Rippon said:
The NIV has never claimed to be a revision of the KJV.Where did you get that idea?It was a brand-new translation when it came out.There are similarities at times in some of the most conspicuous places but the NIV stands alone as does the HCSB,and ISV for example.
Taken from an article by Robert Stewart:
In approaching the NIV, I read in the Preface that the Greek text used
was "an eclectic one". The word "eclectic" had me looking for my
Dictionary. I found that the word "eclectic" means "chosen from
various sources".
Pick and mix, in other words.
I wrote to the International Bible Society to enquire about the
"eclectic" text of the NIV. Ralph Earle advised me that the Greek
text of the NIV was basically that found in the United Bible
Societies/Nestle-Aland printed Greek New Testament text. I
subsequently discovered that this modern UBS/Nestle-Aland "eclectic"
text forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New
Testament.
My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial
Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria
Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic
diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops,
former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector
Magnificus" of the Gregorian University,
As I did, it slowly dawned on me that, working on a theory first
propounded by Westcott and Hort in 1881, the translators of most of
the modern Bibles had deserted the traditional New Testament text of
the Greek speaking churches and had, instead, introduced rare and
peculiar readings of a handful of obscure manuscripts, primarily (but
not exclusively) Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
These minority readings, chosen from various sources, had been
introduced into the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text
under the supervision of the most prominent Roman Catholic Greek
Scholar in the world.
That was from an article by Robert Stewart.
The catholic church is behind the modern versions, they are trying to shoot down the protestant bible the KJV and replace it with the corrupted text versions. All catholic bibles have the Alexandrian texts mixed in. Jack Chick said that the protestant bible colleges are infiltrated with catholic teachers, pretending to be protestant and they are turning future protestant preachers away from the KJV and have been doing it for decades. They say the original greek meant something else, but they are using the corrupted Alexandrian greek and tricking the students, by not using the KJV greek, majority text.
When eusebius, was chosen by Constantine to pick out texts for 50 bibles for the newly formed roman catholic church he chose to mix the corrupted Alexandrian texts in with the majority text. Because he did not believe in the trinity and none of the Alexandrian texts had 1John 5:7, the main trinity verse, in the majority text. The KJV 1Jn. 5:7 is missing from mostly all modern versions. --the gnostic heretics in Alexandria that corrupted the Alexandrian manuscripts did not believe in the trinity either.
Ruppert Murdoch, the publisher of the NIV, is a pornographer.
More from Robert Stewart:
There is abundant historical evidence that Gnostics produced corrupt
manuscripts in Alexandria. In 1945/46 no less than thirteen Gnostic
bound volumes were discovered at Nag Hammadi, near Chenoboskion, in
Egypt, which contained more than fifty Gnostic sacred writings and
scriptures including, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the
Gospel of Philip, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel
according to the Egyptians, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Both
Clement and Origen refer to, and quote from, these apocryphal and
corrupt Gnostic scriptures in their own writings.
The Byzantine text, of which the KJV is translated, can be trace back to the first or second century, long before the Alexandrian text was corrupted and came into existence.
Greek scholar Wilbur N Pickering has researched this claim and reveals
that: "Byzantine readings are recognised (most notably) by the
Didache, Diognetus, and Justin Martyr in the first half of the second
century [AD 100-150]; by the Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus,
and Irenaeus (heavily) in the second half [AD 150-199]; by Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, and Origen (all
heavily) in the first half of the third century [AD 200-250]; by
Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian (heavily), Dionysius of
Alexandria, and Archelaus in the second half [AD 250-299]". ("The
Identity of the New Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980;
p 75)
There again, he might have in mind the "oldest and one of the most
excellent of the versions" (to quote Scrivener) which is the
translation of the Greek into Syriac called the Peshitta. Paul's
missionary base was at Antioch, in Syria, and the Syriac-speaking
Christians had the Scriptures translated into their own language. It
is universally acknowledged that the Peshitta is a translation of the
Byzantine text and, according to church historians (Eusebius and
others), the Peshitta dates from c AD 150. Terence H Brown confirms
that "the Syriac version was older by two centuries than the Nestorian
heresy (AD 431)".
[The above is referring to the first Peshitta. There was a centuries later translation also called Peshitta.]
"I know of no reason to doubt that the Byzantine text is in fact the
form of text that was known and transmitted in the Aegean area [Asia
Minor and Greece] from the beginning". ("The Identity of the New
Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980; p 229. ISBN
0-8407-5744-1)
The King James version is translated from the original unaltered texts. Massoretic text of the Jews old testament and Byzantine [textus receptus] New Testament. [See Brittanica online, --massoretic text.]
The modern versions have corrupted manuscripts vaticanus and sinaiticus mixed in them and are 5% unreliable in important places.
