Missing from the NIV

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Anthony J Lanius: And still no one has proven that they change the doctrine.

Give me a break! ROFLOL

By leaving out I John 5:7, the NIV is casting doubt upon the doctrine of the trinity! This is only one example where the NIV diminishes the doctrine of the trinity. There are many others and they're not that hard to find.

By taking the word "hell" out of the Old Testament and replacing it with the word "grave" sounds like a doctrinal change to me! It sounds to me like the NIV is in agreement with the JW's Bible.

[ September 14, 2002, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

[ChristianCynic]

Originally posted by Pioneer:

]I hate to tell you this but...

A lie at the beginning of your statement. If you in fact "hate to tell this," you would not be making your feeble attempt.

By taking the word "hell" out of the Old Testament and replacing it with the word "grave" sounds like a doctrinal change to me!

A doctrinal change from your pagan concept. Is God to be found in "hell" (Psalm 139:8)?

[ September 14, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
[qb]

And that's great. That Norse concept should not be there to replace the grave and the depths.

Changing it to Grave or Depths does not change the fact of it being there;out of sight,out of mind will not hold water!!!!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
By leaving out I John 5:7, the NIV is casting doubt upon the doctrine of the trinity! This is only one example where the NIV diminishes the doctrine of the trinity. There are many others and they're not that hard to find.

At the risk of being redundant, the NIV did not leave 1 JOhn 5:7 out. It is not in there. John most likely did not write it. It does not fit the grammer or the argument of the passage. If you find all these verses that diminish the trinity, then you are the only one. No one else has yet to post one verse that does.

By taking the word "hell" out of the Old Testament and replacing it with the word "grave" sounds like a doctrinal change to me! It sounds to me like the NIV is in agreement with the JW's Bible.

The word is sheol and most often it means grave or death. The NIV did not take Hell out of the OT. The OT is the same as it always has been.

Don't you ever get tired of this chasing down false rabbit trails to prove a point that cannot be legitimately made?

 

[ChristianCynic]

Changing it to Grave or Depths does not change the fact of it being there;out of sight,out of mind will not hold water!!!!

The OT writers wrote the term in their language for grave or the depths. The fact that a bunch of Anglicans wanted to change what they wrote to something fitting their ancient pagan concepts does not change anything.

 

[Pastork]

ChristianCynic,

I agree that the O.T. term sheol should not be translated by the English word "hell", but not for the same reason you give. The word "hell" has taken on a meaning in English which does make it an appropriate translation for a term like gehenna in the N.T., which is why the NASB and ESV can translate it as "hell". However, it is very unlikely that such a developed understanding as reflected in the concept of gehenna in the N.T. should be seen in any O.T. passage. Having said this, I don't think it is correct to assert any pagan Nordic concept as being present in the term "hell" as it is used in any English translation of which I am aware.

Pastork

[ September 14, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

[Ransom]

Pioneer said:

How would you like to be reading along in your NIV and come to verse 44 in a passage but find out its not there because the numbering system goes from verse 43 to verse 45? Sounds to me like someone can't count.

I would think, "Great! Because they didn't change the standard chapter and verse indexing scheme that has been in place for nearly 500 years, I don't have to throw out all those concordances and reference books that were publised before the NIV."

[ September 16, 2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Pastork]

Pioneer,

I will stick with the example that has been most recently and consistently fosused on here, and that is whether or not the doctrine of hell is removed from a modern translation because it choses not to translate the Hebrew word sheol as "hell" in the O.T. text. As I pointed out to ChristianCynic in my last post, there is a good reason for this. The Hebrew term sheol does not have the same meaning that the English word "hell" has come to have. Although it is a good translation of the Greek word gehenna in the N.T., it wrongly leads people to read the more developed N.T. concept back into the O.T. passages when it is used there. It is extremely unlikely that any O.T. writer intended such a meaning when he used the term sheol properly understood in its O.T. context. This does not remove the doctrine of hell from the Bible, it simply more accurately translates the O.T. text. As with a number of other doctrines in Scripture, the doctrine about hell was progressively revealed, but a translation that translates sheol as "hell" loses this, because it leads people to read the later, clearer undertsanding back into the O.T. context, and thus leads to a misunderstanding of the intent of the O.T. writers. In my opinion, it is very unfair to accuse such a translation of "removing" the doctrine of hell from Scripture when , first, it is simply an attempt to be more faithful to the Biblical text and, second, when the doctrine of hell is still clearly included in such a translation. It is just included where the Biblical writers intended it to be included.

