-
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
Well, I peeked in here again to see if Michelle has provided the single example I practically pleaded with her to provide yesterday, and (no surprise) she has not.
----------------------------------------------
I can't help but picturing Michelle on the witness stand in a court room. I think it would go something like this:
Judge: Alright Ma'am, please tell the court what you say you witnessed at the scene of the crime.
Michelle: I know the truth of what happened. I don't need anyone else to tell me what I know. No one else knows what I know. I alone am aware of the truth of the matter.
Judge: Well...O.K. then. But if you could just provide us with the facts, the evidence, of what you claim to know.
Michelle: You too could know what I know, if you would just study the facts. Ask God to open your eyes to the truth, so that you too could see the truth...[ed.: Rambling, ten-minute rant on anything-but the question edited for brevity.]
Judge (exasperated): Ma'am, could you please just stick to the facts. Tell us what you claim to know about the incident in question.
Michelle: I've already told you what I know. Do you not have ears to hear what I am saying? Do you not...[Once again, rambling, ten-minute rant edited for brevity.]
Judge (large vein on forehead pounding): Ma'am, were you even present at the crime scene! Do you have anything useful to say here whatsoever?
Michelle: Simply look at history! I can't be expected to provide all of the facts. The proof is out there for all to see; who are willing to see it. I believe that blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada...........
Judge: [The Judge at this point is unconscious. Too many self-inflicted gavel blows to the head, in an effort to try to escape from the relentless, inane ramblings proceeding from the witness stand, have rendered the Judge as such.]
----------------------------------------------
I can't help but picturing Michelle on the witness stand in a court room. I think it would go something like this:
Judge: Alright Ma'am, please tell the court what you say you witnessed at the scene of the crime.
Michelle: I know the truth of what happened. I don't need anyone else to tell me what I know. No one else knows what I know. I alone am aware of the truth of the matter.
Judge: Well...O.K. then. But if you could just provide us with the facts, the evidence, of what you claim to know.
Michelle: You too could know what I know, if you would just study the facts. Ask God to open your eyes to the truth, so that you too could see the truth...[ed.: Rambling, ten-minute rant on anything-but the question edited for brevity.]
Judge (exasperated): Ma'am, could you please just stick to the facts. Tell us what you claim to know about the incident in question.
Michelle: I've already told you what I know. Do you not have ears to hear what I am saying? Do you not...[Once again, rambling, ten-minute rant edited for brevity.]
Judge (large vein on forehead pounding): Ma'am, were you even present at the crime scene! Do you have anything useful to say here whatsoever?
Michelle: Simply look at history! I can't be expected to provide all of the facts. The proof is out there for all to see; who are willing to see it. I believe that blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada...........
Judge: [The Judge at this point is unconscious. Too many self-inflicted gavel blows to the head, in an effort to try to escape from the relentless, inane ramblings proceeding from the witness stand, have rendered the Judge as such.]
Michelle: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.
No one disagrees with that. But we also disagree that God is limited to only one English version.
What are your reasons and can you back them up with the scriptures?
Time & again, we've posted the Scriptural evidence, such as the differences between Isaiah 47:7 & 61:1-3 and what Jesus read aloud in Luke 4:16-21. You keep spinning away from that truth, which is found in the KJV.
You all take personal offense that there are some who do not acknowledge all versions as authoritative and Holy and true.
Please copy/paste any post here where anyone says that every book calling itself a Bible is a valid edition.
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.
But YOU began this a while back by denying the validity of some of the most commonly-used BVs such as the NIV.
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?
Same as we(and you, I assume)trust every word of the Four Gospels even though each one is different from the other three.
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?
yes; that's why He updates His word as he chooses, as the language changes. He can do that because He made both languages and His words within them, and is still in full charge of them all.
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?
What has weakened? Can you PROVE that these things you say are weakened are REALLY weakened, or that they were not STRENGTHENED by some scribe, sometime in the past?
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?
What an imagination!
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.
Then why do you dare criticize other valid Bible versions?
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.
Once again, I've not seen anyone here claim that every "bible" is valid.
Have we forsaken the pure words of our Lord and our faith in Him and his promises for the appeasement of men?
No-and that's why we know KJVO or any other one-version myth is false.
No one disagrees with that. But we also disagree that God is limited to only one English version.
What are your reasons and can you back them up with the scriptures?
Time & again, we've posted the Scriptural evidence, such as the differences between Isaiah 47:7 & 61:1-3 and what Jesus read aloud in Luke 4:16-21. You keep spinning away from that truth, which is found in the KJV.
