NIV & New Age Movement by Al Lacey

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
WHAT you lost me I don't see that happening. 95% of Christianity rejects every shred of New Age beliefs. The New Age has adopted some of our terms but they copied from us not the other way around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe you just don't have your eyes open all the way, otherwise you would see clearly that you are wrong. The falling away, or great apostacy is happening right before your very eyes, on a large scale in this country alone. Don't know about other countries, but, I wouldn't be surprised if it was worldwide. I can't prove this to you, as this is something you must OBSERVE for yourself. Watch and be sober.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Trotter]

Admit it, Michelle. If it ain't the King James, you will never accept it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Ransom]

michelle said:

Then you are clearly relying upon the WRONG GREEK TEXT.

I re-checked my samples, and there is no difference between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland text. Both of them contain those articles. God inspired the apostles to write what you say shouldn't be there. Do you know better than God?

No, quite the opposite. You are, quite simply, ignorant of the facts, and therefore your opinions about Bible translations are not worth anybody's time.

 

[Trotter]

DeclareHim,

I hate to bust your bubble, but the NA movement has made serious inroads into mainstream Christianity. Check out David Jeremiah's Invasion of Other Gods for an eye-opener. And this book is several years old!

But, in accordance with the topic of the discussion, I have to say that the NIV has nothing to do with the New Age nonsense. The NA has taken terms from Christianity in general and given them their own meanings.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Ed Edwards]

//NIV John 7:27
But we know where this man is from; when *THE CHRIST* comes, no one will know where he is from."
(This doesn't allude to the real meaning of the question, nor show forth their confusion as to "how" Jesus is Christ and actually leads the reader to believe that Jesus couldn't be Christ because they know where he is from - I smell subtle deception!)

KJB John 7:27
Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when *CHRIST* cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. (this is showing their statement of confusion -the NIV does not)//

Sorry, the only deception i see is that which says
these two words of God are different. The meaning is
the same, exactly the same.


BTW, these people knew exactly what was known by others,
the Messiah (the Christ) that was to come would
not have ancestor:

Hebrews 7:1-10 (KJV1769)
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."

Personally i find the KJB hard to understand.
It sounds like that nobody whould know where the Christ
was at right now, not where did he come from (parentage
as well as geographic location)

Praise Jesus, the Christ!!

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I re-checked my samples, and there is no difference between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland text. Both of them contain those articles. God inspired the apostles to write what you say shouldn't be there. Do you know better than God?
--------------------------------------------------

Do you think that I would be so stupid as to take your word for this? Give me more credit than that. YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING PURPOSELY or are not RELYING ON THE CORRECT TEXTS. If the texts that underline the KJB and all previous Bibles from those texts, had what you claim in them, then they would so be TRANSLATED as they were NOT. The KJB translators translated LITERALLY where it was possible, and they evidence in other verses of scripture, that the word "THE" was in the text. Unlike the modern scholars and translators today, who use a totally DIFFERENT and LIBERAL translation method than that of the KJB translators.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the only deception i see is that which says
these two words of God are different. The meaning is
the same, exactly the same.
--------------------------------------------------

Ed, you are correct in this, and I apologize to you and all, and I thank you for showing me my error, that my comments were absolutely incorrect concerning this verse in mention and that they do mean the same thing. How we understand the verse in the context, I think we agree also, but to me it seems as though they knew, yet they were confused, because they knew where he was from, so how then could he be Christ.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
But, in accordance with the topic of the discussion, I have to say that the NIV has nothing to do with the New Age nonsense. The NA has taken terms from Christianity in general and given them their own meanings.

In Christ,
Trotter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Trotter,

I am not saying the NIV has anything to do with the New Age, but that the terminology could be confused with those of the New Age, because of the way that the translators have chosen to translate those verses. I am also not saying, that anyone who uses the NIV will suddenly have New Age beliefs. I just see this as an observation, that it could be used as a tool to bridge ecumenically the two together and we do see alot of New Age beliefs entering the churches. This doesn't help it, but COULD fuel it. The terms that the New Age uses, have been taken from the truth and turned upside down (along time ago and not just recently), but seems so close to the truth, that it can be dangerous and mislead those who are unaware of the differences. This is all I am saying, and trying to make you all aware of. There are more important and serious things wrong with the NIV to me than this. This just adds to the already wrong things in this version. Some asked me to prove with comparisons, why I believe this. I hope you now better understand. Hopefully and prayerfully my concerns will not end up being correct.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[DeclareHim]

Isaiah 14 in every every Hebrew & Greek versions that exist Morning Star is a correct translation choice there is no Lucifer there in any of the mss. It could be translated "morning, dawn or day" any of the three would be acceptable translation choices there. Personally I definetly like it being translated Day Star as the ESV, translated it. But morning star is a very correct form of translation. My source was Strongs Hebrew Dictionary.