However, my last post will also show that I disagree with ChristianCynic's false accusation that use of the English word "hell" in any translation carries a pagan Norse meaning of some kind. In fact, I am surprised anyone would seriously make such an accusation. So, although I agree with him that sheol should not be translated as "hell", I want to distance myself from any of his absurd assertions.

Pastork

[ September 16, 2002, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by Pastork:
In my opinion, it is very unfair to accuse such a translation of "removing" the doctrine of hell from Scripture when , first, it is simply an attempt to be more faithful to the Biblical text and, second, when the doctrine of hell is still clearly included in such a translation. It is just included where the Biblical writers intended it to be included.

Replacing the word "hell" with the word "grave" is a change of doctrine. The concept of hell cannot be fully understood without using the actual word itself.

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.

"The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God."

Your average Joe Christian understands that statement pretty clearly. 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.

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!

 

[russell55]

It is obvious to me that the NIV was Satanically inspired!

I consider statements like that profanity. Please consider that if you are the slightest bit wrong there are serious ramifications to your statements.

 

[try hard]

Replacing the word "hell" with the word "grave" is a change of doctrine. The concept of hell cannot be fully understood without using the actual word itself.

I see a serious contradiction in this statement.
Let's examine the 1769KJV:
I Corinthians 15:55
"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory"

The same word used for "grave" in this verse is also used for "hell" in Luke 16:23!! How is that possible? What that means, by your own words, is that the KJV changes doctrine.

The NKJV gets it right by saying "Haides" and not "grave" in 1 Cor. 15:55. By the way Pioneer, the 1611 translators put "or hell" out beside the word "grave" in the margin.

[ September 16, 2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Tri Hard ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by 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!

Ah, so do you also believe the KJV teaches there are multiple Christs (Job 38:7) and is therefore also Satanically inspired?

[ September 16, 2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

[try hard]

Pioneer stated:

Your average Joe Christian understands that statement pretty clearly. 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.

I don't believe the KJV changes doctrine, but obviously, you do.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
It is obvious to me that the NIV was Satanically inspired!

It's sad but the meanest, nastiest things I have
ever heard about the Bible haven't come from new agers, liberals, or unbelievers that I've met.....but from some of the KJO crew.



-kman

 

[Ransom]

Pioneer said:

It is obvious to me that the NIV was Satanically inspired!

How sad that those who would have us believe they are the staunchest defenders of God's holy Word turn out to be its most vocal enemies.

[ September 16, 2002, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by 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!

Well I'm no expert, but according to my concordance the Hebrew is "helel" which literally means "star of morning"; Strong's number 1966 if you want to look it up. My MacArthur Study Bible (which is NKJV and translates this word as "Lucifer") has a similar note on Isa 14:12, saying this word is literally "day star". My Nelson Study Bible says the same thing, and adds that this word was used to refer to the planet Venus, and is being used as a poetic language to describe Satan. The planet venus is very bright and can be seen during the day sometimes, which in a way mirrors some of Satan's aspirations. Nothing blasphemous, just poetic description which should be clear to anyone who studies the passage. And more literally accurate than the KJV...

By the way, that's quite a serious accusation you've just made; if you can't back it up with evidence, I recommend that you retract it or at least keep it to yourself in the future.

Eric

[ September 16, 2002, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

[rsr]

From the NET Bible:

14:12 Look how you have fallen from the sky,
O shining one, son of the dawn!22
You've been cut down to the ground,
O conqueror23 of the nations!24

From the NET notes:

sn What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called "the man" in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, BKCOT, 1061).

 

[Pastork]

Pioneer,

I will consider any further conversation with you on the subject a pointless waste of time. Therefore I will reserve any further comments for others. May god bless you and help us both to grow in faith and understanding.

Pastork

 

[bro jeff]

how do I get a flag?

 

[rsr]

Instructions:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000112