KJV vs. NIV

[ccrobinson]

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.

All right. Could you list just one of the doctrines that the NIV omits?

 

[Ransom]

william s. correa says:

Well they surely didnt mean the NIV when they Spoke like that about the AV!

It's their own fault for not inventing the time machine and going to the future first, I guess.

 

[Ransom]

william s. correa said:

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. All delete the former Christ and retain the latter. Again with a footnote that leaves the reader in doubt.

In doubt of what? That Jesus was the Son of God? That he was the Christ? The NIV says so right there, William.

Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ. (Luke 4:41 NIV)

You'd have to have an attention span of - what, 5 seconds? - to miss it. Or do you think it's only true if it repeats it?

Come on, William, get a real argument instead of this mindless palaver.

 

[TC]

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.

Fine, two or three examples will do.

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.

As far as I know, the RSV does this, but the NIV does not. Nevertheless, your fallible interpretation has nothing to do with the correctness of any Bible translation.

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?

So, have you ever read the NIV for yourself, or do you slam it soley based on what someone else has said about it?

 

[william s. correa]

Yes!

Do you have a source for that quote please?

A.V. Bible Preface

 

[william s. correa]

Here Ya Go!

All right. Could you list just one of the doctrines that the NIV omits?

Westcott & Hort, delete and substitute key words from the Majority Text in doctrinally critical places. In the modern 'versions' refer to these as the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts? With footnotes?This assault is a group of modern versions of the Word of God [NIV, Good News for Modern Man, etc,] which all make the same deletions and substitutions. Look at this! Mark 10:21King James Bible :Fish: "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.NIV, delete take up the cross?Why?

 

[Ransom]

correa said:

.NIV, delete take up the cross?Why?

William, will you please post Matt. 10:38, Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23 from the NIV? Thanks.

 

[william s. correa]

No!

correa said:

.NIV, delete take up the cross?Why?

William, will you please post Matt. 10:38, Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23 from the NIV? Thanks.

I dont have an NIV or read out of it! Just passing thru!

 

[Ransom]

I dont have an NIV or read out of it! Just passing thru!

So you think it's OK to just post ridiculous accusations against God's Word without checking their truth out for yourself?

My, how "Berean" you aren't.

Mocking the Bible seems to be a favourite pasttime of its favourite "defenders." I'm actually dealing with another hardcore KJVer on another forum who claims that in the NIV, the light that shone from heaven on Paul on the Damascus road might have been Satan disguised as an angel of light.

 

[Ed Edwards]

TC: //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?//

The attack on the NIV centers on MISSING WORDS.
Somehow it makes me think that some cannot tell the
difference between THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD and the WRITTEN
WORDS OF GOD. (which really is confusing, because
both phrases are used in the Bible, both meaning what
is usully abscribed to 'THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD'.)
That is, THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD is God's Message to Man
and not the details (words) themselves.

Consider this conversation:

whomever: //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.//

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

'confusion' is one word that is misunderstood in it's
1 Corinthians 14 usage. Here is the usage:

1 Corinthisans 14:33 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /HOlman, 2003/ ):
since God is not a GOd of
disorder but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV1769 Edition):

For GOd is not the author of confusion
but of peace
as in all the churches of the saints

The minor doctrine built on the misunderstanding of 1 Cor 14:33
word in the KJV: 'confusion':
It is a sin to speak in tongues in church because
it confuses the minds of people.
^^^
The likely meaning that God has is:
disorder, the opposite of peace, is not
sponsered by God.

The problem is putting 21st century (2001-2100) meanings
to 18th century (1701-1800) words.

There are more mistaken doctrines out in this
world due to misunderstanding words appearing
in the KJV1769 edition that are misunderstood
in the 21st century.

TC: //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?//

Also: some ardent KJVs believe it a sin not to use other than the
KJV1769 (wich they like to call the AV 1611) edition KJB.
So they don't bother to have an NIV nor check an NIV.
Instead gungho KJV-only-ites parrot unreliable sources without accreditation,
generally from 'free' pamplets.
So don't hold your breath, i don't know of a one
Bible Bashers (non-KJV1769 Bibles, that is) who
has published a list of actual doctrines changed by
people who use Modern Versions (MVs) like the NIV.

By contrast, stick around this Forum Brother TC, you will
find documented all the bad doctrines believed by people's
misunderstanding of the words in the KJVs.

 

[Eliyahu]

Mark 10:21

Westcott & Hort, delete and substitute key words from the Majority Text in doctrinally critical places. In the modern 'versions' refer to these as the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts? With footnotes?This assault is a group of modern versions of the Word of God [NIV, Good News for Modern Man, etc,] which all make the same deletions and substitutions. Look at this! Mark 10:21King James Bible :Fish: "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.NIV, delete take up the cross?Why?

Good Points again :thumbs:
Absolute Majority plus A have Aras Ton Stauron (αρασ τον σταυρον)΄taking the Cross.

This may be the reason why there are many churchmen/churchwomen among NIV readers who are not truly born again ?

 

[TC]

As shown on the following page, the NIV does have taking up the cross and following Jesus. I know of a number of unbelievers that read the KJV. Does that mean the KJV is missing doctrines? BTW, I know it isn't, but that is how silly your argument against the NIV sounds.

 

[rsr]

This may be the reason why there are many churchmen/churchwomen among NIV readers who are not truly born again ?

Wow. Do you have some information that compares how many are "not truly born again" among readers of various versions? I'd like to see that.

 

[Bro Tony]

This may be the reason why there are many churchmen/churchwomen among NIV readers who are not truly born again ?