You all take personal offense that there are some who do not acknowledge all versions as authoritative and Holy and true.
Please copy/paste any post here where anyone says that every book calling itself a Bible is a valid edition.
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.
But YOU began this a while back by denying the validity of some of the most commonly-used BVs such as the NIV.
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?
Same as we(and you, I assume)trust every word of the Four Gospels even though each one is different from the other three.
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?
yes; that's why He updates His word as he chooses, as the language changes. He can do that because He made both languages and His words within them, and is still in full charge of them all.
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?
What has weakened? Can you PROVE that these things you say are weakened are REALLY weakened, or that they were not STRENGTHENED by some scribe, sometime in the past?
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?
What an imagination!
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.
Then why do you dare criticize other valid Bible versions?
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.
Once again, I've not seen anyone here claim that every "bible" is valid.
Have we forsaken the pure words of our Lord and our faith in Him and his promises for the appeasement of men?
No-and that's why we know KJVO or any other one-version myth is false.
Michelle: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,
No, it isn't. It's the label of an English translation of God's words, one of many such translations which God caused to be made, some old, some newer.
and it is the very same words of God from the time of Jesus Christ up unto this very day.
No, it isn't. God didn't give His words to His writers in English.
Yes, we should and aught to compare the English modern versions to the English Holy Bible,
Which one?
for that has been our Bible and the very words of God in the English language in the true churches for hundreds of years.
The AV/KJV is only 400 years old. It's different from the Geneva Bible, the standard English Bible in 1603. Which one is valid, and why?
You may think it is lauphable now, but someday you will realize the truth, and your lauphter will turn to sorrow.
True, if you're KJVO and have tried to LIMIT GOD in His providing of His word.
No, it isn't. It's the label of an English translation of God's words, one of many such translations which God caused to be made, some old, some newer.
and it is the very same words of God from the time of Jesus Christ up unto this very day.
No, it isn't. God didn't give His words to His writers in English.
Yes, we should and aught to compare the English modern versions to the English Holy Bible,
Which one?
for that has been our Bible and the very words of God in the English language in the true churches for hundreds of years.
The AV/KJV is only 400 years old. It's different from the Geneva Bible, the standard English Bible in 1603. Which one is valid, and why?
You may think it is lauphable now, but someday you will realize the truth, and your lauphter will turn to sorrow.
True, if you're KJVO and have tried to LIMIT GOD in His providing of His word.
Askjo:If God provided many versions, why did they disagree each other in a few thousand times?
For the same reasons that the Four gospels alone disagree with each other several hundred times in the KJV and in every other valid version-they were written by different men in different times & places.
How accurate are their disagreement in MVs? NIV is better than NASB? NASB is better than NASB? CEV is better than NIV or NASB? That point is arguable. However does God need this arguable point between them?
We could ask you, "Which Gospel is better? Which historical account is better-Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles?"
For the same reasons that the Four gospels alone disagree with each other several hundred times in the KJV and in every other valid version-they were written by different men in different times & places.
How accurate are their disagreement in MVs? NIV is better than NASB? NASB is better than NASB? CEV is better than NIV or NASB? That point is arguable. However does God need this arguable point between them?
We could ask you, "Which Gospel is better? Which historical account is better-Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles?"
Michelle: I wasn't speaking of salvation or the salvation of a person whatsoever in my post but deception and ignorance of this issue.
Which apparently you've received in large measure. For a pseudo-Bible to be "New Age", it would hafta call God "The Force" such as in Star Wars, the Holy Spirit "The Active Force", and Jesus "The Guru" or something similar. New Age does NOT recognize the Personage of God, while the NIV does so, as much as any other genuine Bible does.
Have I been decieved in areas since I was saved? Yes!
Obviously.
But the Lord showed me my error and I repented.
Then why do you still revile His word?
Are you telling me, you could never be deceived since you are saved? I hope not, because you might be in for a mighty fall when you find out you have been.
Personally, I was deceived into Armstrongism for a few months, but God awakened me by showing me he believed in Annihilationism, something I've never believed, even in my BC days.
The devil is tricky. He has nothing else to do but deceive or try to deceive everyone. He tries to deceive the lost into staying lost, and the saved into believing false doctrines such as KJVO in order to effectively limit the effect of their witness. And he's more powerful than this whole physical universe! Without God, we have no chance against him; WITH God, neither he nor anything nor anyone can conquer our spirits. And make no mistake; KJVO is one of many ways the devil tries to squelch the word of God.
