessed with a simple faith to believe what my God has promised in His Word.

And the promise is this

“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)

Did God keep His promise or not? God did keep His promise! The Old Testament Hebrew text was preserved by the Levites. The apostles quoted it, and we can trust it. For the New Testament, of all the copies in existence today, 95% agree in an incredible way. God did keep His promise! Only 5%, a tiny minority, are "messed up." All we have to do is put together a Hebrew and Greek text made up from our overwhelming majority of ancient texts, and we will have a text that we can be confident is exactly the same as the one held by the early church. Today, this text is called by several names, the most common being the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus."

This was the text used by devout translators like William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and others, some of whom died to preserve the Scriptures. If they were going to have to die for it, they were determined to die for the right text! This is also the text used to make the most famous and durable of all English Bibles, the King James Bible.

Almost none of the modern English Bible translation uses this text!

Then there are others who believe that God did not keep this promise. They have had archaeologists search the world over, and have found two very ancient copies. One was in the library at the Vatican. It's logical to call this one the "Vaticanus." The other one was deposited in a waste basket at Saint Catherine's Monastery on the Sinai Peninsula, and is thus called the "Sinaiticus." These two copies of the Scriptures, given to us by the Roman Catholic Church, originally came from Alexandria, Egypt, the fountainhead of great heresies of the early church. These two manuscripts disagree with 95% of the broad historical evidence, and they also disagree with each other.

But if they disagree, how do you base a Bible on them? That's simple... find a scholar you consider an ‘expert’. Whenever these two copies disagree, have your ‘expert’ pick the one he likes. We will consider that to be the correct version of that particular verse. Thus, in reality, you are placing your faith in the opinions of this great scholar, instead of the broad evidence of history, left for us by the God of history.

It's kind of hard to have faith in a Bible made from that, isn't it? But if you don't believe God kept His promise, that's the best you can do. This is, in fact, the view held by the majority of Bible translators today. Since they don't believe they can possibly have a reliable, accurate copy anyway, they feel great liberty to add their own private ideas, or interpretation, to the Scriptures. Thus, we get a multitude of Bibles, that very clearly do not say the same thing!

The Work of the Devil!

The Devil hardly ever comes up with something new. Though his methodology changes, his strategy is pretty much the same. The devil’s purpose in publishing the new “Bibles” is to sow confusion and chaos, and to undermine people’s faith that God is able to preserve His Word. This vile objective is made crystal clear when we compare Zech 13:6, in the most popular versions with the KJV.

Just see what evil mischief the devil does with his new versions:

KJV: “What are these wounds in THINE HANDS?”

NIV: “What are these wounds on your BODY?”

NAS: “What are these wounds BETWEEN YOUR ARMS?”

RSV: “What are these wounds on YOUR BACK?”

So there you are sitting in the pew with your NIV ‘bible’, and the pastor asks the congregation to turn to Zech 13:6 and reads – “What are these wounds in thine hands?”. You say, “wait a minute, mine says, ‘wounds on your body’! The brother next to you reads, ‘wounds between your arms’! And the guy on your left reads, ‘wounds on your back’! So which is correct?
Eh eh, “Hath God really said ….”?! ‘Divide and conquer the Devil’s old strategy. All because the Pastor did not have the guts to insist that his congregation use the ‘time-tested’, dependable, God-honoured KJV! It is the pastor’s God given duty to instruct his congregation as to which Bible to use; and for this he must first be a man of conviction!
God is not the author of confusion. He did not author these hideous new versions. All of them, without exception, are based primarily on the defective manuscript, which was once used by the Gnostics and Pseudo-Christians of Alexandria, Egypt.

In our day Satan’s attack on God’s Word has increased as never before. Many Seminary educated preachers say, “The Gospel is crystal clear in either versions”; that is to say, we can use any version as long as the Gospel is in it. Beloved, the ‘Gospel’ is crystal clear in the Roman Catholic Bible, as well as the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, why not use them? The apostle Paul said, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” [Gal. 5:9]. Put poison anywhere in the blood stream and the whole becomes poisoned. Just so with the Word of God! When words are added or subtracted, Bible inspiration is destroyed, and the spiritual blood stream is poisoned.