This statement reeks of one who thinks they stand in judgment of others. You know the heart of those who use the NIV? You know that they have not received Jesus as their Saviour? You believe that one can only be saved by reading the KJV? Incredible!!!!

Bro Tony

 

[AVL1984]

This statement reeks of one who thinks they stand in judgment of others. You know the heart of those who use the NIV? You know that they have not received Jesus as their Saviour? You believe that one can only be saved by reading the KJV? Incredible!!!!

Bro Tony

It truly is a shame when a person can trash another valid, totally usable version of the Word of God. They'll have a lot to answer for, won't they, Brother? :tear:

 

[Salamander]

This statement reeks of one who thinks they stand in judgment of others. You know the heart of those who use the NIV? You know that they have not received Jesus as their Saviour? You believe that one can only be saved by reading the KJV? Incredible!!!!

Bro Tony

On the basis of lost church members, I'd have to say that his statement holds water.

BTW< you just judged his motive, that is an error in judgement.

 

[Salamander]

It truly is a shame when a person can trash another valid, totally usable version of the Word of God. They'll have a lot to answer for, won't they, Brother?

Yeah, just like W/H did?raying:

[Attack on the Bible snipped].raise: :Fish: raise:

 

[Salamander]

TC: //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?//

The attack on the NIV centers on MISSING WORDS.
Somehow it makes me think that some cannot tell the
difference between THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD and the WRITTEN
WORDS OF GOD. (which really is confusing, because
both phrases are used in the Bible, both meaning what
is usully abscribed to 'THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD'.)
That is, THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD is God's Message to Man
and not the details (words) themselves.

Consider this conversation:

whomever: //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.//

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

'confusion' is one word that is misunderstood in it's
1 Corinthians 14 usage. Here is the usage:

1 Corinthisans 14:33 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /HOlman, 2003/ ):
since God is not a GOd of
disorder but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV1769 Edition):

For GOd is not the author of confusion
but of peace
as in all the churches of the saints

The minor doctrine built on the misunderstanding of 1 Cor 14:33
word in the KJV: 'confusion':
It is a sin to speak in tongues in church because
it confuses the minds of people.
^^^
The likely meaning that God has is:
disorder, the opposite of peace, is not
sponsered by God.

The problem is putting 21st century (2001-2100) meanings
to 18th century (1701-1800) words.

There are more mistaken doctrines out in this
world due to misunderstanding words appearing
in the KJV1769 edition that are misunderstood
in the 21st century.

TC: //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?//

Also: some ardent KJVs believe it a sin not to use other than the
KJV1769 (wich they like to call the AV 1611) edition KJB.
So they don't bother to have an NIV nor check an NIV.
Instead gungho KJV-only-ites parrot unreliable sources without accreditation,
generally from 'free' pamplets.
So don't hold your breath, i don't know of a one
Bible Bashers (non-KJV1769 Bibles, that is) who
has published a list of actual doctrines changed by
people who use Modern Versions (MVs) like the NIV.

By contrast, stick around this Forum Brother TC, you will
find documented all the bad doctrines believed by people's
misunderstanding of the words in the KJVs.

OK, Ed, since when is confusion NOT disorder??????????

I still won't settle for LESS.

 

[Salamander]

TC: //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?//

The attack on the NIV centers on MISSING WORDS.
Somehow it makes me think that some cannot tell the
difference between THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD and the WRITTEN
WORDS OF GOD. (which really is confusing, because
both phrases are used in the Bible, both meaning what
is usully abscribed to 'THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD'.)
That is, THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD is God's Message to Man
and not the details (words) themselves.

Consider this conversation:

whomever: //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.//

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

'confusion' is one word that is misunderstood in it's
1 Corinthians 14 usage. Here is the usage:

1 Corinthisans 14:33 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /HOlman, 2003/ ):
since God is not a GOd of
disorder but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV1769 Edition):

For GOd is not the author of confusion
but of peace
as in all the churches of the saints

The minor doctrine built on the misunderstanding of 1 Cor 14:33
word in the KJV: 'confusion':
It is a sin to speak in tongues in church because
it confuses the minds of people.
^^^
The likely meaning that God has is:
disorder, the opposite of peace, is not
sponsered by God.

The problem is putting 21st century (2001-2100) meanings
to 18th century (1701-1800) words.

There are more mistaken doctrines out in this
world due to misunderstanding words appearing
in the KJV1769 edition that are misunderstood
in the 21st century.

TC: //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?//

Also: some ardent KJVs believe it a sin not to use other than the
KJV1769 (wich they like to call the AV 1611) edition KJB.
So they don't bother to have an NIV nor check an NIV.
Instead gungho KJV-only-ites parrot unreliable sources without accreditation,
generally from 'free' pamplets.
So don't hold your breath, i don't know of a one
Bible Bashers (non-KJV1769 Bibles, that is) who
has published a list of actual doctrines changed by
people who use Modern Versions (MVs) like the NIV.

By contrast, stick around this Forum Brother TC, you will
find documented all the bad doctrines believed by people's
misunderstanding of the words in the KJVs.

OK, Ed, since when is confusion NOT disorder?

 

[AVL1984]

I don't use the NIV for the specific reason I don't want to settle for less of the Word of God.

Please, O mighty one...prove to us that the NIV IS NOT...beyond a shadow of a doubt...the Word of God....

If anything, pressing for the mark for the prize of the highcalling of God, using the NIV is aiming lower.raise: :Fish: raise:

I sincerely doubt it, but, you're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how incorrect it is. :thumbs: