-
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
Claudia,
Can I ask you, are you a KJV only person, or do you just disagree with the NIV?
From what I have read in this thread, your arguement that the verses are not there has been refuted, and yet you still stand on that ground.
If you have a problem with the NIV, but use other MV's than maybe I can see where you're coming from, since you disaprove of 'a' translation, but if you're a KJV only person and you disagree with te NIV, then I can also understand where you're coming from because in your mind, you believe only in the KJV, so any MV would be flawed in your opinon, and knowing that, one would have to presume that you won't change your mind, so it's a mute point to try.
So, are you a KJV only person, or do you jut disagree with the NIV?
Thanks for helping me understand your position better.
Jamie
Can I ask you, are you a KJV only person, or do you just disagree with the NIV?
From what I have read in this thread, your arguement that the verses are not there has been refuted, and yet you still stand on that ground.
If you have a problem with the NIV, but use other MV's than maybe I can see where you're coming from, since you disaprove of 'a' translation, but if you're a KJV only person and you disagree with te NIV, then I can also understand where you're coming from because in your mind, you believe only in the KJV, so any MV would be flawed in your opinon, and knowing that, one would have to presume that you won't change your mind, so it's a mute point to try.
So, are you a KJV only person, or do you jut disagree with the NIV?
Thanks for helping me understand your position better.
Jamie
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Claudia_T: //No matter who you think Gail Riplinger
is, the fact remains that the verses are gone.//
Actually it does matter who Gail Riplinger is
and her reputation as a preacher & teacher
of men is way below repute
And the verses aren't gone.
Mark 11:25-27 (NIV):
25 And when you stand praying,
if you hold anything against anyone,
forgive him, so that your Father in heaven
may forgive you your sins."*
27 They arrived again in Jerusalem,
and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts,
the chief priests, the teachers of the law
and the elders came to him.
Footnote:
*Some manuscripts sins. 26 But if you do not
forgive, neither will your Father who is in
heaven forgive your sins.
Mark 11:26 is NOT gone missing in the NIV as reported.
You can trust the NIV.
You cannot trust Sister Gail Riplinger.
Gail Riplinger also fails to tell you that the KJVs
which omit the Translator Footnotes cannot be trusted.
The KJVs which omit the Translator Footnoes
cannot be trusted.
You cannot trust Sister Gail Riplinger.
You can trust the NIV (I haven't seen one without the
Translator Footnotes).
is, the fact remains that the verses are gone.//
Actually it does matter who Gail Riplinger is
and her reputation as a preacher & teacher
of men is way below repute
And the verses aren't gone.
Mark 11:25-27 (NIV):
25 And when you stand praying,
if you hold anything against anyone,
forgive him, so that your Father in heaven
may forgive you your sins."*
27 They arrived again in Jerusalem,
and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts,
the chief priests, the teachers of the law
and the elders came to him.
Footnote:
*Some manuscripts sins. 26 But if you do not
forgive, neither will your Father who is in
heaven forgive your sins.
Mark 11:26 is NOT gone missing in the NIV as reported.
You can trust the NIV.
You cannot trust Sister Gail Riplinger.
Gail Riplinger also fails to tell you that the KJVs
which omit the Translator Footnotes cannot be trusted.
The KJVs which omit the Translator Footnoes
cannot be trusted.
You cannot trust Sister Gail Riplinger.
You can trust the NIV (I haven't seen one without the
Translator Footnotes).
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Helen said:
Amen, Sister Helen - you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:
You can trust the NIV.
You can trust Sister Hellen.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Xdisciplex: //Oh man, it's so clear. So crystal clear.
The NIV has all passages erased which
heretics don't like.//
Not really clear at all. Also not logical.
Nobody in this topic
shown that there is any verse in the KJVs
which isn't also in the NIV.
Your general statement is baseless without
a specific example. Which verse is 'missing'?
The NIV has all passages erased which
heretics don't like.//
Not really clear at all. Also not logical.
