You cannot trust the NIV!

[Jeff.Maughan]

Could be it

It was in 3 of the NIV Bibles I just checked. However, I think Barry could be right and that could be why some aren't seeing Matt 18:11.

Barry mentioned something to me about what I just did. He said that the cheaper copies of the NIV often do not have the text notes. So that may be where the problem lies for some people. I do have a good NIV study Bible here with text notes.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Barry mentioned something to me about what I just did. He said that the cheaper copies of the NIV often do not have the text notes. So that may be where the problem lies for some people. I do have a good NIV study Bible here with text notes.

That is true.
I know the on-line NIVs don't have Translator Footnotes.

Recall there are also other types of margin notes:

1. references to other verses on the same or similiar topics
2. Opinion, commentary notes

These type notes have nothing to do with the validity
of the translation/version.

 

[Ed Edwards]

It was in 3 of the NIV Bibles I just checked. However, I think Barry could be right and that could be why some aren't seeing Matt 18:11.

The most frequent reason people I've known about don't
see the 'missing' verses is:

1. They don't have a copy of the NIV, they are getting
misinformation from unreliable sources

2. They are so deep into KJVO that they have the
opinion: I'll never defile myself by looking at a nasty
ol' NIV

Meanwhile, English speakers in Singapore like the NIV
for they don't speek English English, American English,
Australian English, etc. Likewise English as a second language
folk probably prefer the INTENTIONALLY translated into
internation English translation: The NIV = New International Version.

 

[annsni]

Claudia -

I do not idolize the NIV - as a matter of fact I have a translation I PREFER over the NIV and that is the ESV. I find it as good a literal translation as the KJV but much more readable. The NIV is a thought for thought translation and as such, won't be as word for word literal as those Bibles that ARE word for word. However, God's Word is true and stands in the NIV, KJV, ESV, NASB, etc. When someone says that only one version is true and another one is an abomination and removed verses from Scripture, when they didn't, I WILL provide evidence that the other Bible is still a valid version. Again, it's not that I worship or think the NIV is the BEST version, but that it IS a valid version. If you attacked the ESV, I'd do the same thing.

The fact that you prefer to use the KJV is wonderful - I find now switching from the NIV to the ESV is a bit 'different' but it's a good change and I think the ESV is going to be my Bible choice for years. But a preference does not make the others less 'good', or that they're even 'wrong' but just that you like one version over another for basically 'asthetic' reasons. I pray that your KJV continues to bless you greatly in your reading of God's Word. I would just hope that you feel the same for me and my ESV or others with their NIV.

Ann

 

[Ed Edwards]

Claudia_T: //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.//

Interesting rational for a person defending their Bible
against full scale frontal assualt. If you won't acuse
the NIV defender of 'idolization' then I won't accuse
you of KJVs idolication. Of course, I can speak
only of myself for every Baptist is an island unto themself.

Claudia_T: //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.//

Unfortunate, poor example. The word in the original language has
to mean a tree they have in the Holy Land, not an English tree.
The word being translated is NOT an 'oak tree'.

BTW, I have a Native Oklahoman oak tree in my front yard.
It is like other Red Oak trees: the last leaf doesn't fall until
early May (new tree growth hardly ever starts until mid-May).
The leaves turn a dark reddish/brown during the fall.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.

It is unkind to call the SDA a cult.
It is unethical and illogical to call the SDA a cult without defining 'cult'.

'Cult' is almost a meaningless word to use in debates.
The meanings of 'cult' range from a harmless
'don't believe like I do' to
a dangerous 'personal control group' (exampe: Jim Jones'es
group). Obviously the SDA has enough world wide members that
it cannot be a personality/control group.

To often I see a self-condemning (it condems the user)
bait & switch technique used with 'cult'.
The misuser of the term 'cult' convinces folks that
the group is a 'cult' = 'don't beleive like I do' (the bait).
Then next thing you know the misuser of the term 'cult'
is damning an individual about 'cult' = dangerous
'personal control group'. Please don't be like those who
misuse 'cult'. The SDA is a legitimate denomination
that 'don't believe like I do'. Members of the SDA denomination
are Brothers and Sisters in Christ of Baptists.

 

[rbell]

Claudia,

I vigorously defend your right to prefer the KJV...and there's not a thing wrong with that.

My only issue is when folks use sources (such as Riplinger) who are not above board. And I take issue with folks (especially folks such as Riplinger) who are willing to distort, defame, and lie to make their point. I don't think you're the bad guy here...I just feel the need to correct when the bad guy is quoted.

As to "reporting posts," I'm sorry you think that's a problem. Ask some of the mods...I've reported posts of folks that slam the KJV, and of those who slam other versions such as the NIV. I'm against the trashing any translation of the word of God, especially by believers...so maybe I have a quick trigger finger. But hey...If i'm wrong, they let the post stand, and all is well.

 

[Chemnitz]

Wow, this thread took off overnight. Claudia that was a low blow by Terry. I have to agree with others your source (Riplinger) is questionable at best concerning authenticity. I would also have to point out that the accusation of removal is based on the assumption those verses were originally there. People looking at the same evidence could ask why those verses were added.

Like rbell, nobody could accuse me of idolizing the NIV since I don't use the NIV. I prefer the ESV as my preference is more for a word for word than a dynamic equivalence, NIV is not quite thought for thought which would be like the Good News). I am an oddity in my church as most people use the NIV because the LC-MS had made the NIV the quasi official translation, (it was used in the Hymnals and the Catechism). Of course, now they are switching over to the ESV. I hope CPH hurries up with a new ESV edition to the Self-Study Bible because my current ESV is falling apart from use, rather sad in fact as I have only had it 5 years. Anyhow I digress.

