-
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!
You cannot trust the NIV!
- Thread starter xdisciplex
- Start date
Once again, folks, please be aware of two things:
1. The NIV translators had access to some much earlier mss than did the KJV translators. Thus, when they found that there were verses in the KJV which could not be found in the earlier mss, these verses were omitted or put into text notes.
2. Most of the 'missing' verses are in text notes.
1. The NIV translators had access to some much earlier mss than did the KJV translators. Thus, when they found that there were verses in the KJV which could not be found in the earlier mss, these verses were omitted or put into text notes.
2. Most of the 'missing' verses are in text notes.
Gail Riplinger is a slanderer.
SOURCE1
SOURCE2
SOURCE3
SOURCE4
- Even David Cloud, quite the fundamentalist himself (who opposes MV's), says she invented quotes by him and falsely stated his opinions (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm)
- Riplinger makes outlandish claims. She claims the underlying text for the NIV was altered by a spiritualist who conducted seances. She offers no documentation for such.
- She makes silly accusations of MV's. One of her "accusations" is that the NIV is wrong to translate "Holy Ghost" as "Holy Spirit." Huh???
- Riplinger claims that Wescott did not believe in the devil. Wescott's own letters absolutely refute this claim, when he refers to Satan multiple times.
- Riplinger insists we should follow the KJ readings, even when no manuscripts support it: example: "book of life" in Rev. 22:19--every manuscript reads "tree of life."
- Riplinger uses faulty logic: 1. A modern version uses a phrase; 2. A "new ager" uses the same phrase; thus, 3: The MV is new age. (maybe she should consider that the "new ager" simply misused or misquoted God's word? Naaah...)
SOURCE1
SOURCE2
SOURCE3
SOURCE4
xdisciplex
New Member
Oh man,
it's so clear. So crystal clear. The NIV has all passages erased which heretics don't like. Nobody can tell me that all the missing verses never existed and were added and made up by CHRISTIANS!!!!!
Isn't it more likely that these verses were blotted out by NON-CHRISTIANS???
Isn't it more likely? I think it is.
KJV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
NIV
54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55But Jesus turned and rebuked them,
56and they went to another village.
It's all gone. Simply gone. Yay. It's so easy. Simply blot it out. Yeah. Take a fat pencil and simply blot all those passages out which you don't want to be in the bible. :laugh:
Why in the world should christians have made this up and put words in Jesus' mouth? No christian would do this. All this fuss only about 2 old, manipulated manuscripts. I cannot believe it.
KJV
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
NIV
36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Oh, what do we have here? Seems like verse 37 was also made up and added by christians, interesting....
Strangely enough the missing of verse 37 can be used to justify roman infant baptizm. Now where verse 37 is gone nobody can say anything against baptizing babies. What a coincidence, isn't this amazing? :smilewinkgrin:
it's so clear. So crystal clear. The NIV has all passages erased which heretics don't like. Nobody can tell me that all the missing verses never existed and were added and made up by CHRISTIANS!!!!!
Isn't it more likely that these verses were blotted out by NON-CHRISTIANS???
Isn't it more likely? I think it is.
KJV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
NIV
54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55But Jesus turned and rebuked them,
56and they went to another village.
It's all gone. Simply gone. Yay. It's so easy. Simply blot it out. Yeah. Take a fat pencil and simply blot all those passages out which you don't want to be in the bible. :laugh:
Why in the world should christians have made this up and put words in Jesus' mouth? No christian would do this. All this fuss only about 2 old, manipulated manuscripts. I cannot believe it.
KJV
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
NIV
36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Oh, what do we have here? Seems like verse 37 was also made up and added by christians, interesting....
Strangely enough the missing of verse 37 can be used to justify roman infant baptizm. Now where verse 37 is gone nobody can say anything against baptizing babies. What a coincidence, isn't this amazing? :smilewinkgrin:
It's not gone, it's in the foot notes. Does your NIV have footnotes? If it does, what does it say for verse 56?xdisciplex said:
Also, while I enjoy a good number of your "daily questions" when you get on a soap box and scream that a version is good or bad, and yet, you have so many simple question that could be understood by reading any version, it worries me some.
I think you need to pay less attention to TV ministers and Radio/Internet ministers and study the word more.
Jamie
xdx, I've watched you go all over the map over the last few months doctrinally. I've seen you argue for and against all kinds of stuff. And frankly, it's disappointing to see you fall for such a position as this--asserting that God cannot communicate beyond 17th-century english.