Which apparently you've received in large measure. For a pseudo-Bible to be "New Age", it would hafta call God "The Force" such as in Star Wars, the Holy Spirit "The Active Force", and Jesus "The Guru" or something similar. New Age does NOT recognize the Personage of God, while the NIV does so, as much as any other genuine Bible does.
Have I been decieved in areas since I was saved? Yes!
Obviously.
But the Lord showed me my error and I repented.
Then why do you still revile His word?
Are you telling me, you could never be deceived since you are saved? I hope not, because you might be in for a mighty fall when you find out you have been.
Personally, I was deceived into Armstrongism for a few months, but God awakened me by showing me he believed in Annihilationism, something I've never believed, even in my BC days.
The devil is tricky. He has nothing else to do but deceive or try to deceive everyone. He tries to deceive the lost into staying lost, and the saved into believing false doctrines such as KJVO in order to effectively limit the effect of their witness. And he's more powerful than this whole physical universe! Without God, we have no chance against him; WITH God, neither he nor anything nor anyone can conquer our spirits. And make no mistake; KJVO is one of many ways the devil tries to squelch the word of God.
Declare Him, I believe the NIV/New Age garbage came from Riplinger, and that Michelle picked it up from someone who read Riplinger's garbage, told his aunt about it, who told her buddy over the gossip fence, who told her husband, who told his work partner, who told his wife, who told her sister, who told her grown son, who told his friend, who told one of his deacons, who told his pastor, who told another pastor, who told his choir director, who told her daughter, who told her niece, who told Michelle. In other words, it's just another KJVO fishing story.
Michelle:Salvation is NOT DETERMINED by the type of church you belong to. This point is irrelevent to this issue.
Agreed.
These translators were translators, and very well educated men versed in many different languages, and translated God's Holy word, to which they all believed were the very words of God and this is how they approached their translation,
Izzatso?
Let's see what those translators had to say:
From the AV 1611's "From The Translators To The Reader":
Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
So you see, the AV translators did NOT believe their work was either final nor perfect.
unlike those of Westcott and Hort who were skeptics at best and heretics at worst.
Please show us where either W or H said, "I'm making this translation, but I don't believe its content."
The two differed in not only the era they lived, but also their approach to the translation and the texts they used to translate. One was Godly and faithful (KJV translators), the other was skeptical and heretical/apostate (Westcott and Hort).
Pure conjecture.
There were a committee of 47 different men who all took great care and 6-7 years of work to translate to the best word for word accuracy as possible in the English language. Westcott and Hort sought to change what was already there by virtue of using those corrupt greek texts and the methods they used.
Sorry, but you simply cannot prove those Greek texts are corrupt.
Agreed.
These translators were translators, and very well educated men versed in many different languages, and translated God's Holy word, to which they all believed were the very words of God and this is how they approached their translation,
Izzatso?
Let's see what those translators had to say:
From the AV 1611's "From The Translators To The Reader":
Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
So you see, the AV translators did NOT believe their work was either final nor perfect.
unlike those of Westcott and Hort who were skeptics at best and heretics at worst.
Please show us where either W or H said, "I'm making this translation, but I don't believe its content."
The two differed in not only the era they lived, but also their approach to the translation and the texts they used to translate. One was Godly and faithful (KJV translators), the other was skeptical and heretical/apostate (Westcott and Hort).
Pure conjecture.
There were a committee of 47 different men who all took great care and 6-7 years of work to translate to the best word for word accuracy as possible in the English language. Westcott and Hort sought to change what was already there by virtue of using those corrupt greek texts and the methods they used.
Sorry, but you simply cannot prove those Greek texts are corrupt.
Michelle:The proof is church history! This text has been preserved in the churches, and by the churches from God throughout the centuries and up unto this very day. Open up a KJB or a Geneva Bible, etc. and it is right there in your face. There is the proof that you continue to deny, or blind yourself to.
The Tyndale Bible is different from the Coverdale bible, which is different from the Great Bible, which is different from the Bishop's Bible which is different from the geneva Bible, which is different from the AV 1611, which is different from the Blayney's 1769 KJV edition, which is different from the NIV which is different from the NKJV. By what criteria do you pick-n-choose?
The Tyndale Bible is different from the Coverdale bible, which is different from the Great Bible, which is different from the Bishop's Bible which is different from the geneva Bible, which is different from the AV 1611, which is different from the Blayney's 1769 KJV edition, which is different from the NIV which is different from the NKJV. By what criteria do you pick-n-choose?
