NASB and NIV, True and Trustworthy.

Oh what a godsend the niv and nasv they are so enlightening;
KJV Acts 1:13 Infallible
NIV &NASV ACTS 1:13 convincing
KJV 1Tim. 6:1 His doctrine context God's doctrine
NIV&NASV 1Tim .6;1 our doctrine
KJV JN.9:4 Jesus
NIV&NASV JN.9:4 WE
KJV REV. 8:13 angel
NIV&NASV REV. 8:13 eagle
Consistant with Satan as in Gen.3 he removes "surely"
NIV&NASV REV. 22:20 remove surely
No thanks modern versions!

 

I think Ruckman is highly overrated as to his influence over the bible version debate. This issue is not a Ruckmanite issue (referring to the html address).

 

Imagine if we followed the exact wording of the NIV we would know less about fasting.
Checkout: Mat. 17:21, Mk 9:29, Acts 10:30, 1 Cor.7:5.

 

It is my opinion that the word "gay" has been hijacked. There are some good old movies that use it with regard to its proper definition. My Oxford Concise Dictionary lists "homosexual" as the FOURTH definition.

You don't celebrate Easter, but Passover instead?

Jason

 

I really don't consider KJV Only, even though that is what I use in study and at church. I guess I use more for its simplicity and it's easy to undersatnd, but anyway........

My big question concerning the NIV is why are there so many veres's that are missing.

I saw a web site a few months ago that listed several verses that could not be found in a NIV. I looked them up and sure enough they did not exist, but they existed in KJV and NKJV. With that I find it hard to say that the NIV is trustworthy.

 

I use the KJV largely because it is accurate, familiar, and is the basis for many great works.

But why do you assume that they are missing. I am not a fan of the NIV by any stretch but when the KJV and NIV are different... I don't believe the KJV is the standard by which the differences are to be judged.

The KJV is based on what someone believed to be the original text. The NIV is also based on what someone believed to be the original text. IMO, the scholarship behind the critical texts is more reliable than the tradition (plus a little scholarship from Erasmus) that backs the TR.

I personally would list it on the margin. No essential doctrine is missing. However, I don't like the the translation method/translator combination. I get queasy when liberals start translating the Bible "meaning for meaning."

 

Ben W
I have a webster dictionary that thinks they are the same.

Easter- n. a festival of the Christian Church
to commemorate the resurection of Jesus Christ:
it is observed on the first Sunday after the
full moon that occurs on March 21, or on any
of the 28 days following that date; the
Jewish passover: Adj.pertaining to Easter.

Sister in Christ,
heidi

[ December 31, 2002, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: H.R.B. ]

 

It saddens me to see all this debate. Should we use the KJV only? Should we use other versions? Should we get rid of the KJV as being old and outdated?

Folks, God has passed down to us the Bible as He wishes us to have it! I don't believe for a minute that God intended for us to argue over the precise wording and sentence structure of the Bible. If we are to believe that only the originals are accurate, then we had all better learn to read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic!

What God did do for us is to pass down the Bible with the message of salvation - God's plan for mankind. And it is absolutely certain that the Bible was not written in 16th or 17th century English. If the Bible version one prefers is worded a bit differently, so what? As long as the message is there, then we are using a good Bible version. I would not condone use of some of the Bible versions which have been changed to reflect denominaional doctrine (JW, SDA, etc.), but I would not judge another for their preference in Bible versions. Believe me, folks, the message that God intended for us is that we need to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Nothing else will get us into heaven.

We need to read, study and meditate on the Bible. After all, it is our guidebook in our Christian walk. If we use the version with which we are most comfortable, doesn't that make it more likely we will spend more time in God's Word than we spend fighting about God's Word?

Why can't we let this issue rest? Anyone who is arguing over what Bible translation is best is not out there spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ! And that is what we are supposed to be doing - telling others the Good News of Jesus Christ. By spending all this time arguing over what Bible version is best, we give non-Christians a bad impression of Christians and the Church. Satan is having a ball with this! He has found something which many are passionate about - so much so that they tend to lose their focus on Christ. And when we shift our focus from Christ to other things, we are doing just what Satan wants! If we try to walk toward Christ while our focus is on something else, we are bound to "run off the road!"

Why don't we all make a resolution to stop all the arguing over what Bible version? Let's resolve to spread the Gospel this year, no matter what Bible version we prefer!

 

Amen, Keith.

 

Ben W,

What exactly is kjv onlyism?

Heidi

 

That's a good link, Ben. I knew about Ruckman but not the rest of the KJVONly history. I'm surprised it dates only from Wilkerson in the 1930s. But I see now it's not just some off-the-wall theory as I was dismissing it to be--it's an off-the-wall theory the those folk have worked very hard to get off the wall, scraping away all the glue of logic .

Ah well... My feeling is that if God had not wanted us to have a lot of Bible versions, we would not HAVE a lot of Bible versions. They are all THE Bible and something to be gained from each.

In the love of Christ,

--Ralph

 

If the NIV is trustworthy what about Heb 11:11? There is no text support for the NIV rendition. The N26/27 and the UBS3/4 doesn't support it nor does the WH text. So where on earth do they get their rendition???

 

The NIV is trustworthy, despite this. I don't know where they got their reading, but I would guess that they are loosely paraphrasing to tie it to the next verse, which starts with "Therefore sprange there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky.....". Sara is not a "him", I don't think.

A deviation from a literal translation from the Greek manuscripts does not make a translation untrustworthy, or else we would have no trustworthy Bible at all, not even the KJV (e.g. part of Acts 9:6 and Rev 22:19 have no Greek support either, yet the KJV as a whole is still trustworthy).