The NIV , Has it Become the Bible to replace the KJV?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
For roughly 250 years (or more), the KJV/TT texts weren't the "remnant," they were the majority. How do you explain the revivals that occurred during this period if God "always worked with a REMNANT...?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please go back and read my response to Chick, it will help clear up your confusion.

[ April 20, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

sounds like an argument for the majority rather than the remnant. hmm, that's strange ... apparently, the "principle" of siding with the remnant does not apply to TT textual criticism.

at any rate there are revivals brought about elsewhere using non-English Bibles translated out of "Alexandrian" type texts, including those by Spirit-empowered John Sung in the 1930s in Southeast Asia, whose ministry is freely lauded by KJBOs in these parts. i'm pretty sure the TT's will think up a nice exception for him.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Every bible of the reformation was based on the Traditional texts. No bible of the reformation was based on the Alexandrian text type. That is a fact of history. Zwinglie preached from a bible based on the Traditional text. Luther was reading a Greek copy of the Traditional text when the words "The just shall live by faith" jumped out at him. Every bible translated as a result of the preaching of these men, to be used in the churches being formed, was based on the Traditional Texts. Tyndale's 1525, Luther's 1525, Calvin's Geneva 1557, Olivetan's 1535, Biestken's 1558, Danish Christian III 1550, Diodati 1607, Swedish Uppsala 1541, Czech Bible 1607. The only possible exception would be Wyclif's Bible of 1382, which was based on the Latin Vulgate, but no historian suggests the Wyclif bible was instrumental in the English reformation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Will the NIV become the Bible of the future? Probably. KJVOnlyists will always be around, but the NIV came on the scene during a time when people wanted an understandable translation that wasn't a paraphrase. I echo others who wish the NIV was more literal. I am eagerly awaiting the ESV. One thing I do believe is that if we keep seeing the "market" flooded with new Bible versions, we're going to have a lot of confusion out there.

 

Of all the versions rolling off the presses today the NIV has altered, weakened and removed more verses than any. The only reason it is selling so well because the publishers, in an effort to get to early retirement are pushing it to unsuspecting babyboomers.

Two very good examples of how they have perverted the Word are: 1) Tim 3:16, KJV says GOD was manifest in the flesh. The name of God has been replaced with "HE", a prime example on the diety of God. 2) Mark 16: 9 - 20. The NIV has left out the last 12 verses of Mark probably because Wescott and Hort said they could not find them in the oldest texts, the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Vaticanus from which all the modern versions have evolved.

Of course there are literally thousands of instances where the NIV has removed the name "Jesus Christ" and replaced it with "Lord" or "The One" or "He" in preparation for the one-world church where The name of Jesus will be offensive to so many.

It is time for God's children to rise up and take a stand against these corrupt bibles which are rolling off the presses at any amazing rate in these last days.

 

Alex:

The NKJV, MKJV, LITV, KJ21 and KJ2000 are modern translations using the same - the exact same - underlying texts as the KJV.

Are these acceptable versions to you? Exactly why or why not?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
Tim 3:16, KJV says GOD was manifest in the flesh. The name of God has been replaced with "HE", a prime example on the diety of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't have the Greek behind the NIV or NASB, but they both read "He." At any rate, it is obvious who "He" is from the context (and it is capitalized to further indicate that "He" is God). Just because the KJV is different doesn't mean it is right or the others are wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark 16: 9 - 20. The NIV has left out the last 12 verses of Mark probably because Wescott and Hort said they could not find them in the oldest texts, the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Vaticanus from which all the modern versions have evolved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The KJV has it, so the MVs are wrong. Standard MO for KJVOs who have only a superficial understanding of the facts.

I have asked before and I'll ask again: Don't just say that the MVs are wrong because they differ from the KJV. Discuss why. If the MVs don't have the long ending of Mark (which they do in brackets or footnotes), talk about why you believe the evidence points to its authenticity, not that it is in the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course there are literally thousands of instances where the NIV has removed the name "Jesus Christ" and replaced it with...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or, there are literally thousands of instances where the KJV has added "Jesus Christ" where it originally was not.

Thus far, you have exhibited very superficial reasoning for your claims (they aren't even arguments). Come up with a single problem that you disagree with and prove why the KJV is superior to MVs at that point. Becasue the KJV says it and the MVs don't isn't good enough.

Sincerely,

 

Added Jesus Christ to passages? Totally disagreeing with the taking away or adding to God's Holy Word, I would rather a translation add Jesus Christ rather than downgrade him and take away His name.

[ April 27, 2001: Message edited by: Trinity26 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Added Jesus Christ to passages? Totally disagreeing with the taking away or adding to God's Holy Word, I would rather a translation add Jesus Christ rather than downgrade him and take away His name. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It cuts both ways. In God's eyes there is no difference. I could add the phrase "Jesus is Lord" to every verse in the New Testament and it would be doctrinally true. However (aside from the obvious difficulty it in reading it would cause), it would be an addition to the Word of God. Additions don't have to be bad or untrue.