You are going to be unable to do this...but I'll ask anyway: show me one cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith that is corrupted through the NIV. Remember...if I as a translator am going to "do away" with a doctrine" I don't like...I'm gonna systematically eliminate it from Scripture...not just one phrase. (Kind of like those that say "the NIV tries to eliminate 'the blood' when it actually strongly re-inforces the doctrine).
By the way, since your post insinuates that the NIV was translated by non-Christians, I've reported your post. Keep your tactics out of the gutter on this debate, please.
You're going to be unable to give me one basic Christian doctrine affected by the NIV. No one else has.
You are going to be unable to do this...but I'll ask anyway: show me one cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith that is corrupted through the NIV. Remember...if I as a translator am going to "do away" with a doctrine" I don't like...I'm gonna systematically eliminate it from Scripture...not just one phrase. (Kind of like those that say "the NIV tries to eliminate 'the blood' when it actually strongly re-inforces the doctrine).
By the way, since your post insinuates that the NIV was translated by non-Christians, I've reported your post. Keep your tactics out of the gutter on this debate, please.
You're going to be unable to give me one basic Christian doctrine affected by the NIV. No one else has.
Helen said:
Helen,
I asked a these questions on another thread. (No answers yet)
Why do we assume older mss are more reliable than later copies?
Is it possible that the older mss exist because of lack of use?
Is it possible that the "more reliable" mss are the ones that needed to be copied because they were often wore out from excessive use?
Claudia, what makes you think those verses were not PUT IN by the translators and not in the originals???
Blammo, it is simply a matter of research to try to go for the earliest extant mss available. The Dead Sea Scrolls were of great help in this. There were two groups of them, actually. My husband knows which were found in which caves (and he is napping right now), but the oldest ones confirmed the accuracy of the Alexandrian LXX, for instance, and corresponded strongly to the Samaritan Text. The later ones were clearly Masoretic in origin. So we can see the changes which were made back then.
So while there is no guarantee that the most ancient mss are the most reliable, the fact remains that there would be far less chance of those being changed than the translations which had been retranslated and recopied and text notes possibly added (as in the case in 1 John, which we know about) later.
Blammo, it is simply a matter of research to try to go for the earliest extant mss available. The Dead Sea Scrolls were of great help in this. There were two groups of them, actually. My husband knows which were found in which caves (and he is napping right now), but the oldest ones confirmed the accuracy of the Alexandrian LXX, for instance, and corresponded strongly to the Samaritan Text. The later ones were clearly Masoretic in origin. So we can see the changes which were made back then.
So while there is no guarantee that the most ancient mss are the most reliable, the fact remains that there would be far less chance of those being changed than the translations which had been retranslated and recopied and text notes possibly added (as in the case in 1 John, which we know about) later.
Claudia_T said:
So slander, lies, and bad logic are OK, as long as you agree with the premise?
Nope.
As was mentioned:
- read the footnotes of scripture. You'll see the explanation.
- No fundamental doctrine is changed. xdx will be unable to answer that challenge.
- The KJV differs from the Geneva Bible...which was an earlier translation. Shouldn't we go back to the Geneva translation?
- The reasons "Verses" (a man-made construct to ease navigating God's word) are missing is because some manuscripts didn't contain them. The translators made a choice. Do you think every manuscript is identical? That's the chore of translation. And to re-iterate: no core doctrine changes.
- If proponents of your view assert their views through unethical means (there are many fine folks who believe the KJV is the only English valid version--but Riplinger is not one of those fine folks), shouldn't that concern you?
- As has been said many, many times, there is no scripture that backs up the assertion that God preserved His word for us ONLY in the 1611 KJV (or later KJV's).
Claudia - I just looked up those verses you mentioned in my little NIV that I use and those verses ARE there. While they're not in the text, the NIV translators did proper translating and made sure that the verses ARE in the NIV - but specially noted that they are not in the earlier manuscripts. By saying that they are not there, you are clearly lying. I'm sorry but saying they're not there when they ARE there is lying. By lying, you are showing that you have an agenda and are not open to the truth of God's Word and leading many astray.
Please do not accuse me of lying, this was in a book. There is a list of Bible verses it says are missing. You can accuse them of lying if you want to but not me. Thank you.
wow I cant hardly believe just how antagonistic people are on this thread, it really makes me wonder... I guess I should stay out of this... someone accuses me of lying and another person reports someone elses post, etc.. wow LOL
wow I cant hardly believe just how antagonistic people are on this thread, it really makes me wonder... I guess I should stay out of this... someone accuses me of lying and another person reports someone elses post, etc.. wow LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
Claudia, if you are going to use a book as authoritative and that book is shown to be deceptive, don't you think you had better change what authority you are following?