Nobody in this topic
shown that there is any verse in the KJVs
which isn't also in the NIV.
Your general statement is baseless without
a specific example. Which verse is 'missing'?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Amen, Brother JamieinNH -- Preach it! :thumbsup:JamieinNH said:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Blammo said:
Good questions, Sibling Blammo.
None of them are answered by dissing God's Bible, the NIV.
None of them are answered by skipping the
KJV Translator Footnotes where the KJVs use
the same type of Textual Criticism which the
fully documented NIV uses. (I do note the NIV had
more available source dcouments than the KJV Translators
had.)
Claudia_T said:
Aww - I totally don't believe that but I know that *I've* fallen into believing something that's printed because - hey, if they got published, they MUST be right! I've since learned to check into things myself before I take it as 'gospel', so to speak.
Ann
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Claudia_T said:
And it isn't gone missin' from the NIV:
Matthew 18:10-12 (NIV):
10 "See that you do not look down on one
of these little ones. For I tell you that
their angels in heaven always see the face
of my Father in heaven.*
12 "What do you think?
If a man owns a hundred sheep,
and one of them wanders away,
will he not leave the ninety-nine
on the hills and go to look for the
one that wandered off?
Translator's Footnote:
* Some manuscripts:
11 The Son of Man came
to save what was lost.
That verse is in the NIV.
What is the real problem?
The NIV can be trusted.
G.A. Riplinger cannot be trusted.
This is a really bad example of a 'missing'
verse. Here is the verse in the NIV:
Luke 19:10 (NIV)
For the Son of Man came to seek
and to save what was lost."
Perchance on some manuscript some
eager-beaver (perfectly sincere) scribe
helped Brother Matthew. What was
ADDED to the scripture was perfectly
good, true scripture right from Luke 19:10.
You can trust the NIV.
You cannot trust Sister Gail Riplenger's
preaching on the subject of translations.
Why is she preaching & teaching men
anyway?
Well, I'm not John, ad let me say from the outset that as a football fan, I disapprove of 'piling on', as "unecessary roughness", and try and not do so. However, I did waste- 'er I mean take- the time to look up each of these verses in my bride's :love2: NIV Study Bible. For whatever reason, some of the information you have posited here is simply incorrect, and some of it is slanted, to say the least.Claudia_T said:
Yes, the translators of the NIV did use the NU/ Aland-Black/ W/H texts for the basis of much of the translation. However Drs. Barker, Burdick and the other associates did not always follow this, exactly, either. In fact they do give the marginal references to some of these verses; list some of thenm in hte footnotes, as some have previously saoid, and in fact have about a third of what you listed in the text body, itself. Sorry, the presence or absence of one word does not constitute whether or not a verse was included or not in the text body.
Gonna' quote some of 'em? Fine. But it is not asking too much that what is quoted is accurate, IMO!
One glaring example of the slant, I previously spoke of is found in the reference to II Cor. 13:14. The text is there; the verse division is not here, as the translators apparently see this as the end of verse 13.
Unless one is prepared to now proclaim the verse divisions of a millenia and a half after the fact, as now 'inspired', then this is an example of "handling the word of God deceitfully", or as the NIV phrases it , to "distort the word of God".
At least that is my opinion, and I think Scripture backs this up, here. In fact, you might wanna' check out II Cor. 4:2 in a few versions, as that is where the quote I just gave is found.
Ed
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
You can't trust that Thompson chain KJVtamborine lady said:
as much as the NIV unless it has this
Translator Footnote:
-----------------------
Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
And ||Iosias begate Iakim.
And Iakim begate Iechonias
and his brethren about the time
they were caried away to Babylon.
Translator Sidenote:
|| Some read, Iosias begate Iakim,
and Iakim begat Iechonias
-----------------------
This Translator Sidenote shows the
existance of two different sources that
the KJV Translators considered Scripture.
By Critical Analysis the Translators of the KJV
determined the abobve is the most likely true
reading; the footnote shows the second most
likely reading IN THE OPINION OF THE TRANSLATORS
OF THE KJV.
You can trust the NIV with Translator Footnotes
more than you can trust a KJV with no Translator Footnotes.
Well, it's a chilly evening and I have this heater at my feet under the computer, so let's see about this. I will be quoting from the NIV only on the verses Claudia cut and pasted:
Matt 12:47 -- someone told him "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." [text note: some manuscripts do not have verse 47]
Matt 17:21 -- the NIV goes from verse 20 to verse 22 here with the text note saying 'Some manuscripts: "you. 21. But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."'
Matt 18:11 -- the NIV goes from verse 10 to 12 with the text note saying, 'Some manuscripts "heaven. 13. The Son of Man came to save what was lost."'
Matt 21:44 -- He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed. [text note: Some manuscripts do not have verse 44]
Matt 23:14 -- the NIV goes from verse 13 to 15 with the text note saying, 'Some manuscripts 'to. 14. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely."'
Mark 7:16 -- the NIV goes from verse 15 to 17 with the text note saying, 'Some early manuscripts "'unclean.' 16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.'"
Mark 9:44 -- the NIV goes from verse 43 to 45, but there is an interesting thing going on here: there is only a phrase which is not in the early manuscripts and, in my personal opinion, was probably a marginal note that was added later. Here is the NIV reading of verse 43: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." Here is what the text note quotes some other manuscripts as saying: "out, 44. where / "'their worm does not die, / and the fire is not quenched." In other words, there is a slight change of phrase with the worm part added and an extra verse numbering inserted to accomodate it.
Mark 9:46 -- the same thing happens here. Here is verse 45: "And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell." Text note: "Some manuscripts 'hell, 46. where /"'their worm does not die, / and the fire is not quenched.'"
Mark 11:26 -- the NIV goes from verse 25 to 27, with this text note: "some manuscripts 'sins. 26. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.'"
Mark 15:28 -- the NIV boes from verse 27 to 29, with this text note: "Some manuscripts 'left, 28. and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones"' [Isaiah 53:12]"
Mark 16:9-20 -- this entire section is included with the note before it saying "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"
Luke 17:36 -- the NIV goes from verse 35 to 37. I want to quote 35 before I quote the text note, however. 35: "Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left." Text note: "Some manuscripts 'left. 36. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.'"
Luke 22:43 -- An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. Text note: Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.
Luke 22:44 -- And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Text note: see the previous one as it pertains to both verses.
Luke 23:17 -- the NIV goes from verse 16 to 18 with this text note: "some manuscripts 'him." 17. Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the Feast.'"
Luke 24:12 -- Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened. The only text note here mentions that in John's Gospel, John adds another disciple with Peter -- himself, so I checked the KJV to find out what this verse says. Here it is: Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. So I have no idea what the problem is with this one.
Luke 24:40 -- When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. No text note. The KJV says And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hand and his feet. Again, where is the problem?
John 5:4 -- John 5 goes from verse 3 to 5 with this text note: "Some less important manuscripts 'paralyzed -- and they waitied for the moving of the waters. 4. From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.'"
John 7:53 - 8:11 -- this is the story of the woman brought in adultery to Jesus. It is included in the NIV, with this note before verse 7:53: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11"
Acts 8:37 -- the NIV goes from verse 36 to 38 here with this text note: "Some late manuscripts 'baptized?" 37. Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."'"
Acts 15:34 -- the NIV goes from verse 33 to 35 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'them, 34. but Silas decided to remain there'"
Acts 24:7 -- the NIV goes from verse 6 to 8 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'him and wanted to judge him according to our law. 7. But the commander, Lysias, came and with the use of much force snatched him from our hands 8. and ordered his accusers to come before you. By'"
Acts 28:29 -- The NIV goes from verse 28 to 30 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'listen!" 29. After he said this, the Jews left, arguing vigorously among themselves.'"
Rom. 16:24 -- the NIV goes from verse 23 to 25 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'their greetings. 24. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.'"