In this respect the revised Bibles of our day seem to have become spiritual guinea pigs, with multiple hypodermic shots-in-the-arm by so called Doctors of Divinity, who have used the serum of scholasticism well mixed with modern freethinking textual criticism. When the Bible words are tampered with, and substitution is made, the Bible becomes a dead thing with neither power to give or sustain life!
If you have a little more time check out the following –

PERVERSIONS OF MODERN VERSIONS

Are all Bible versions basically the same? Many theologians allege that "these textual variations are almost always incidental and do not significantly affect the sense of what Scripture is saying." That is a lie straight from the pit of hell! Consider the following perversions as set-against the God given King James Version:

The blood of Jesus Omitted—Col:1:14

KJV: "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
NAS: "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
Craftily, the NAS leaves out the key phrase, "Through His blood." This is a hideous and gaping omission. Satan must love a Bible version that erases a powerful and life changing reference to the blood of Jesus Christ! Shamefully, not only is the blood of Christ omitted by many of the newer versions, but the new versions are also subtle in wiping out references to the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Take John 6:47, for instance:

KJV: "Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

NAS: "Truly, truly, I say to you. He who believes has eternal life."
He who believes what? Or in whom? The NAS has purposely omitted the One in whom a man or woman must believe to be saved. Jesus’ powerful words, "He that believeth on me," have been butchered by this new, supposedly "better" version.

Perversion of the "Lord’s Prayer": [Luke 11:2-4)

NIV: "Father, Hallowed be your name, your Kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins,
For we also forgive every one who sin against us. And lead us not into temptation."

The NIV deliberately omits the fact that we are addressing Our Father which art in heaven. Thosewho are familiar with the Lord’s prayer will straight away notice Satan’s manipulation here. First of all God is not the Father of all mankind. Jesus told the unbelieving Jews "ye are of your father the devil" [Jn.8: 44a]. By deleting the adjective ‘our’, Satan would have the world believe that God the Father is the Father of the sheep as well as the goats. God is the Father only of those He hath sovereignly chosen to love. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Ab’-ba, Father" Gal. 4:6 [see also Eph. 1:5 ; I Jn. 3:1].

Only those who do the will of the Father can assure themselves of salvation [Matt. 7:21; 12:50]. The child of God, because of the weakness of his flesh must constantly cry out to his Father to enable him to do His will. But since Satan desires to see even God’s children do his will, he has cleverly removed the phrase "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Similarly, the last phrase ‘deliver us from evil’ has also been deliberately removed.

Now ask yourself do not these perversions significantly affect what Scripture is saying? You would be spiritually blind if you answered in the negative. The Word of God warns us "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it." [Deut. 4:2]. "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Rev. 22:19]. And again "The Scripture cannot be broken" [John 10:35]. And again "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." [Luke 16:17].

NIV CORRUPTED

In many countries including the one I live in, many gullible Christians are replacing their God inspired King James Bibles with the corrupted New International Version. The reason for this is because they believe that the NIV is easier to understand, but they don’t seem to know that the NIV is thoroughly corrupted and does not teach the whole counsel of God. The translators of this Bible did not believe in the verbal inspiration of God’s Word. Instead they believed in some vague, indefinite transformation of God given thoughts and ideas into human language by men. This is what is known as "Inspired concept" or "dynamic inspiration" theory. Advocates of this theory do not believe that the actual words of scripture are inspired—only the ideas behind them. They believe that God revealed His thoughts to the writers, who then wrote down those thoughts using their own words. But this is not how Scripture is designed, as W.H. Bennet notes:

"…It is worthy of remark that in Galatians 3, Paul founds an argument upon a single word of Scripture, "He saith not, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many; but as of one, ‘And to thy seed,’ which is Christ." So in the epistle to the Hebrews the apostle dwells upon single words, or brief expressions, as the emphatic words of the Holy Ghost and full of significance…"

Thus we see that the NIV translators have given us what they judge to be God’s Word, i.e., the words which man’s wisdom teaches not which the Holy Spirit teaches.

