The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum A Quiz for those who use the NIV! Try answering.

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

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.

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.

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? 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.

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.

Peace!

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

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