NIV

Just an fyi that many KJVO sites like the one you quoated are full of historical and factual inaccuracies.

While the writings of Westcott and Hort were influential to the Nestles and Kurt Aland who were the primary compilers of the UBS text, they are very different texts. W & H's writings were also influential to the translation committee of the Revised Standard Version (which is also seen as a source for the NIV) because of their scholarly work in the field of Textual Criticism.

Regarding the theology of Westcott and Hort, they were definitely "liberal" in many of their theological positions and that has probably been indoctrinated to mean "heretic" to you.

 

Regarding their involvement in the occult, Westcott and Hort's "secret club" or "Ghost Guild" appears to be a scientific enterprise to document "supernatural phenomenon" which many academics of that time and even now, deny exists. We would attribute them to the spirit realm.

They were not engaging in any occult activities, unless you consider documenting supernatural phenomenon to be an occult activity.

 

brother sm said:

Many in the Churches today use the NIV.

yes they do, thank God!

The NIV as many other Bible versions are based upon westscott & hort and they were connected with the occult known as warlocks.

Wrong.

Many do not know this and thought I would share.

Many do not know the colour of underwear worn by the Tooth Fairy, either, for much the same reason.

The NIV from my study is a danger to the Church.

The only "danger" is to the control of KJV-only pastors over their flocks.

 

Moderator note:

Please note that brother sm does NOT attack the NIV, but states that it is an opinion based on his studies.

Thank you folks.

 

Name one *doctrine in the KJV that is missing from the NIV.

*Not a passage or word. I'm not talking about the difference between the Greek, etc...

Thanks,

David

 

C4K said:

but states that it is an opinion based on his studies.

Actually, he didn't say anything at all about it being his "opinion." Furthermore, a number of his points (such as the NIV being based on the Westcott and Hort text, and Westcott and Hort's alleged occultism) are not matters of opinion, but historical fact.

If I preface any garbage I wish with "in my opinion," will that give me a free pass from all scrutiny?

 

Bro. SM, you didn't say if you're a One-Versionist or not, but you need more FACTUAL reasons to criticize the NIV than what you've given.

Personally, I don't use the NIV a lot because I prefer MORE LITERAL translations such as the NASB, NKJV, & KJV. The TNIV? I don't use it at all because I believe that its "gender-inclusiveness" is a departure from its source manuscripts.

The W&H thingie was proven wrong long ago

Other false anti-NIV arguments:

"The NIV denies the Deity of Jesus by calling Joseph his father."

BUUZZ! The KJV and most other English versions do the SAME THING. Why? Because that's the reading in the Greek. In Luke 2:48, the Greek is PATER, and I believe every one of us knows pater is Greek for father. And in Luke 2:27, J&M are His PARENTS.(Greek, "goneus") No denying Joseph was Hos STEPfather!

"The NIV uses the name of Jesus less than many others."

BUUZZ! If you have the patience, do a word count and see whether the KJV or the NIV has the name "Jesus" in it more times.

"The NIV is homosexual-friendly because it reads'homosexual offenders' in some verses."

BUUZZ! Only an IDIOT would read the NIV's use of this phrase, and take it out of context, taking it to mean,"one who offends homosexuals".

Bear in mind that the word "homosexual" wasn't coined till 1892, so it doesn't appear in any Bibles made before then.

There are many more such false arguments, but these should suffice for now.

 

You are in error about the NIV.

Zonervan Publishing House published it.

Edwin H. Palmer was the Executive Secretary for the NIV Committee on Bible Translation. Over 100 scholars worked directly with the best Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts available. The team of translators were all from Christian denominations. They used biblical scholars from many colleges, universities and seminaries. They represented the US, Great Britain, Canada, Austraila and New Zealand.

Biblical Scholars from most of the seminaries in the Nation were very suspicious and cautious of it when it was first released. After all, those of us who grew up with nothing BUT King James had seen a lot of crazy translations come and go. The NIV passed the tests for accuracy though.

 

The more I look at this thread it is an attack upon the NIV.

The NIV from my study is a danger to the Church.

Calling the Word of God a danger to the Church of God's children is a slanderous remark. I simply do not understand why a warning was not issued about attacking the NIV.

If I said that KJV was a danger to the Church because of its outdated language then I would expect to be edited and/or warned.

What is the danger of using an NIV? Is my home church sinning for having the NIV as pew bibles along with the KJV?

The intent of the original poster was to paint the NIV as some part of a Satanic conspiracy based upon guess work and lies. Basically he called the NIV Satanic without directly saying Satanic. I simply do not see why the original poster was not called out for making such a claim.

To me this thread is nothing but the typical uninformed KJVO talk of ignorance, myths, slander, and attacking a fine translation of the Word. Yes, the NIV is not the best translation out there but it is an accurate translation that does not deserve to be called "dangerous".

 

This was brother sm's first post.

Please be assured that the thread and the phrasing is not being ignored.

Proper measures are being taken.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

Thanks C4K.

 

I have been following the "translation wars" on this website for almost a year now. It simply amazes me how much energy is expended on position statements, points & counterpoints, arguments, allegations about translation teams and publishers, etc. Could it simply be that God has allowed many translations so that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, His written word will speak to many people (who have different ways of processing information into their respective hearts and different levels of ability to read and comprehend)? I believe that any translation that was translated by men who depended on the Holy Spirit for guidance is the written Word of God and is for our learning and guidance. I have my favorites (HCSB, NKJV & NLT), I own and refer to others at times (KJV, NASB, The Message) and don't own or use still others (ASV, GNT, RSV, NIV, etc). However, I do not (and will not) put one above the other as better from God's point of view because I don't know which one God views higher than another (if any). I believe that most of us have our favorites, but should be able to respect another man's use of a different translation without considering him sinful or in league with the devil. Bruce