The following examples show how by following a corrupt Greek text the NIV differs from the AV in ways that affect important doctrines. For comparison, two other translations were also examined—the New World Translation (NWT) and the Rheims-Douai translation (Douai). Where these agree with the NIV will be noted. The NWT is the version produced by the Watchtower cult (the self proclaimed "Jehovah’s Witnesses"). The Roman Catholic Douai was not translated from the Hebrew and Greek, but from Jerome’s fifth century Latin Vulgate Bible, which is the official "standard" Roman Catholic Bible. Error would be expected in these versions, yet the NIV often conforms to them rather than to the AV.

Luke 4:4—The Word of GOD.

Here the NIV gives the Lord’s quotation of Deut. 8:3 as: "Man does not live by bread alone." It omits the all-important words "but by every word of God"—as does the NWT. Here a clear statement of the importance of the Word of God and man’s dependence upon God has been removed. Luke’s gospel presents the Lord as the dependent man, the NIV weakens this.

Mark 1:2—Inspired error?

In Mark 1:2 the NIV has "It is written in Isaiah the prophet", followed by two Old Testament quotations (from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). The AV has, correctly, "the prophets". (The NWT and Douai have the same error as the NIV.) Here the NIV is attributing misinformation to the Holy Spirit. Could the Holy Spirit inspire error? (The NWT is as the NIV.)

I Timothy 3:16 and I Cor. 15:47—The Incarnation.

As is well known, 1 Timothy 3:16 has been changed in many modern versions. The AV has: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…" However, in the NIV it has been changed to "…the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body…" (NWT and Douai similar to NIV.)

Here a clear testimony to the deity of Christ has been replaced by a statement that is meaningless in the context in which it is found.

For I Cor 15:47 "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." (AV). The NIV has "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." (The NWT and Douai are as the NIV.) This could allow the second man (Christ) to be a created being like the first man (Adam), which would deny His deity. Or, it could mean that He came from heaven as a man, rather than by being born into the world. This would deny His humanity.
John 9:35—"Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

The Lord’s question in John 9:35 "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" (AV) is changed in the NIV to "Do you believe in the Son of Man?". (NWT as NIV.) This change is contrary to Biblical usage. The Lord always referred to Himself as the Son of God when presenting Himself as Saviour [John 3:16 etc.] Among other things the title "Son of Man" has to do with His role as Judge [see John 5:22-27]. We believe on Him as Saviour, not judge. John tells us that "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" [1 John 4:14]. Paul spoke of "the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." [Gal 2:20.] The believer will appear before the judgment seat of Christ [Rom 14:10], but that is not in view here. The NIV and NWT have meddled with Rom. 14:10 as well, changing "judgment seat of Christ" (AV) to "judgment seat of God" (NIV and NWT).

Hebrews 1:3—The Finished Work of Christ.

The NIV does not contain all the errors found in some modern translations of the Hebrew epistle. However, in the first chapter instead of "when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (AV) it has "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." By omitting "by Himself" the NIV is denying that He did the work in His own merits.

Luke 23:42—The Lordship of Christ.

Many verses referring to the Lordship of Christ have been changed. The words of the dying thief "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom" [Luke 23:42 AV] are changed in the NIV to, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Thus making this man the only person recorded in Scripture as having addressed the Lord as "Jesus". Note also the omission of "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" from Acts 9:6. But Romans 10:9 states that salvation is "ifthou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus…"
Other verses where the word "Lord" is omitted include: Matt 13:51, Matt 28:6 and Mark 9:24.

Luke 2:22—The Sinlessness of Christ.

In Luke 2:22 "her purification according to the Law of Moses" (AV) referring to Mary’s ceremonial cleansing [see Lev. 12:6,7], is changed to "their purification…" implying that the Lord had sin. The passage in Leviticus dealing with this aspect of the Old Testament sacrifices refers only to the mother’s cleansing—not to the child’s. The Old Testament sacrificial system was prophetic—it pointed ahead to the One who would fulfil all the requirements of the ceremonial law and "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" [Heb. 9:26]. The Old Testament offerings typified aspects of the all-embracing work of Christ. Mary was a sinner and needed a Saviour [Luke 1:47]; Christ was that sinless Saviour.

