NIV killed once and for all

Actually the reformation was about justification. "Free will" was not much of an issue in those days. However, you are right that there have been many issues that divided people and further right that the KJV issue is not even on the radar of most Bible-believers. There are many people who do not even know such a controversy exists. ... "Lucky people" as John Calvin would say.

 

I rest my case! if there was no division, no difference, there would be no need for this thread. We would all be in agreement and could spend this wasted time winning souls rather than trying to get each other on the right road.

If you believed that God could, would and did preserve His word, perfect, for us to read today in our language, every word exactly where and as it was intended, by him, to be and you had a lot of friends who also understood and believed that truth.....then you tried to explain that logical conclusion to other believers, many of them really well educated but who believe we have 200 or so flawed versions of God's word, with a newer, easier-to-read issue coming off the presses every six months, a world out there that is literally dieing and going to hell......then....you would be able to see the and feel the division over this issue a little more clearly.

But you would need to believe it and see it from the other side to comprehend the division as we KJV'ers do.

I know it is hard to believe, but we are in a war ladies and gentlemen and we need a strong sword to fight it.

Once you have and use the Sword made of the sharpest steel and believe that is the only one
God would want you to use, it has stood the test of time, you will never go back to one of those rubber, bendy things again. The biggest concern is that most believers just don't care, God's word is a non-issue, as long as it's easy to read and it has some similar passages that's what counts.

Satan has been tinkering with the Word since the Garden of Eden and I am afraid many have fallen into the trap and are less effective because of it. Bible-verse memorization is almost a lost art among the rank and file these days.

Some day we will know the truth of this matter, in the meantime we go with whatever truth feels good ... if we care about it at all!

God Bless

Alex

 

No one has denied that there is division. But where there is a division of this magnitude, it has arisen because of false teaching, either intentional or because someone else has been taught wrong. I wish there was no division. I cannot see any theological reason for a version debate. There is simply no biblical reason for it.

I wish it were different. But since it is not, we must stand up and correct and refute those who do damage to the truth.

 

A prior post shows why there is a division. We must earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3), and the KJVO mantra isn't it. Yes, there is a war going on. Too bad the damage and casualties are self-inflicted by psuedo-fundamentalists on the KJVO side.

 

Alex Mullins said:

I rest my case! if there was no division, no difference, there would be no need for this thread.

If there is any division over multiple Bible versions, it is the KJV-onlyists who have created it. (Certainly I have never experienced it in my circle - I know of at least 5 different Bible translations being read by my friends and churchmates at any given time.) And these same factions complain about all the division.

Amazing! And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of "chutzpah."

I know it is hard to believe, but we are in a war ladies and gentlemen and we need a strong sword to fight it.

You are welcome to wield your "sword." I'm going in with modern weaponry.

 

I agree. The question is "Who is attempting to add extra-biblical doctrine as a test of faith?" I have yet to run across a MV user that called the KJV a Satanic Bible because it "adds" words or "changes" verses when compared to their preferred Bible. If KJVO's would simply agree with the KJV translators that "the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God" this issue could be put to rest. But as long as there are people attacking the Word of God by giving Satan credit for good modern translations of the Bible, the division will exist.

If this were proven true then it would be believed. However, since this idea is not only unproven and scripturally unsustainable but also runs in contradiction to the facts of history, rational Bible believing fundamental Christians will continue to reject it.

This is where KJVO's always fall down...you cannot "logically" explain something as "truth" that is contrary to fact.

You might want to consider that these "easier-to-read" versions make the Bible understandable to people who might otherwise be confused and frustrated. They have been used very effectively to reach the lost and to help young Christians grow. If God is using MV's and they are based on good, honest scholarship, how can any Christian feel justified in attacking them as a work of Satan?

I have and I do... then I studied the issue with an honest consideration of the Scriptures and facts. All new things are not a product of liberalism and modernism- to be rejected and feared. Also, it is harmful to hold on to tradition rather than truth.

You presume what is not factually supported, call it the will of God, then demand that other Christians believe as you do? KJVOnlyism sets facts aside in favor of a secure feeling then, since this feeling is strong, the idea is established as a universal requirement for spirituality.

Maybe the biggest concern should be that many sincere Christians are being told that the only Bible they should use is one that they can't understand. Maybe an ancillary concern to this one should be that many Christians might become frustrated and stop reading the Bible. Maybe the biggest concern should be that un-educated preachers or people may develop unsound beliefs because they think they understand something when actually they don't. Maybe the biggest concern should be that a group of judaizer-like legalists are trying to take the Word of God away from the common people by intimidation...saying things like "If someone is really saved they could understand the KJV" then mis-using scripture to support the accusation.

Yes. And he still wants to keep people from understanding the Word. He would love to trap Christians into believing that the only acceptable version of the Bible is beyond their understanding.

Good feelings have very little to do with truth. But this does reveal a fundamental flaw of KJVOnlyism: it goes "with whatever truth feels good.."

 

Well, I did a bit of laymen's research and found that in about 20 random verses I looked up in the original Hebrew and Greek, the NIV translation was slightly more accurate than the KJV. In another 10 verses, the translation was pretty much the same.

Of course, the KJV is prettier to read than the NIV.

I don't think this really means one is better than another, except that it reaffirms what we already know: contextualy meanings and phrases in the use of language tends to change over time.

 

Johnv, your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to now compare the Greek text which underlies the KJV and the Greek text which underlies the NIV and see if the differences are not translational, but textual. Then compare the NIV using the TR of Scrivener, and see if that explains the differences you suggest are "inaccurate." If you do accept this assignment, and get caught, the BB will disavow any knowledge of you and your activities. Good luck!

 

Do I understand this as meaning that the mark of the beast is somehow associated with the NIV? NIV preachers will say it is OK to follow the beast? Wow, and I thought the SDA had interesting "revelation" on Sunday Worship being the mark of the beast.

 

bob walker,

re: ".......so believe what ever you want and when the beast and his mark comes you can read your NIV and your pastor can tell you to take the mark 666 and follow the beast. after all the NIV preacher will likely say all is well."

666 is the number of the beast, not the mark.

 

If possible, could you summarize what the real cases are that can be made against NIV as an english translation? I'd appreciate it. However, if this is too much to do in a single post, are there any threads on this board that you would recommend that have a good treatment of the subject without, as you put it, resorting to silly stories? Or any good books you would recommend?

[ June 15, 2002, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Vine ]

 

Personally, my problems with the NIV have to do with translation philosophy. The essentially dynamic form of translation, as opposed to an essentially literal one (ESV, NASB, NKJV, et. al.) makes the NIV a bit weaker on the whole. The dynamic form of translation will allow for too much interpretation to creep in instead of translation of the texts. Still, the NIV is not a terrible translation, quite profitable for comparison and devotional reading. It is better than, say, the NLT or NRSV. It is just not altogether as literal as it should be. If you like the readability of the NIV but wish a more literal translation, seek the ESV.

[ June 15, 2002, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Agree with TomVols. IMHO, the ESV, NASB, or NKJV are all superior translations to the NIV because they are all more literal. A pastor friend of mine several years ago had the best line I've heard regarding the NIV. When discussing a verse read in the NIV in a study group he asked: "Is this translation or is it interpretation?" The problem I have with the NIV is that you never seem to really know for sure.

 

i wld recommend all literalists to interact with Wayne Leman and his study of translational accuracy, earlier posted at http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000370

 

Well said, MM.

 

I've actually got a copy of the TNIV (NT anyway). The changes aren't all that apparent. When they print a Greek-TNIV translation, I'll probably get that. I just like having a wide variety of translations around the house.

That said, TNIV translation isn't bad at all. It reminds me a lot of the NIV, with the same feel. From what I can read, God is still a him, Christ is still a him, and the Holy Spirit is a him. Of course, it has Paul saying things such as "I would not have you ignorant, brothers and sisters..." and things like that, which I don't think is a big deal. My take on it was that he didn't want males or females to be ignorant, and used anthropoi to show so.

 

There is a Tri-symbol, (Celtic) that appears on the New King James version, by Max Lucado and on every page is that exact symbol.
It is called a "Triqueta" derived from Celtic knotwork. It was adopted by Christians around St. Patricks time as a symbol for Trinity, BUT
in ACTS 17:29
" ...We ought not to think that the Godhead (Trnity) is like gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art (symbols, icons, etc..) and man's device."
" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" EXODUS 20:3-4
How about the Fish symbol on my car and others, the Nativity scene, pictures of angels and Jesus on books, posters, art? How about the Cross?
I am thinking that Mermaids, Unicorns, Dragons, and Images of the dead are definitely satanic.
How about pyramids with a single eye in them?
It is funny how we are surrounded by the Starbucks trademark, of a lady that is definitelt occult/New Age and in the witch's book of shadows, they have a similar symbol. Does anyone know who Aliester Crowley is? He was a satanist and the same symbol appears on Led Zeppelin's logo. Read www.av1611.org/orthpubls/roots.html
www.av1611.org/crock/pod_sym.html
the Rolling Stones had a Crowley connection.
It is sad but satanism is here in the world sometimes ovious, sometimes hidden. We need to be well aware, DO NOT FEAR because " I have conquered this world" God/Jesus says.

 

um, what about all those funny pictures n symbols that appear in the 1611 KJB?

e.g. two naked cupids and pagan designs on a page featuring holy feast days to the Holy Innocents, St Michael the Archangel, among others in a list ("and none other"): http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/holydays.htm

wld those choice words be reserved for them as well?

 

Now, see, this kind of statement and belief is what is divisive. It is a superior attitude, and it is an untrue statement. People who use many of the other versions, do care about and love the word of God just as much or more.

Why is it okay with you then, that the KJV translators "tinkered" with the Bibles they already had? There was Tyndale's, and there was the Geneva Bible, the Bible of the protestant true believers. Why did they have to come out with a more modern, better sounding translation?

 

The symbol for the international Red Cross is a red cross. Question: is the symbol THE International Red Cross? Absolutely not, no more than your shadow IS ACTUALLY you. But the symbol represents the Red Cross. Same is true of the fish symbol, the trinity symbol, etc. So that passage doesn't apply, unless these symbols are worshipped, as graven images were in the pagan, pantheistic and polytheistic society Paul was speaking to.