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. </font>[/QUOTE]2 sisters? You mean 2 Gods?</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. I meant two sisters. This technique is called analogy.
The two sisters would relate to two translators. The two recipes would be their translations. The cake would be the written Word operating in the lives of saved people.
God gave us 4 gospels. They all differ from each other. Let me ask you one simple question: which one of the 4 is the MOST ACCURATE?
Your answer is probably "all of them". My answer to you is that all faithful translations are accurate. IMO, those using formal equivalency and lean toward majority readings are more accurate.
Editions of the TR and KJV differ from each other. Which one is the most accurate?
The more accurate translations are those that can be FACTUALLY demonstrated to accurately translate a text that can be FACTUALLY validated using the whole of the textual evidence.
That is a lie Michelle. Not a mistake but a lie. I have addressed this very same subject and response with you before. I factually laid out my case to which you gave no response. When faced with facts, you shrank away not having the evidence to refute me nor the humility to apologize and admit you were wrong.
I disagree with you concerning the means of God's preservation. The bottom line is my beliefs about preservation are historically, biblically, and logically sustainable while yours are not.
The fact that you continuously avoid giving even on proof of anything you assert is very telling.
The originals weren't preserved. They were directly and divinely inspired through men who God specifically chose, spoke to directly, and who met biblical qualifications.
The last people qualified to write/authorize scripture were the Apostles. The last one of them died about 1900 years ago... and about 1500 years before the AV.
BTW, He desired to preserve the NT through over 5000 mss... none of which agree with any of the others on every word.
God's providential act here proves that you are absolutely wrong to put special authority in the word choices of the KJV translators. If God didn't think it necessary to perfectly preserve His own word choices in the originals in order for us to have His Word... there is absolutely no reason to believe that He would restrict His Word to the scholarly choices of 17th century Anglicans.
Really? Says who? You?
The KJV translators KNEW their work had mistakes in it. At times they took educated guesses by their own admission.
My final authority is God through His Word. If you think the NASB, NKJV, WEB and KJV present a different God or His plan for man then it is yours to prove. I have been around this board and this subject for a few years now and no KJVO has ever proven it.
robycop3 said:
Declare Him, I believe the NIV/New Age garbage came from Riplinger, and that Michelle picked it up from someone who read Riplinger's garbage . . . who told her daughter, who told her niece, who told Michelle. In other words, it's just another KJVO fishing story.
Yeah, but with all those people who have heard it, now they can quote each other because it's "documented."
Declare Him, I believe the NIV/New Age garbage came from Riplinger, and that Michelle picked it up from someone who read Riplinger's garbage . . . who told her daughter, who told her niece, who told Michelle. In other words, it's just another KJVO fishing story.
Yeah, but with all those people who have heard it, now they can quote each other because it's "documented."
Ransom:Yeah, but with all those people who have heard it, now they can quote each other because it's "documented."
Yerp...kinda like hooking up a vidcam to a TV & aiming it at that TV.
I'll be gone a coupla days...May each & every one of you have a wonderful weekend; may God watch over you & yours.
Yerp...kinda like hooking up a vidcam to a TV & aiming it at that TV.
I'll be gone a coupla days...May each & every one of you have a wonderful weekend; may God watch over you & yours.
DeclareHim
New Member
Yep.
DeclareHim
New Member
Yea but Westcott and Hort had the same beliefs KJV translators did they felt the same way about Scripture.Anglicans do not preach salvation that said I'm sure there are Anglicans that are saved but as a whole there not. So if God could use Anglicans to translate the KJV then he can use Anglicans to copy a Greek Text. Critics
Skeptics I don't think so. Most critics of the Bible I know wouldn't learn Greek and make a copy of it.DeclareHim
New Member
roby you are right again it looks like the KJV side ran. And we are left still without any proof of why there KJVO.
Lacy Evans
New Member
Sometimes we have to pause and re-inflate ourselves after the dog-pile. Sometimes we get tired of chasing the same rabbit like a track grayhound.
Love Lacy
Love Lacy
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Or why the NIV is New Age. </font>[/QUOTE]I have NO problem with a person who chooses to be KJVO - no one has to prove to anyone why they choose that option.
However - this thread concerns the NIV and the New Age and no one ever proved that connexion. I dislike the NIV for several reasons, but there is NO evidence that it is New Age connected.