1 Peter 4:1 and Rev 22:14—Salvation by Works?

In I Peter 4:1 the NIV has: "since Christ has suffered in his body, arm yourselves with the same mind, because he that has suffered in his body is done with sin." (NWT and Douai similar to NIV.) The AV has: "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin…"

By omitting "for us" the NIV has completely changed the meaning of the passage. Not only can it be read to mean that by suffering we can atone for our own sins (which is Roman Catholic doctrine), but it also makes the blasphemous implication that Christ suffered because He had sinned.
In Rev 22:14, "Blessed are they that do His commandments" (AV) becomes in the NIV, "Blessed are those who wash their robes", (NWT and Douai as NIV, Douai adds "in the blood of the lamb".)

Superficially a text that appears to some to teach salvation by works has been "corrected" with one that does not. However the Greek words translated "do" and "wash" are both perfect participles—they refer to something that began at a point in time and has then continued thereafter.

The idea of continually washing robes (in the blood of the lamb—referring to salvation is never taught in Scripture. It is more in keeping with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the continuing sacrifice of the "mass". Far from correcting error, the change of text adopted by the NIV is actually introducing it. (In Rev 7:14 "washed" is in the aorist tense, which indicates an action, finished and completed at one point in time.)

Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:33—The Virgin Birth.

In Matthew 1:25 the NIV and NWT leave out the word "firstborn" in relation to the Lord’s birth. This leaves room for two errors, first that he was not the firstborn, and second, that Mary had no other children after He was born (Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19 show that she did.) The first error is modernistic, the second Romish.

In Luke 2:33 "Joseph and His mother" (AV) becomes (NIV, NWT, and Douai) "His father and mother" falsely implying that Joseph was the Lord’s father. Would Luke the physician, writing as inspired by the Holy Ghost, make such a statement? It is Luke who later records the incident where Mary in speaking to the Lord, referred to Joseph as His father [Luke 2:48] and He had to correct her, saying, "I must be about MY Father’s business." [Luke 2:49.] In following such an obvious corruption the NIV translators display a complete lack of spiritual discernment. Since they are wrong on this fundamental matter can any reliance be placed upon their judgment elsewhere? Do they really expect us to believe that God would inspire error? Those who deny inspiration can accept such changes, but for a person to claim that they believe in inspiration yet insist that these changes are correct, is to be at best inconsistent, if not hypocritical.

ERRORS IN TRANSLATION IN THE NIV

In the previous section we examined changes of text. Here we consider errors of translation—the original wording in the Greek or Hebrew is not in doubt, but the way the NIV translates that wording is very suspect. It is here that the "dynamic inspiration" theory has had its strongest influence. As in the section on the text, places where the NWT and Douai are similar to the NIV are noted.

Genesis 3:15—The Seed of the Woman:

For the AV: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it will bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The NIV has: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers: he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Not only has the NIV substituted "offspring" for "seed" and relegated "seed" to a footnote, but for "her seed" it has simply "hers", so that the footnote "seed" refers only to that of the devil! The word "seed" is not a meaningless or archaic word. "Offspring" can indicate one who is not virgin born; however, the "seed" of the woman indicates one who did not have a human father, who was virgin born, the seed of a woman, but not of a man. The word translated "seed" occurs twice in the Hebrew, once for that of the serpent and once for that of the woman, but the NIV fails to translate the second occurrence. How can the publishers of the NIV claim that it introduced "a new era of scriptural clarity" when it contains such a translation as this?

Psalm 2:7—"this day have I begotten Thee"

In Ps 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 in the NIV the expression "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten Thee" (AV) is replaced by "You are my son, today I have become your father." The error of this change is obvious. It is found in the NWT, as would be expected. Elsewhere the NIV consistently replaces the phrase "only begotten son" with the erroneous expression "one and only son". Even the NWT does not do this!
Micah 5:2—The Eternal Pre-Existence of Christ.