 

[DeclareHim]

Maybe NA has made inroads but I don't think the majority of Christianity buys into it. And even if they do it has nothing to do with the Bible versions period.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by michelle:



Trotter,

I am not saying the NIV has anything to do with the New Age, but that the terminology could be confused with those of the New Age, because of the way that the translators have chosen to translate those verses. I am also not saying, that anyone who uses the NIV will suddenly have New Age beliefs. I just see this as an observation, that it could be used as a tool to bridge ecumenically the two together and we do see alot of New Age beliefs entering the churches. This doesn't help it, but COULD fuel it. The terms that the New Age uses, have been taken from the truth and turned upside down (along time ago and not just recently), but seems so close to the truth, that it can be dangerous and mislead those who are unaware of the differences. This is all I am saying, and trying to make you all aware of. There are more important and serious things wrong with the NIV to me than this. This just adds to the already wrong things in this version. Some asked me to prove with comparisons, why I believe this. I hope you now better understand. Hopefully and prayerfully my concerns will not end up being correct.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Thank you Michelle for a logical, concise post. Up until now you have given the impression that you did think that the NIV and New Age were linked. Thank you for the clarification of your views and in what you now say I think I mostly agree with you.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 14 in every every Hebrew & Greek versions that exist Morning Star is a correct translation choice there is no Lucifer there in any of the mss. It could be translated "morning, dawn or day" any of the three would be acceptable translation choices there. Personally I definetly like it being translated Day Star as the ESV, translated it. But morning star is a very correct form of translation. My source was Strongs Hebrew Dictionary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe according to the scholars you listen to and the sources you rely upon are incorrect. History as well as present day, tells us that the correct word is Lucifer as this has been in the word of God from even before the KJB - God has chosen this to be the translated word in our English language. Lucifer means light bearer, or shining one, NOT MORNING NOR STAR (even though man used this term to describe venus, the word does not literally mean morning star), and the Hebrew words do not mean these words either, and in fact the word star is translated in that same verse, but is not the same Hebrew word as used where Lucifer is translated. The Hebrew words literally mean bright one, or shining one. They are UNIQUE IN ALL THE HEBREW TEXT, just as LUCIFER is UNIQUE in all the English translations thereof. And I will go even further, and just for the sake of argument say that even if the Hebrew text that was translated from was Day star or morning star, then we would have another problem because we would have to conclude that Jesus Christ was claiming a title for Himself, that He himself uttered speaking of Satan. Where has the Lord done this EVER in his words? Where? Where does He liken himself, to that of Satan? In fact, Jesus tells us that Satan can come as an angel of light, but he NEVER gives Satan a term that he describes of Himself. It is Satan, who does this, not the Lord. We would have to conclude that the text was in error. So really think about this long and hard, and trust the Lord and what he has provided to us in the churches (the pillar of truth) for hundreds of years, the truth that this is speaking of Lucifer, and not the morning star. Everyone knows, and has known that Lucifer is speaking of Satan, the light bearer or shining one. In fact my common dictionary gives the definition for Lucifer as Satan, and that is the ONLY definition given.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 14 in every every Hebrew & Greek versions that exist Morning Star is a correct translation choice there is no Lucifer there in any of the mss. It could be translated "morning, dawn or day" any of the three would be acceptable translation choices there. Personally I definetly like it being translated Day Star as the ESV, translated it. But morning star is a very correct form of translation. My source was Strongs Hebrew Dictionary.
--------------------------------------------------

Just curious to know, how you understand this passage. Who or what is the "Day Star" that you beieve this passage to be referring to? Is it the same "Day Star" as Peter is referring? Does not the NIV refer the reader to Isaiah 14? And if so, without consulting your memory of the KJB, or the term Lucifer, what do you conclude? Does this confuse you? Who or what is this Day Star? Does the passage speak of a person, or a literal star? When, does this occur, and based upon what is revealed in this entire chapter, can you conclude when it happened or if it is yet to be fulfilled? And why? What are the other scripture references that helped you to come to your conclusion of understanding?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by michelle:
Ed, you are correct in this, and I apologize to you and all, and I thank you for showing me my error, that my comments were absolutely incorrect concerning this verse in mention and that they do mean the same thing.
...
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

I humbly accept your
aplolgize.