2 Cor. 13:14 -- May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Text note: "The benediction is Trinitarian in form and has ever since been a part of Christian worship tradition. It serves to remind us that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is known to be true not through rational or philosophical explanation but through Christian experience, whereby the believer knows firsthand the grace, the love, and the fellowshhip that freely flow to him from the three Persons of the one Lord God."
Since there was nothing about any changes being mentioned in other manuscripts, I checked, again the King James: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. So again, where the problem is, I don't know.
James 1:8 -- he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. KJV: A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. And the problem is where???
Hope this helps anyone else that gets confronted with this list. I learned a lot doing it.
Matt 12:47 -- someone told him "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." [text note: some manuscripts do not have verse 47]
Matt 17:21 -- the NIV goes from verse 20 to verse 22 here with the text note saying 'Some manuscripts: "you. 21. But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."'
Matt 18:11 -- the NIV goes from verse 10 to 12 with the text note saying, 'Some manuscripts "heaven. 13. The Son of Man came to save what was lost."'
Matt 21:44 -- He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed. [text note: Some manuscripts do not have verse 44]
Matt 23:14 -- the NIV goes from verse 13 to 15 with the text note saying, 'Some manuscripts 'to. 14. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely."'
Mark 7:16 -- the NIV goes from verse 15 to 17 with the text note saying, 'Some early manuscripts "'unclean.' 16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.'"
Mark 9:44 -- the NIV goes from verse 43 to 45, but there is an interesting thing going on here: there is only a phrase which is not in the early manuscripts and, in my personal opinion, was probably a marginal note that was added later. Here is the NIV reading of verse 43: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out." Here is what the text note quotes some other manuscripts as saying: "out, 44. where / "'their worm does not die, / and the fire is not quenched." In other words, there is a slight change of phrase with the worm part added and an extra verse numbering inserted to accomodate it.
Mark 9:46 -- the same thing happens here. Here is verse 45: "And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell." Text note: "Some manuscripts 'hell, 46. where /"'their worm does not die, / and the fire is not quenched.'"
Mark 11:26 -- the NIV goes from verse 25 to 27, with this text note: "some manuscripts 'sins. 26. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.'"
Mark 15:28 -- the NIV boes from verse 27 to 29, with this text note: "Some manuscripts 'left, 28. and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones"' [Isaiah 53:12]"
Mark 16:9-20 -- this entire section is included with the note before it saying "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"
Luke 17:36 -- the NIV goes from verse 35 to 37. I want to quote 35 before I quote the text note, however. 35: "Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left." Text note: "Some manuscripts 'left. 36. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.'"
Luke 22:43 -- An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. Text note: Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.
Luke 22:44 -- And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Text note: see the previous one as it pertains to both verses.
Luke 23:17 -- the NIV goes from verse 16 to 18 with this text note: "some manuscripts 'him." 17. Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the Feast.'"
Luke 24:12 -- Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened. The only text note here mentions that in John's Gospel, John adds another disciple with Peter -- himself, so I checked the KJV to find out what this verse says. Here it is: Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. So I have no idea what the problem is with this one.
Luke 24:40 -- When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. No text note. The KJV says And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hand and his feet. Again, where is the problem?
John 5:4 -- John 5 goes from verse 3 to 5 with this text note: "Some less important manuscripts 'paralyzed -- and they waitied for the moving of the waters. 4. From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.'"
John 7:53 - 8:11 -- this is the story of the woman brought in adultery to Jesus. It is included in the NIV, with this note before verse 7:53: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11"
Acts 8:37 -- the NIV goes from verse 36 to 38 here with this text note: "Some late manuscripts 'baptized?" 37. Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."'"
Acts 15:34 -- the NIV goes from verse 33 to 35 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'them, 34. but Silas decided to remain there'"
Acts 24:7 -- the NIV goes from verse 6 to 8 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'him and wanted to judge him according to our law. 7. But the commander, Lysias, came and with the use of much force snatched him from our hands 8. and ordered his accusers to come before you. By'"
Acts 28:29 -- The NIV goes from verse 28 to 30 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'listen!" 29. After he said this, the Jews left, arguing vigorously among themselves.'"