Micah 5:2 "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (AV) becomes in the NIV "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" (The NWT has "whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.") This verse refers to the eternal pre-existence of Christ. But it has been changed, giving Him an origin, thereby denying His deity, for one who has an origin is not eternal and therefore not God. In the footnote the NIV has "goings forth" as an alternative to "origins", thus the correct translation has been given less credibility than the heretical one.

Mark 15:37 and Luke 23:46—"gave up the ghost".

The translation of this phrase in the NIV by "breathed his last" is incorrect and very misleading. The verb is in the active mood indicating that unlike ordinary, mortal men who would have no control over the matter the Lord deliberately gave up His spirit into His Father’s care as is shown by the AV "gave up the ghost". This is borne out by His own words immediately before this when He said: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Note also John 10:17,18.

John 5:39—"Search the scriptures".

For this verse the NIV replaces the imperative "Search the scriptures" (AV) by "You diligently study the Scriptures" and puts the imperative in the margin. (NWT and Douai are similar.) This change alters the meaning of the Saviour’s words. The Jews thought that they had eternal life, they read the Scriptures, but did not search them. (In contrast the Berean Jews of Acts 17:11,12 didsearch – NIV has "examined"—the Scriptures and therefore believed the gospel.) When a similar change of translation was used in the 1881 Revised Version, the Roman Catholic Dublin Review remarked: "Thus Protestantism has lost the very cause of its being."

Titus 1:2—"God that cannot lie".

Here the NIV has "God who does not lie…" instead of "God that cannot lie…" (AV)—implying that God could lie. (Douai has "God, who lieth not"). The word translated "that cannot lie" occurs nowhere else in Scripture. It means "incapable of falsehood"—falsehood is absent from the character of God—He is Truth and "the devil…is a liar and the father of it."[John 8:44.]


Mikejeshurun
Re: A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. [Re: Mike Jeshurun] #45457
Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:13 PM
Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:13 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Mike,

1) I would appreciate it if when you want to share such a lengthy article that you simply supply a link to it rather than copy/pasting it here. grin

2) Although I personally use the KJV, although I prefer the ASV for its literalness of the Greek in translation... And, I totally reject the NIV as being a valid translation, the author's argument is self-serving and doesn't deal with the REAL issue of Bible translations. (btw I am schooled in the original languages)

The debate over which manuscript evidence is to be preferred has been hotly debated for many long years. The "received text", aka: Textus Receptus is fairly recent and consists of a large variety of sources, including the Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Nestle-Aland text can boast of manuscripts, etc., that originate in antiquity. But, as the argument goes, those older manuscripts were allegedly subjected to corruption from spurious copyists, etc., etc., ad nauseam. So, who is right? [Linked Image] But what I do know is that having used both the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland texts, there are very few differences between them and none would cause any major doctrine to be questioned.

The REAL issue isn't whether God's promise that His word would be preserved is true. If one denies or questions this, then there is a far more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed; regeneration. Again, the REAL issue is the METHOD OF TRANSLATION employed, regardless of what manuscripts are used. There are basically only two major 'schools' of translation: 1) Formal Equivalence and 2) Dynamic Equivalence. Now, at the definite risk of simplifying the issue, I am going to define them thusly:

Formal Equivalence: This view takes serious the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Put in layman's terms, Every jot and tittle of the Bible (original manuscripts) is infallible and inerrant, i.e., there are no mistakes or errors anywhere. Thus, the translator's responsibility is to translate each and every word as accurately as possible into the target language. If the target language doesn't have an equivalent word, then the translator will not substitute another word for it to accommodate the language's culture. For example, if a particular language/culture has no word for "sheep", the translator will not translate the word tsone (Heb) or probaton (Grk) as "pig", or "cat", etc. He will use the word "sheep" and leave it to the Church to explain what a sheep is via the preaching and teaching of the Word.

Dynamic Equivalence: This view believes that the meaning of a text supersedes the words that comprise the text. In short, there is a certain amount of interpretation included with the translation. Thus the individuals words themselves are considered less important than the translator's understanding of the text.

