NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Enough said, IMHO
All the best michelle!
All the best michelle!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
NIV & New Age Movement by Al Lacey
- Thread starter DeclareHim
- Start date
Lacy Evans
New Member
This is a misstatement. The KJV was written in a high literary ("Formal", if you will) style. Few ever spoke like that. It's not colliquial. It was never meant to be. KJVO issue aside it was and is a shining example of the summit of the English language.
Michelle's point is quite valid. If we are right, and the KJV is our English authority, then God will give us understanding. I personally don't see how reading the KJV is such a big deal. I have read it all my life. My kids read it.
Did our English really "evolve" that much between 1611/1769 and 1850? And now more, so much that we need a new "authority" every year? If I don't like what Dad said, I'll run to Mama. If that don't work, I'll be the Mama and decide for myself.
Lacy
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are right, dung does serve a purpose for the health of the flower. However, the dung is NOT THE FLOWER. <version aspersion snipped> Like it or not, this is the truth.
--------------------------------------------------
The version aspersion that you snipped was understandable, but my description of a flower compared with dung was not appropriate to snip. Please do not snip material that is not appropriate to snip, for you are taking liberty with my posts with words that have not violated the rules. It is funny how the website says: The truth shall set you free" but in reality the truth gets snipped.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Yes, you are right, dung does serve a purpose for the health of the flower. However, the dung is NOT THE FLOWER. <version aspersion snipped> Like it or not, this is the truth.
--------------------------------------------------
The version aspersion that you snipped was understandable, but my description of a flower compared with dung was not appropriate to snip. Please do not snip material that is not appropriate to snip, for you are taking liberty with my posts with words that have not violated the rules. It is funny how the website says: The truth shall set you free" but in reality the truth gets snipped.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The part snipped had to be snipped in whole because it was a clear reference to a Bible version. Notice that I did not snip any reference to the flower and dung alone.
--------------------------------------------------
Did our English really "evolve" that much between 1611/1769 and 1850? And now more, so much that we need a new "authority" every year? If I don't like what Dad said, I'll run to Mama. If that don't work, I'll be the Mama and decide for myself.
Lacy
--------------------------------------------------
No Lacy, it didn't change that much, and this is just an excuse many use to compromise with error, rather than seeing the truth about this issue. And many to change, in a subtle way, the pure words of God. People have always rejected God and his truth, and this is one way many can and do change God into their own corruptible image.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Did our English really "evolve" that much between 1611/1769 and 1850? And now more, so much that we need a new "authority" every year? If I don't like what Dad said, I'll run to Mama. If that don't work, I'll be the Mama and decide for myself.
Lacy
--------------------------------------------------
No Lacy, it didn't change that much, and this is just an excuse many use to compromise with error, rather than seeing the truth about this issue. And many to change, in a subtle way, the pure words of God. People have always rejected God and his truth, and this is one way many can and do change God into their own corruptible image.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The problem here is an accusation that the NIV reflects New Age theology - no one is questioning the truth, beauty, or inspiration of the KJV. I peronally don't even question its relevance for today - it is all I have ever used. I have never used the NIV and don't care to.
Now if we could just have some proof that the NIV supports the New Age movement we could wrap this thing up.
Now if we could just have some proof that the NIV supports the New Age movement we could wrap this thing up.
--------------------------------------------------
The part snipped had to be snipped in whole because it was a clear reference to a Bible version. Notice that I did not snip any reference to the flower and dung alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are incorrect, you snipped relevent portions I had said. In one sentance I compared the flower to the dung, descriptively and then ended it with a period. The next sentance alluded to the versions and the above descriptions. You snipped a whole sentance that did not allude to the versions and was in response to a post comparing the words of topic. I know what it is I wrote. I would just appreciate the moderators to watch more closely what is snipped or an apology or something in the future. I will end this now, as it is off topic.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The part snipped had to be snipped in whole because it was a clear reference to a Bible version. Notice that I did not snip any reference to the flower and dung alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are incorrect, you snipped relevent portions I had said. In one sentance I compared the flower to the dung, descriptively and then ended it with a period. The next sentance alluded to the versions and the above descriptions. You snipped a whole sentance that did not allude to the versions and was in response to a post comparing the words of topic. I know what it is I wrote. I would just appreciate the moderators to watch more closely what is snipped or an apology or something in the future. I will end this now, as it is off topic.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I had to make a judgement michelle, the section needed snipped, and you do not argue that, only how much was snipped. We could avoid snipping completely by simply obeying board policy. I can't apologise for what I snipped, but am sorry if you feel like I snipped too much.
Thanks for returning to topic.
Thanks for returning to topic.
--------------------------------------------------
Now if we could just have some proof that the NIV supports the New Age movement we could wrap this thing up.
--------------------------------------------------
It's been given and explained how the NIV by it's word choices and terminology is the same as the New Age terminology, to which can lead many astray, and why, but many just close up their ears and eyes to it and continue to batter "where is the proof?". One must first open their eyes, in order to see. If you keep them closed real tight, you are not going to see it. If you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and say, I can't hear you, you won't hear.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Now if we could just have some proof that the NIV supports the New Age movement we could wrap this thing up.
--------------------------------------------------
It's been given and explained how the NIV by it's word choices and terminology is the same as the New Age terminology, to which can lead many astray, and why, but many just close up their ears and eyes to it and continue to batter "where is the proof?". One must first open their eyes, in order to see. If you keep them closed real tight, you are not going to see it. If you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and say, I can't hear you, you won't hear.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Just one example michelle and you could convince us all.
Charles Meadows
New Member
What has "been shown" is that those who hate the NIV because it is not the KJB will say anything to attempt to justify it - no matter how absolutely laughable!
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I'm going to bed - its 10.00 here and I don't think michelle is going to give us even one proof.
Remember - "The Proof is out There!"
Remember - "The Proof is out There!"
--------------------------------------------------
No, I was referring only to a relational aspect of the substance you originally referred to & flowers. I simply pointed out a flaw in your analogy.
You were the only one who compared that substance to any version of God's Word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you see, this is the issue. Are all versions God's word? I do not believe that all are God's pure words and I have reasons that I have made known to all why. What are your reasons and can you back them up with the scriptures? You all take personal offense that there are some who do not acknowledge all versions as authoritative and Holy and true. Why do you all take personal offense to this? To me, I would and do want to know whether I have God's pure word and that I can trust it, and rely upon it for my spiritual health and walk with Jesus Christ, rather than doubt it. How is it you trust every word in all versions, if all these versions are different and then what is your final authority when they differ, and how do you tell? Is God the author of confusion? Does He change? Does he give us all we need in his word of truth, and a surety of that truth? Why then, do many think it doesn't matter that the testimony of our Saviour is weakened and changed in the mv's and why do you stand for such things, when you know that for hundreds of years, the church has had and believed these things? Do you not see what is happening? When will it end, and when will the excuses stop? When they take our Saviour almost completely out? I just cannot understand the thinking of many christians today in light of this issue, and many others. It really is saddening. The words of the Lord are and should be the most important thing to us in our lives, because it is through the word of God that he speaks to us, convicts us of our sins, teaches us, and helps us to grow in his will. We should stand at all costs, against those things that would or do change it, or could cause confusion and deception from those changes. This belief that "all versions are God's word" in light of the many errors evident in many of them, I do not understand, coming from those who are to testify, uphold and share it with others and claim it as their final and only authority. Have we forsaken the pure words of our Lord and our faith in Him and his promises for the appeasement of men?
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
No, I was referring only to a relational aspect of the substance you originally referred to & flowers. I simply pointed out a flaw in your analogy.
You were the only one who compared that substance to any version of God's Word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you see, this is the issue. Are all versions God's word? I do not believe that all are God's pure words and I have reasons that I have made known to all why. What are your reasons and can you back them up with the scriptures? You all take personal offense that there are some who do not acknowledge all versions as authoritative and Holy and true. Why do you all take personal offense to this? To me, I would and do want to know whether I have God's pure word and that I can trust it, and rely upon it for my spiritual health and walk with Jesus Christ, rather than doubt it. How is it you trust every word in all versions, if all these versions are different and then what is your final authority when they differ, and how do you tell? Is God the author of confusion? Does He change? Does he give us all we need in his word of truth, and a surety of that truth? Why then, do many think it doesn't matter that the testimony of our Saviour is weakened and changed in the mv's and why do you stand for such things, when you know that for hundreds of years, the church has had and believed these things? Do you not see what is happening? When will it end, and when will the excuses stop? When they take our Saviour almost completely out? I just cannot understand the thinking of many christians today in light of this issue, and many others. It really is saddening. The words of the Lord are and should be the most important thing to us in our lives, because it is through the word of God that he speaks to us, convicts us of our sins, teaches us, and helps us to grow in his will. We should stand at all costs, against those things that would or do change it, or could cause confusion and deception from those changes. This belief that "all versions are God's word" in light of the many errors evident in many of them, I do not understand, coming from those who are to testify, uphold and share it with others and claim it as their final and only authority. Have we forsaken the pure words of our Lord and our faith in Him and his promises for the appeasement of men?
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
--------------------------------------------------
What has "been shown" is that those who hate the NIV because it is not the KJB will say anything to attempt to justify it - no matter how absolutely laughable!
--------------------------------------------------
Again, focus is upon the label and NOT THE WORDS OF THE LORD. The King James is the name attached to the very words of God in English, and it is the very same words of God from the time of Jesus Christ up unto this very day. Yes, we should and aught to compare the English modern versions to the English Holy Bible, for that has been our Bible and the very words of God in the English language in the true churches for hundreds of years. You may think it is lauphable now, but someday you will realize the truth, and your lauphter will turn to sorrow.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
What has "been shown" is that those who hate the NIV because it is not the KJB will say anything to attempt to justify it - no matter how absolutely laughable!
--------------------------------------------------
Again, focus is upon the label and NOT THE WORDS OF THE LORD. The King James is the name attached to the very words of God in English, and it is the very same words of God from the time of Jesus Christ up unto this very day. Yes, we should and aught to compare the English modern versions to the English Holy Bible, for that has been our Bible and the very words of God in the English language in the true churches for hundreds of years. You may think it is lauphable now, but someday you will realize the truth, and your lauphter will turn to sorrow.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
O.K. Michelle, if you don't wish to do the research yourself- why not just point us to the pre-existing research you mention? How much time can that take?
--------------------------------------------------
Start by researching New Age authors and their beliefs and compare to what is written in your NIV. Also it might do you well to learn about gnosticism, then do some research on Secret Societies and thier beliefs. Our society today is saturated with these ideologies, so it won't be hard for you to find. Word of advice, rely upon, trust and study the good ole Bible that the churches have depended upon for hundreds of years, before you venture out into that, because you will need his protection and direction, for many of these things you may find out seem close, very close to the truth, but are not. But as I said before, you must first open your eyes to see, and take your fingers out of your ears hear.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
O.K. Michelle, if you don't wish to do the research yourself- why not just point us to the pre-existing research you mention? How much time can that take?
--------------------------------------------------
Start by researching New Age authors and their beliefs and compare to what is written in your NIV. Also it might do you well to learn about gnosticism, then do some research on Secret Societies and thier beliefs. Our society today is saturated with these ideologies, so it won't be hard for you to find. Word of advice, rely upon, trust and study the good ole Bible that the churches have depended upon for hundreds of years, before you venture out into that, because you will need his protection and direction, for many of these things you may find out seem close, very close to the truth, but are not. But as I said before, you must first open your eyes to see, and take your fingers out of your ears hear.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Then it does not follow the example of the God given originals, does it? God gave the original NT not in classical Greek but in Koine Greek- the language people commonly spoke and wrote in.
That is another direct biblical proof that MV's are both necessary and God approved. God gave His Word in the language people used in every day life. KJV English is not the form of English that any of us use in our daily lives.
No. There is absolutely no validity to this claim. If there were then we could go back to the last time God "restored his perfect word" (according to you) and see if God will enable us to understand that version. Or better yet, we should all be supernaturally enabled to read the biblical languages since we know for a fact that God authorized those words. No need to trouble ourselves over the textual variants at this point... we can just stick to the texts in Greek or Hebrew where there is unanimity.
Some people understand it. Usually because over our lives pastors have explained what things mean as opposed to what we would normally think they meant. But that isn't what God intended. He intended for anyone to be able to read and understand His Word without a Priest or earthly Master.