KJVOs often allege "ommisions" or "changes" in MVs. I have yet to see them allege an "addition" in any MV, even though it would be equally serious according to scripture. If they will make baseless allegations then so will I. The KJV ADDS the passages KJVOs allege are omitted from the MVs. It is the KJV that violates scripture in these instances, not MVs.

Sincerely,

[ April 27, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

&lt; Mark 16: 9 - 20 &gt;

If you think Mark 16:9-20 is valid scripture, then do you cast out devils, speak with new tongues, heal the sick by laying your hands on them, take up sepents, and drink "any deadly thing" and remain unharmed? Mark 16:17 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe." There are no limitations or exceptions stated. Do you do all these things?

 

I believe Mk 16:9-20 to be original for a variety of reasons, not the least being that the gospel or "good news" would not end with the words, "for they were afraid."

Difficult doctrine should not be a measure for acceptance of a reading. (Isn't one of the canons of textual criticism to accept the "harder" reading?)

Anyway, this passage was fulfilled in the book of Acts


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; Mark 16: 9 - 20 &gt;

If you think Mark 16:9-20 is valid scripture, then do you cast out devils, speak with new tongues, heal the sick by laying your hands on them, take up sepents, and drink "any deadly thing" and remain unharmed? Mark 16:17 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe." There are no limitations or exceptions stated. Do you do all these things?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

&lt; Anyway, this passage was fulfilled in the book of Acts &gt;

So only those in the book of Acts qualify as 'them that believe?' We sure are in a heap of trouble, ain't we?

 

This thread is rapidly developing into another one

But, what makes you assume that Mk 16:17-20 is a universal promise to all believers? Looks like its addressing apostolic sign gifts to me, as performed in Acts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; Anyway, this passage was fulfilled in the book of Acts &gt;

So only those in the book of Acts qualify as 'them that believe?' We sure are in a heap of trouble, ain't we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

So only the apostles are *them that believe* because only they show the signs of *them that believe*? I have argued this passage with 'Church of Christ' a number of times, as they use Mark 16:16 to "prove" a person must be (water) baptised to avoid damnation; meaning, of course, that one may be in the baptistry waiting a turn, and a sniper could shoot that person dead, and that person would be forever tormented because of not being baptised. Then they, of course like you, deny the continuance of the "signs of them that believe." So do I, in case you may be questioning. All this taken together is why I definitely believe there is at least a "reasonable doubt" about the validity of the last 12 verses of Mark, in addition to its omission in the oldest manuscripts.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
So only the apostles are *them that believe* because only they show the signs of *them that believe*? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that is a non sequitur. In context the only ones to perform miraculous signs are the apostles. The context determines if an inclusive is universal or specific.

 

&lt; In context the only ones to perform miraculous signs are the apostles. &gt;

You must have a very broad definition of apostle then. Stephen and Philip performed miraculous signs, Paul listed these as among the gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12, 14, and James indicated miraculous healings when he wrote about the elders anointing a sick man's head with oil, along with prayer, which would heal.

One more point I almost ovelooked. You said Mark 16:17-20 was "fulfilled in the book of Acts." The book of Acts does have narrations of healings and speaking in new languages, more limited accounts of casting out demons, and one case of a man [Paul] taking up a snake and being unharmed. There is nothing in the book about drinking a deadly poison. For that reason, if no other, that passage was not fulfilled in the book of Acts.

So tongues, miracles and healings certainly went beyond the apostles in the New Testament, there was only one case of taking up a serpent [and Jesus, supposing he said this, used 3rd person plural], and drinking poison was not done within the written record. And again, just to keep the record straight, I think there is a reasonable doubt as to this passage belonging in scripture, so I am not bothered by the lack of fulfillment of what was therein written.

 

Mk 16 is not a christians gospel. It is Jewish. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; In context the only ones to perform miraculous signs are the apostles. &gt;

You must have a very broad definition of apostle then. Stephen and Philip performed miraculous signs, Paul listed these as among the gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12, 14, and James indicated miraculous healings when he wrote about the elders anointing a sick man's head with oil, along with prayer, which would heal.

One more point I almost ovelooked. You said Mark 16:17-20 was "fulfilled in the book of Acts." The book of Acts does have narrations of healings and speaking in new languages, more limited accounts of casting out demons, and one case of a man [Paul] taking up a snake and being unharmed. There is nothing in the book about drinking a deadly poison. For that reason, if no other, that passage was not fulfilled in the book of Acts.

So tongues, miracles and healings certainly went beyond the apostles in the New Testament, there was only one case of taking up a serpent [and Jesus, supposing he said this, used 3rd person plural], and drinking poison was not done within the written record. And again, just to keep the record straight, I think there is a reasonable doubt as to this passage belonging in scripture, so I am not bothered by the lack of fulfillment of what was therein written.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

&lt; Mk 16 is not a christians gospel. It is Jewish. &gt;

Galatians 3:28-- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

It is better to believe it if it is in the Bible than not to believe it at all. I will not get into a deep discussion, as what is being talked about has absolutely nothing to do with the topic"The NIV, Has it Become the Bible to replace the KJV".&lt;- Never will.

 

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; Mk 16 is not a christians gospel. It is Jewish. &gt;

Galatians 3:28-- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>