NIV & New Age Movement by Al Lacey

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As I mentioned earlier (I forget which thread

) most of these people are nice folks - including michelle, Granny, Bro Lacy, and askjo.

And Granny...me...a big burly boy??

(If I forgot someone plese do not take it as an attack

)

 

[michelle]

Thank you GrannyGumbo for your encouragement and kind words and C4K for your kind words. They are very much appreciated as well as needed.

May the Lord richly bless you all!

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Well, broC4K, I did start to write "big burly bullies", but I KNEW that I'd prolly have to stand in a corner for that one!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

But I am a little, short, baldy, chubby guy

. And I have to say, our sister michelle does a good job in standing up for what she believes. She is definitely NOT one to be bullied .

Okay - enough nice stuff - back to the fight

.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by 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!

Please show me the one shot she used well.

Michelle has yet to prove anything. On virtually everything she has argued, we have shown her factually wrong.

BTW, the David and Goliath analogy just doesn't fit. She is much more like <attack on spirituality snipped>. No matter how much she tries to get KJVO to speak some proof of itself, it remains silent being a false idol.

The truth however continually consumes her false assertions and arguments.

[ July 27, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Scott J]

Oh yeah, Michelle.

You owe Ransom a huge apology. He is right about the Greek TR containing the definite article at the places you cited. You are wrong... yet you called him a liar (since he obviously wasn't using the wrong text).

Did you take the time to look at the proof we posted to refute you?

 

[Scott J]

Michelle, I noticed you posting elsewhere. Why not here?

You have been proven 100% wrong in one of your assertions. An assertion that you used to justify calling Ransom a liar.

Are you going to show Christian character and acknowledge that you were wrong in both of these matters or are you going to go on in pride?

 

[Trotter]

Michelle wrote:
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.

OK, so what should we do, throw away the NIV? But, wait...the same terms are in the NKJV...and the ESV...and [gasp] O-horror-of-horrors, they are in the King James, too!!!

Sorry for the drama, but really.

To condemn a translation because some of the terms used in it sound a lot like those used by the New Agers is ridiculous.

Think about this. The Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness use terms from the good ol' King James for their cults. They use the exact same terms, but with extremely different meanings. So, if we follow this thread of logic...you goota chuck the KJV, too. Of which I am not endorsing.

And I'm not trying to "diss" Michelle. There are several who have posted here who have, in all probability, never cracked an NIV in their lives. Or have only opened one to look up their "proof texts" that Ripplinger (et al) have listed as deletions from the KJV. If you have never read it, you do not have a horse in this race. Period.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Ransom:
I re-checked my samples, and there is no difference between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland text.

I disagree with you. The fact shows that the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland text differ each other 8,000 times.

 

[Johnv]

Michelle wrote:
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 can't think of anyone who would make such a correlation, except maybe a KJVOlater, who's against all non-KJV tranlations anyway.

Then again, there are a few folks who say we shouldn't listen to music in the new age section of the record store.

 

[Trotter]

Askjo wrote:
I disagree with you. The fact shows that the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland text differ each other 8,000 times.

Apparantly not on this one, Askjo.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by 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.

"star" on Isa. 14 is not found in Hebrew Text.

 

[Ransom]

Askjo said:

I disagree with you. The fact shows that the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland text differ each other 8,000 times.

But not in the sense under discussion. Try to pay a little attention, and you won't have to join michelle in the penalty box reserved for those who make their ignorance known in public.

 

[Ransom]

Askjo said:

"star" on Isa. 14 is not found in Hebrew Text.

Neither is the proper name "Lucifer," but the facts never got in the way of the KJV-onlyists before.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
To condemn a translation because some of the terms used in it sound a lot like those used by the New Agers is ridiculous.

--------------------------------------------------


Trotter,

Please read the rest of what I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

I have not rejected the NIV for this purpose ONLY.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GrannyGumbo]

And I'm not trying to "diss" Michelle. There are several who have posted here who have, in all probability, never cracked an NIV in their lives. Or have only opened one to look up their "proof texts" that Ripplinger (et al) have listed as deletions from the KJV. If you have never read it, you do not have a horse in this race. Period.

"I am most definitely one of those who have never cracked one open...and have no intentions of doing so-ever! All I know is what I've caught a glimpse of on here & that's enough for me.

BTW, I've never smoked, or did drugs, been promiscuous or drank firewater...so does that mean I do not have a horse in those races either & I have to partake of all that in order to know it's wrong"?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Neither is the proper name "Lucifer," but the facts never got in the way of the KJV-onlyists before.
--------------------------------------------------

Lucifer is the Latin word used that has the same meaning as that for the Hebrew words in the text that underline the KJB and to which is not morning star, but bright one or shining one, or light bearer. Lucifer was used in the Geneva Bible also. This was the word for Satan in the history of the churches even up until this day. This is most likely why it remained in it's Latin form in our English translations. But you see, I don't doubt, nor question what it is supposed to be, because this is what God provided and preserved for it to be already for us.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Trotter]

No, Granny, you do not have to partake of drugs to know that they are wrong. But we are talking about the bible. You know, God's written revelation of Himself? The one written in languages other than English?

There is nothing wrong with you holding to your King James. Absolutely nothing at all. But, by your own admission, you have never read any other translation, correct? So, how do you know that they are not God's word?

If all you had ever used was a horse and buggy, how could you condemn the automobile? Many did way back when. But, through that "unGodly contraption" we are able to travel greater distances in a shorter amount of time...with AIR CONDITIONING!

The King James Version has stood the test of time. And it will always be with us. But some of these "newer" translations are just as much God's word. And that is what I am fighting about.

Luv ya, Granny (even though you are no where near old enough to be my granny). You keep standing for what you believe in. Amen?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

Michelle,

I did read it all. You spoke from ignorance.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Askjo said:

"star" on Isa. 14 is not found in Hebrew Text.

Neither is the proper name "Lucifer," but the facts never got in the way of the KJV-onlyists before.

Morning star is not found in Latin Vulgate -- Neither!