KJV vs. NIV

Luke 4:41

Luke 4:41King James Bible. And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.NIV, All delete the former Christ and retain the latter. Again with a footnote that leaves the reader in doubt.:Fish: other deletions of Christ in the NIV at: Acts 15:11, 16:31, 20:21, Romans 1:16, 16:20, 16:24 [entire verse deleted from NIV,] 1 Corinthians 5:4, 9:1,18. 16:22-23, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 3:17, 4:7

 

You say that these are deleted from the NIV. How do you prove that they were not "added" to the Byzantine texts by well-meaning scribes?

 

Ephesians 4:6

New-Agers teach that Christ-consciousness was attained by Jesus, but can also be attained by others, and that another Christ is coming.

Ephesians 4:6King James Bible "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all and in you all". NIV,change in you all to in all.​

[Pagan pantheism, God is all and in all]

 

These are deleted from the NIV. How do you prove that they were not original texts?Well Let every word be established in the presense of two or more witnesses! And I'm sure Jesus didn't approve if His words beeing deleted! and He's God!

 

You did not answer the question.

How do you determine who is a witness of something accurate and something not accurate. Obviously, there are witnesses to the gnostic gospels and they are rejected by Christianity. There are multiple manuscripts all with differences. What witness knows which one witnesses one that is perfect? What was witnessed pre-1611?

By the way, be very careful in comparing the Word of God with what NewAgers believe. That would not be right and will be edited.

 

Although it is very possible that most of these were dropped from manuscripts, but it has also been proven that there are additions, even if in smaller quantity, you cannot say they don't exist.

I don't imagine Jesus approves if His Words are 'added to' either.

 

The Patriotist - KJV Preface

Here is some of what the translators said about the KJB! S. Augustine, They that despise God's will inviting them, shall feel God's will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; [Heb 10:31] but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. :Fish:Amen. I want to see such Zeal as this In the NIV Team!

 

Ok

How can a Well meaning Scribe leave out Christ out of any Scripture Im sure they could have done what ever the Lord put on their heart, but to take it out leaves one to search further when they didn't need to; so to speak. If it was there from the beggining according to Burgeon! Or at least in the early church Fathers texts! I mean was it in the Septguant?

 

That would certainly depend on what verse we are comparing. Care to list one?

 

Especially the lies that the Bible does not offer one shred of evidence that God has preserved His Word?

I belive you came up with that labeling system as a means to defame those with whom you disagree and are in some "only" sect of your own.

Shame on you for using such an "archaic" word!

It is good that some one with a more intelligent view of the forum did. And that w/o a bias.

You labeled them with your system, then attack them by "trying" to say they "demean" God's Word for believing in it's preservation in the King James Bible/ VERY HYPOCRITICAL to say the least!

Simply put, the NIV only holds a majority of God's Word and only in essence and NOT in entirety. This has been proven countless times.

ONLY those who don't believe the proofs that show the omissions in the NIV BELIEVE any different.

I love the eloquence of the KJB. I love it's poetic grace and form.

I hate the lack of eloquence and the lack of poetical form in the NIV.

Did I just say that by the Spirit that dwelleth in me? Why, YES! I just did!raise: :Fish: raise:

Did I just "attack" the NIV? No! I attacked it's lack of eloquence and it's lack of poetical form.raying:

 

This same Augustine, in that same preface, wrote, " Variety of Translations Is Profitable for the Understanding of the Sense of the Scriptures". I don't see such truth in the KJVO myth. I see the KJVOs do as you'ver done here...agree with the AV translators whenever they seem to agree with the KJVO myth, while IGNORING them, often ON PURPOSE, where they've said something, as the quote above, that trashes the KJVO myth.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bob
The sad thing is that if such a person browsed here, they would see false teaching and lies being spread about a doctrine that has not one shred of Bible support.

Salamander:Especially the lies that the Bible does not offer one shred of evidence that God has preserved His Word?

Now Sal, be HONEST. What we've said is that, while EVERY Christian believes God has preserved His word, there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for the KJVO myth. And the Bible, including the KJ version does NOT offer one shred of evidence that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version.

 

OK

The KJB has100% of the majority Approval!

 

OK

But thats Your Version!:Fish:Not the KJVO

 

100%?

Well they surely didnt mean the NIV when they Spoke like that about the AV! If there is errors in the KJB please point them out and circle them with a red pen Please! I have pointed out the errors in the NIV and am not judging just inspecting the fruit!:sleep:The KJVO myth is only on this forum and we have gone in circles like the children of Israel! King James never wanted His name on the Bible but they put it on there anyways, I think people focus on the man and not The God/ Man!

 

Well, since the NIV hadn't been translated yet... But other translations were on the scene, and the translators mentioned other translations that would come forth as well, which WOULD include the NIV. As well as the NASB, ASB, CEV... well, you get the gist.

Errors? I dunno. How about every time later editors omitted the footnotes of the original 1611?

And just because something doesn't say exactly the same thing as a KJV doesn't make it wrong. Personally, I get tired of that old horse. Trying to use one translation as the neasuring stick of another is a big boo-boo, as each translation is different, and none are exactly like the source texts.

Oh, if only it was only on this forum!!! Sadly, it is scattered abroad here in the South, and it being planted elsewhere by "missionaries" being sent out by churches that believe it. Shame they don't just preach the gospel... Peter and Paul did it without a NT, much less a KJV under their arm.

No one is focusing on King James. "King James Version" is just what the translation is known as, just like the NIV is known as the "New International Version". Yet another diversion to distract from the real discussion?

 

OK, I'll be REAL honest. God is not the author of confusion.

Besides, you don't know what every Christian believes about the preservation of God's Word and you have proven that by introducing a fallacy that versions which omit clear doctrinal passages are somehow also as preserved as the King James Bible.

A multitude of omissions are found within the pages of the NIV leaving the casual Christian room for misunderstanding due to his NOT referencing the KJB.raise: :Fish: raise:

Thank you, Rob, Thank You!:thumbsup:

 

What doctrines are omitted by the NIV? I have asked before and have only gotten the runaround for a reply. Could you be so kind as to list all of them?

 

salamander:OK, I'll be REAL honest. God is not the author of confusion.

But often, you, and other KJVOs are.

Besides, you don't know what every Christian believes about the preservation of God's Word and you have proven that by introducing a fallacy that versions which omit clear doctrinal passages are somehow also as preserved as the King James Bible.

Please point out any doctrines left outta any major newer versions such as the NIV.

I could make the statement that the KJV has added many words/phrases not found in most other versions, a statement that has just as much proof and weight as your statement.

A multitude of omissions are found within the pages of the NIV leaving the casual Christian room for misunderstanding due to his referencing the KJB.

A multitude of additions are found within the pages of the KJV, leaving the casual Christian room for misunderstanding due to his referencing versions in his own language.

Thank you, Rob, Thank You!

You're quite welcome!, Now, care to back your position with SCRIPTURE?

 

No, I will not waste redeemable time to list ALL of them, but it is proven that the casual reader is too easily misled to fully understand certain doctrines WITHOUT referencing the KJB.

If I were to stick with Mary just being a little girl in one passage and not a virgin as found in other passages, I might think she was not as important as God says she is as a chosen vessel among women.

Why, after reading the KJB for all my life would I want to stick with reading something so much less like the NIV?

I would have to be less than what I am already to do so. I don't think God wants me to back-up, do you?