In short, yes. Many words aren't understood by the same common definitions as they were 400 years ago.
For instance, GA Ripscripture has a pamphlet out detailing the shocking way that the NKJV "demotes" Christ by refering to Him as "Teacher" instead of "Master". Her deceit lies in the fact that "master" 400 years ago had a meaning closer to "teacher" today than to "master" today. The connotations of the word "master" are also less noble than they were before British-American slavery.
This is either ignorance or willful, belligerent deceit on your part. New "authorities" don't come out every year. It is the same authority, God's Word. What we have is different efforts to more faithfully represent God's Word as it was given originally.
These efforts, just like the KJV, are subject to man's fallibility.
No serious, born-again student of the Bible simply decides for themselves without taking into account the arguments in favor of a translation's quality and faithfulness... except you KJVO's that is. You have decided for yourselves without one shred of historical or biblical evidence to support your choice to believe that only the KJV is the Word of God in English and the all MV's are corrupt, perverse, yada, yada, yada,...
No. And I can give valid reasons why I say that. The NWT of the JW's is not God's Word. It was not translated but rather compiled and edited to agree with their doctrines.
I have a problem with both the scholarship and translation philosophy behind the NIV. I believe that it delves into interpretation much too often. But my "proofs" against it are too borderline for me to contend with faithful believers who are using it to grow in the Lord.
I don't think that the NRSV and TNIV qualify as God's Word as they were purposefully made "gender neutral" where God was NOT gender neutral.
No English translation contains any of God's inspired words. His words were inspired only to the original writers who spoke and wrote in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The KJV translators were not inspired nor were the revisers of the KJV. They were not apostles nor prophets... they might not have even been saved if they believed in the baptismal regeneration tenet of their church.
With all due respect Michelle, I have read many of your posts and your "reasons" basically come down to your believing what you want to believe no matter what the truth is. You have adopted your own mind- or worse yet, own emotions as your final authority on this issue. You have never given a single reason that was not completely full of logical, factual, and/or scriptural holes... leading right back to your desire to believe what you believe as your only real reason.
Yes. And we have. We have shown you disagreements within the KJV. We have shown you that Jesus Himself read from a version of Isaiah different from the one used by the KJV translators. We have shown the obvious- that God inspired the original writers in languages other than the KJV and that the KJV translators were not biblically qualified to receive inspiration. We have shown overwhelming historical proofs for the validity of other versions and for the imperfect wording of both the TR and the KJV. Some have even shown where the KJV adds words to the Bible without any textual support, ie. "God forbid".
It isn't personal. That's why we persist in asking you for factual proof. BTW, no one here that I know of acknowledges all versions... we simply don't limit God to one.
That's the point Michelle, you don't have God's "words". You have a translation of His Word. I explained this to you ad nauseum awhile back. Do you still not get it? I don't doubt God's Word at all. I simply don't trust the KJV translators to be infallible... because they weren't. Even they said one should compare translations to get the best sense of God's Word.
If two sisters in your church told you how to make the exact same cake but used different wording what would be the final authority? The cake, right? How can you tell? By the result, right? The faithful versions of God's Word all yield the same doctrines, the same truths, and most especially the same faith.
The very few conflicts of fact come to us providentially by the errors of copyists. They can be resolved to any reasonable person.
I know great Christians who use(d) the KJV. Most of histories great Christians however did not use the KJV. Even in the last 400 years most great Christians didn't use it exclusively. They referred to other versions and in particular to other language versions, ie. Spurgeon, Wesley, Knox, etc..
How do we know they had the Word of God? By the way God used the scriptures in their lives.
Nope. Didn't change in 1611 either. The same God that providentially provides His Word in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, etc today, provided His Word in the Geneva and other versions prior to 1611.
Why do you persist in making these false claims when you have never been able to prove them? The Savior is neither weakened nor changed in faithful MV's. Your prideful desires to magnify your false opinion have blinded you to the truth.
Yes. Satan is using some well-meaning otherwise fundamentalist Christians to create dissension within the true church by the promotion of the KJVO false doctrine.
No excuses have been necessary since you have never provided a valid charge.
That is sadly very obvious. You cannot accept the truth.