And DOUBLE love in Jesus, the Christ, our
Lord and Savior back attcha!
Ed.

Praise Christ Iesus

 

[Ransom]

michelle said:

Do you think that I would be so stupid as to take your word for this? Give me more credit than that. YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING PURPOSELY or are not RELYING ON THE CORRECT TEXTS.

Thank you for blabbing, michelle, because in so doing, you just demonstrated your ignorance for all to see. You just proved that you didn't look at the Greek text for yourself, and have no idea what you are talking about.

My source was the online Greek texts at Unbound Bible, specifically the TR of 1550 and the Unicode NA27 with accents. You can go look up those articles that shouldn't be there for yourself.

Not that I expect you to do anything of the sort, of course. Wishful thinking seems to carry the day in KJV-only circles.

You gotta laugh.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
I re-checked my samples, and there is no difference between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland text. Both of them contain those articles. God inspired the apostles to write what you say shouldn't be there. Do you know better than God?
--------------------------------------------------

Do you think that I would be so stupid as to take your word for this? Give me more credit than that.

Why should we? You obviously don't check the facts on any of the KJVO stuff that you post. If you did, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself so often.

YOU ARE CLEARLY LYING PURPOSELY or are not RELYING ON THE CORRECT TEXTS.

Let's see... He is either lying or using the wrong resources... Maybe there are a few other more likely answers. Maybe you are wrong because you've used no independent resources but have instead relied purely on KJVO propaganda. Maybe you think he is wrong simply because you can't accept anything as truth of it contradicts your predetermined conclusion- IOW's, you think your opinion is also infallible.

If the texts that underline the KJB and all previous Bibles from those texts, had what you claim in them, then they would so be TRANSLATED as they were NOT.

As I thought, one of my answers is going to be correct.

Here is a direct disproof of your unfounded conjecture: http://tinyurl.com/42zny

Look down into the Greek Scrivener's 1896 TR. Right before the word "Xristou" you see the word "tou". Place your cursor on that word and left click. It will tell you that this is the definite article.

The KJV translators chose to leave this word untranslated. This happens occasionally. They did the same thing in a verse in 2 Peter 1 that I studied recently.

The KJB translators translated LITERALLY where it was possible, and they evidence in other verses of scripture, that the word "THE" was in the text.

The word "the" was in the text. They must have thought it redundant and therefore left it untranslated. "the Christ" and "Christ" are exactly the same purpose.

Stop following Gail Riplinger's incredible non-sense.

Unlike the modern scholars and translators today, who use a totally DIFFERENT and LIBERAL translation method than that of the KJB translators.

This reveals ignorance on your part. There are Bible versions that are more formally translated than the KJV, including the NASB.

<edited only to shroten link>

[ July 27, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Scott J]

OK. Michelle has been proven categorically wrong again. Will she:

A) Repent and ask forgiveness for accusing a brother of lying without having her facts straight. Then go on to use the fact that she is wrong now as a basis to explore and seek the truth on this matter.

B) Attack some more, claiming we don't believe in God's pure words et al.

C) Disappear and avoid her error altogether only to reappear later to make the same false accusations and arguments again.

What do you all think? Are there possibilities that you have gleaned from her past patterns that I have missed.

BTW, I have never seen her employ A. It is wishful thinking on my part.

 

[TomVols]

Are we getting anywhere?

 

[Scott J]

Only if we can keep Michelle engaged...

If we can just get her to open her eyes just once... and realize that she is being lied to and compounding that by repeating the same lies... maybe she can be helped.

She seems like a nice enough gal otherwise.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Like lil David and big Goliath, she just needed one shot...and she has used it well. One little gal with all you dozen or so big burly boys...tsk tsk. Keep on slinging, honey, you've done good!