Rom. 16:24 -- the NIV goes from verse 23 to 25 with this text note: "Some manuscripts, 'their greetings. 24. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.'"
2 Cor. 13:14 -- May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Text note: "The benediction is Trinitarian in form and has ever since been a part of Christian worship tradition. It serves to remind us that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is known to be true not through rational or philosophical explanation but through Christian experience, whereby the believer knows firsthand the grace, the love, and the fellowshhip that freely flow to him from the three Persons of the one Lord God."
Since there was nothing about any changes being mentioned in other manuscripts, I checked, again the King James: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. So again, where the problem is, I don't know.
James 1:8 -- he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. KJV: A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. And the problem is where???
Hope this helps anyone else that gets confronted with this list. I learned a lot doing it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Terry_Herrington
New Member
It is easy to understand how someone who is attending a cult religion, such as the SDA, would easily also be involved in promoting another cultic belief, like believing that the KJV is superior to other translations.
Just the low blows people do in here is sad and disappointing. Me being an SDA has absolutely nothing to do with any of this at all. Im disappointed at how people here will just dig up anything they can seem to find and try to apply that to me being an SDA. Its shameful.
I tend to read the King James Bible. The reason why is because the Bible says:
1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
I found in my Bible studies that in the King James Bible, PHRASES stay the same so that you can compare them, such as "born again"... I can go look up all the phrases that have to do with that... and compare verses to get the full meaning of what God is trying to say on that subject. But if I try to use some of the other translations they pretty much seem to destroy that consistancy of the PHRASES... and that bothers me.
I have other Bibles and occasionally look at the verses to see what words they use in the place of the King James Bible... for comparison or maybe to get a more accurate view. But as far as daily Bible study, I use the King James Bible.
Another thing is at one time along time ago I tried using the New King James Bible and noticed that on one verse it says "oak tree" and in the New King James Version the same verse says "Terebrinth" or something like that... and supposedly these other translations are supposed to make the Bible easier to understand. Well plain old "oak tree" is good enough for me, so I am sticking with the King James. Its easy enough to understand.
Has absolutely nothing to do with being an SDA. In fact many many SDAs use other Bible translations. And many non-SDAs believe in using the King James Only.
I just feel appalled right now at how people do in here in making whatever attacks they can on the SDA church.
And it is really bothering me that people who use the NIV seem to be so ready to condemn and accuse. Im wondering if there is some sort of an idolization of that translation for some reason.
anyway I shouldve left this thread quite awhile back. so I will do that now.
Claudia
I tend to read the King James Bible. The reason why is because the Bible says:
1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
I found in my Bible studies that in the King James Bible, PHRASES stay the same so that you can compare them, such as "born again"... I can go look up all the phrases that have to do with that... and compare verses to get the full meaning of what God is trying to say on that subject. But if I try to use some of the other translations they pretty much seem to destroy that consistancy of the PHRASES... and that bothers me.
I have other Bibles and occasionally look at the verses to see what words they use in the place of the King James Bible... for comparison or maybe to get a more accurate view. But as far as daily Bible study, I use the King James Bible.
Another thing is at one time along time ago I tried using the New King James Bible and noticed that on one verse it says "oak tree" and in the New King James Version the same verse says "Terebrinth" or something like that... and supposedly these other translations are supposed to make the Bible easier to understand. Well plain old "oak tree" is good enough for me, so I am sticking with the King James. Its easy enough to understand.
Has absolutely nothing to do with being an SDA. In fact many many SDAs use other Bible translations. And many non-SDAs believe in using the King James Only.
I just feel appalled right now at how people do in here in making whatever attacks they can on the SDA church.
And it is really bothering me that people who use the NIV seem to be so ready to condemn and accuse. Im wondering if there is some sort of an idolization of that translation for some reason.
anyway I shouldve left this thread quite awhile back. so I will do that now.
Claudia
Last edited by a moderator: