Missing from the NIV

[ChristianCynic]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
Replacing the word "hell" with the word "grave" is a change of doctrine.

Ain't it too bad the OT writers didn't know that. Maybe they were "satanic" [your word for those who change scriptural concepts].

The concept of hell cannot be fully understood without using the actual word itself.

Too bad they didn't know that either. A forerunner of the term hell was probably used in northern Europe in those centuries. The OT writers just didn't know where to go to find that word.

Christ said hell was prepared for the devil and his angels so thus it is logical to have the word "hell" used in Old Testament context.

Not if it is a mistranslation.

"The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God." Your average Joe Christian understands that statement pretty clearly.

No, I think the average Christian who believes the scriptures believe the wicked will be confined to hades [hell] after this life; and at the end of time hades will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

. But if you take the word "hell" and change it to the word "grave" the verse takes on a whole new meaning.

Changing preconceived notions is difficult for JW's, KJVO's, Catholics, and a whole heap of others.

 

[Ed Edwards]

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Pioneer: "But if you take the
word "hell" and change it to the word "grave"
the verse takes on a whole new meaning. That
my friend is a change in doctrine whether you
admit it or not."

Which of your doctrines is changed?
Personally i see more historical doctrinal
variation based on the KJV than on any
other version of the Bible.

Pioneer: "By the way, the NIV calls Lucifer the "morning star"
in Isaiah 14 which is blasphemy to the highest
degree. Christ is the "morning star" not the devil.
It is obvious to me that the NIV was Satanically inspired! "

Assume that your statement is correct.
Then it logically follows that the
King James Version (Authorized version of 1611)
is also Satanically inspired

Go to your Bible and look at Isaiah 14:12.
If you don't have a footnote there
(literally sidenote) you don't have a REAL KJB.
The original KJB translated by fifty inspired
translators chose to put a footnote in
Isaiah 14:12 saying the second best
translation is DAY STAR, the first best
is LUCIFER. The Day Star is the morning star.

My dictionary says "Lucifer" is 2. the planet
Venus when appearing as the morning star.
"Lucifer" and "morning star" are equals, the
same thing. I note "Lucifer" is a title
and "morning star" is a description.

BTW, Venus is now in the evening star position
and very nice looking, if your sky is cloudless.

BTW, when Jesus describes Himself as the
"Bright and Morning Star" (Revelation 22:16)
i hope you understand He was using a metaphor.
Or, if you insist on taking it literally

enjoy looking right at Jesus tonight after
sunset (assuming no clouds, of course

).
Off in the west, you know.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anthony J Lanius: The verse numbering system (to me at least) seems irrelevant. It wasn't implemented until long after the texts were written.

I hate to tell you this but the verse numbering system for the NIV was implemented the day it was put into print! By the way, those verses are missing from the NIV text, I don't read the footnotes when I am reading the text (it is too confusing).</font>[/QUOTE]Can you or can't you follow the conversation? I believe we were talking about the underlying texts...duh.

AJL