The fact is that despite everything that you have been shown and told, you evidently have not looked up these accusations for yourself and refuse to believe those of us who have.
The fact is that despite everything that you have been shown and told, you evidently have not looked up these accusations for yourself and refuse to believe those of us who have.
I give up. geez all I know is a long time ago when I read that book I looked up the verses and I sure didnt see them in the NIV.
and the ones that were changed.... I recognized some of the stuff as going along with the New Age Spiritualism stuff I had been looking into.
Its really that simple and I dont appreciate anyone accusing me of anything. and I am not going to say anymore about this because people are way too accusatory for my liking.
thank you.
and the ones that were changed.... I recognized some of the stuff as going along with the New Age Spiritualism stuff I had been looking into.
Its really that simple and I dont appreciate anyone accusing me of anything. and I am not going to say anymore about this because people are way too accusatory for my liking.
thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the Good News translation comparable with the NIV? We give the GNT to soldiers in the military, and I noticed the “omitted” verses are also gone (but in the footnotes).
My KJV and American Standard version includes the verses in the text, but notes that they are not in the early manuscripts. The NIV and GNT doesn’t have the verses in the text body, but notes them in the footnotes. As there is no Matthew 18:11 in the NIV, I feel the translation was done correctly.
While I have no problem with the NIV, I don’t think it appropriate to say Claudia is lying, has an agenda, is slandering, or using bad logic. I agree with the verse being in the footnote, but understand why it would be of concern for some (actually, many). I have also expressed my opinion, and was accused of having an agenda for doing so (not on this thread).
I can find opinions matching my own simply by talking to a mirror. Again, Claudia, thanks. While I don’t share your opinion, I did learn something new (for me, that’s not a major accomplishment, but I am appreciative).
My KJV and American Standard version includes the verses in the text, but notes that they are not in the early manuscripts. The NIV and GNT doesn’t have the verses in the text body, but notes them in the footnotes. As there is no Matthew 18:11 in the NIV, I feel the translation was done correctly.
While I have no problem with the NIV, I don’t think it appropriate to say Claudia is lying, has an agenda, is slandering, or using bad logic. I agree with the verse being in the footnote, but understand why it would be of concern for some (actually, many). I have also expressed my opinion, and was accused of having an agenda for doing so (not on this thread).
I can find opinions matching my own simply by talking to a mirror. Again, Claudia, thanks. While I don’t share your opinion, I did learn something new (for me, that’s not a major accomplishment, but I am appreciative).
tamborine lady
Active Member
Niv Bible
:type:
Well, I'll just keep reading my Thompson chain, KJV. :godisgood:
:jesus:
Have a great day!!!
Tam
:type:
Well, I'll just keep reading my Thompson chain, KJV. :godisgood:
:jesus:
Have a great day!!!
Tam
When someone says that a verse is gone - NOT in a Bible, yet it is, then they're not telling the truth. They may be misinformed but when they state it as truth and it is not, I say that's lying.
Claudia - did you LOOK in an NIV for those verses? Did you see the little reference letter at the end of the previous verse - telling you to look at the bottom of the page - where the verse is listed clearly? To put something in a book - that is not in the earliest manuscripts and to NOT notate it in some form or fashion as there being an 'issue' with it, is a translators' error.
What bothers me to no end is people standing up for something with 'facts' that are just not true - and leading those who are either not in Christ or new to Him towards false 'battles' when in reality there IS no battle. To make someone begin to question whether what they've been reading all along in a good translation is just sad, IMO. I'm on another board where a lady is asking about the whole KJV thing because she saw something about how 'bad' the NIV is and that's the version she's used for years. She said that she wants to make sure she's studying "right" - thinking she's been 'wrong' all these years. That's just sad.
Claudia - did you LOOK in an NIV for those verses? Did you see the little reference letter at the end of the previous verse - telling you to look at the bottom of the page - where the verse is listed clearly? To put something in a book - that is not in the earliest manuscripts and to NOT notate it in some form or fashion as there being an 'issue' with it, is a translators' error.
What bothers me to no end is people standing up for something with 'facts' that are just not true - and leading those who are either not in Christ or new to Him towards false 'battles' when in reality there IS no battle. To make someone begin to question whether what they've been reading all along in a good translation is just sad, IMO. I'm on another board where a lady is asking about the whole KJV thing because she saw something about how 'bad' the NIV is and that's the version she's used for years. She said that she wants to make sure she's studying "right" - thinking she's been 'wrong' all these years. That's just sad.