I think any half-thinking person can see the idiocy of the Dynamic Equivalence method. For individual words are what give you the meaning. Change the words and de facto the meaning is invariably changed. Depending upon the presuppositions of the translator, this "liberty" in translation can be minor or extreme, e.g., the Good News for Modern Man version. The NIV uses the Dynamic Equivalence translation method and thus it is fraught with corruptions of the original text. It would make little difference whether the Textus Receptus or Nestle-Aland manuscripts were used. Essential words and phrases are often extricated and words substituted which hide and even contradict what the original actually says. The end result is that the major doctrines of the faith are clouded at best or corrupted beyond recognition, including the doctrine of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, redemption, etc. igiveup

Lastly, the error of those who espouse "KJV-onlyism" is perhaps less serious than those who embrace and use the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation and the versions resulting from it. But, those within that camp who insist that the KJV is INSPIRED, i.e., the English translation is on the same plain as the original manuscripts are guilty of twisting what the Scriptures teach about it self and making a translation an idol before which all must bow. rolleyes2

Peace!

Last edited by Pilgrim; Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:34 PM. Reason: Corrected some grammatical errors and did some rephrasing of parts. :~)

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. [Re: Mike Jeshurun] #45458
Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:16 PM
Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:16 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,449
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,449
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Mike

Like Pilgrim indicated it is better to use just a link to an article than to copy and paste the whole thing.

That said; if you believe there is an important point from the article in question that you feel must be dealt with; by all means quote that particular section, with a brief description of why you believe it is important.

Perhaps someone with the time will respond.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:19 PM.
Re: A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. [Re: Tom] #45462
Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:11 AM
Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:11 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 23
Hyderabad, India
Mike Jeshurun Offline
Plebeian
Mike Jeshurun  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 23
Hyderabad, India
Originally Posted by Tom
Mike

Like Pilgrim indicated it is better to use just a link to an article than to copy and paste the whole thing.

That said; if you believe there is an important point from the article in question that you feel must be dealt with; by all means quote that particular section, with a brief description of why you believe it is important.

Perhaps someone with the time will respond.

Tom


Dear brother Tom,

Thank you for writing. I truly understand your point. But fact is that the above post is not taken from a single website but is from material gathered by me over the years. And also more than 40% of the above post is from my own pen.

But your point is well taken and I shall try and keep my posts as short as I possibly can. Thank you once again.

Love
Mike!


Mikejeshurun
Re: A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. [Re: Mike Jeshurun] #45514
Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:39 AM
Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:39 AM
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 224
England
E
English Rose Offline OP

Enthusiast
English Rose  Offline OP

Enthusiast
E
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 224
England
Thank you, brother Mike in India, for this excellent article on the perversions of the modern Bibles, which I believe is a deliberate ploy of the enemy, to try to destroy the excellent translation of the KJV. I was told by a youth leader "you must change with the times!" No way! We are greatly indebted to the translators of the KJV though they were not perfect by any means. We are to keep to the OLD paths wherein is the perfect way. I read once that the Roman Catholic bookshops will stock all Bibles, except the KJV. - I wonder why?

sincerely, in Christ, English Rose

Re: A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering. [Re: English Rose] #45519
Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:22 PM
Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,449
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,449
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Originally Posted by English Rose
Thank you, brother Mike in India, for this excellent article on the perversions of the modern Bibles, which I believe is a deliberate ploy of the enemy, to try to destroy the excellent translation of the KJV. I was told by a youth leader "you must change with the times!" No way! We are greatly indebted to the translators of the KJV though they were not perfect by any means. We are to keep to the OLD paths wherein is the perfect way. I read once that the Roman Catholic bookshops will stock all Bibles, except the KJV. - I wonder why?

sincerely, in Christ, English Rose


Though I favor the texts that the KJV was translated from, rather than the text that many other English versions were translated from.
I think what you are saying here about there being a conspiracy to destroy the KJV goes too far.

Tom


Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 15 guests, and 127 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes, Dutch Michael, Ray
927 Registered Users
Shout Box
June
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
766,529 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.085s Queries: 15 (0.023s) Memory: 2.9059 MB (Peak: 3.2023 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-06-18 17:06:35 UTC