Many of the accusations that Riplinger, Ruckman, Chick, and Watkins level at the translators of the MV's are based on hearsay and bad research. Assuming the worse they accuse the people of satanic motives when that is hardly the truth. I personally know some of the men on the translation committee of the ESV and they are definitely men of God. I would suggest that you expand your research on the subject so that you can get a better picture.

I recommended it to xdisciplex but I will recommend it to you also One Bible Only? by Beachum and Bauder.

 

[xdisciplex]

You're going to be unable to give me one basic Christian doctrine affected by the NIV. No one else has.

Look in my funny NIV thread.

Or does it not matter if God can lie or not? Is this not important anymore? I think everything is important.
I think you people cannot even grasp the size of this problem. You always come up with the same phrases like "Well, no real doctrine is affected by it." Who freaking cares!?
This is real doctrine! Wether Jesus is the only begotten son or the one and only son is doctrine! Wether the Trinity is biblical or not is doctrine. Wether Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the bible or not is important. Don't you understand where this is going!??!

Every single footnote causes doubts in the believers! The NIV basically gives you a license to doubt! It says these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts this means you can decide wether it has relevance to you or not.

And by the way the NIV also changes the whole homosexuality issue but I don't have time to quote all the stuff now which I heard today. It's so crystal clear. They manipulate everything and make it look as if the people in Sodom were only punished because they were rapists but normal homosexuals are okay.

 

[JamieinNH]

Look in my funny NIV thread.

Or does it not matter if God can lie or not? Is this not important anymore? I think everything is important.
I think you people cannot even grasp the size of this problem. You always come up with the same phrases like "Well, no real doctrine is affected by it." Who freaking cares!?
This is real doctrine! Wether Jesus is the only begotten son or the one and only son is doctrine! Wether the Trinity is biblical or not is doctrine. Wether Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the bible or not is important. Don't you understand where this is going!??!

Every single footnote causes doubts in the believers! The NIV basically gives you a license to doubt! It says these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts this means you can decide wether it has relevance to you or not.

And by the way the NIV also changes the whole homosexuality issue but I don't have time to quote all the stuff now which I heard today. It's so crystal clear. They manipulate everything and make it look as if the people in Sodom were only punished because they were rapists but normal homosexuals are okay.

X,

If you feel that the NIV is not a good version, then by all means, please don't read it. Pick up a KJV or another translation you would like better and read it.

Stop spending so much time debating the NIV and read a Bible, ANY Bible.

With all the questions you have and the problems you are facing, your focus should be on studying the Word no matter what translation you pick.

I will be praying for you, please leave the TV/Radio/Internet ministries alone. Find a good Bible teaching church, and study the Word in prayer.

Jamie

 

[annsni]

Look in my funny NIV thread.

Or does it not matter if God can lie or not? Is this not important anymore? I think everything is important.
I think you people cannot even grasp the size of this problem. You always come up with the same phrases like "Well, no real doctrine is affected by it." Who freaking cares!?
This is real doctrine! Wether Jesus is the only begotten son or the one and only son is doctrine! Wether the Trinity is biblical or not is doctrine. Wether Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the bible or not is important. Don't you understand where this is going!??!

Every single footnote causes doubts in the believers! The NIV basically gives you a license to doubt! It says these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts this means you can decide wether it has relevance to you or not.

And by the way the NIV also changes the whole homosexuality issue but I don't have time to quote all the stuff now which I heard today. It's so crystal clear. They manipulate everything and make it look as if the people in Sodom were only punished because they were rapists but normal homosexuals are okay.

I do not see anywhere in the NIV where the Trinity is removed or not there. The fact that the NIV translators made sure to note that NOT ALL MANUSCRIPTS have Mark 16:9-20 is being honest - they have evidence that it was NOT in the originals and made sure to note that. They do NOT decide it's not important but note with historical accuracy the facts of that passage of Scripture.

Not every single footnote will cause doubts in the believer. It never did for me and I grew up on the NIV. You said "It says these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts this means you can decide wether it has relevance to you or not." - that's just laughable. If something is in the MOST RELIABLE MANUSCRIPTS, wouldn't you want to know? And if something is NOT, wouldn't you want to know?? I don't understand your argument. If it's there, it's in the Bible. If it's not, it's footnoted because it's not in the older manuscripts. What you are basically saying is, because it's in the KJV, it's right - even if looking at the manuscript evidence shows that it might not be.

As for the homosexual issue, I grew up on the NIV and always knew that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed due to the evil in the city - that they were all depraived - and involved in homosexuality, promiscuity and who knows what else!!! So, your argument doesn't hold much water, IMO.

 

[bound]

This is real doctrine! Wether Jesus is the only begotten son or the one and only son is doctrine!

Hi xdisciplex,

If you are refering to John 1:14 as actually refering to the Word (Christ) as the 'begotten' as we find in the KJV, I would have to point out that the NIV is literally accurate in it's translation as 'only son'.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14 KJV

The greek word used here 'monogenēs' merely suggests 'one or only born' not 'only begotten' as the KJV suggests. It's not a big deal to translate 'only son' for the greek word 'monogenēs'.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14 NIV

The NIV is just as literally accurate as the JKV.

The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14 HCSB

This HCSB is just as literally accurate too.

And by the way the NIV also changes the whole homosexuality issue but I don't have time to quote all the stuff now which I heard today. It's so crystal clear. They manipulate everything and make it look as if the people in Sodom were only punished because they were rapists but normal homosexuals are okay.

If we look at what Paul states, even in the NIV, we'll see that homosexually is a grave state for only one to be in.

First, let's look at the KJV of Romans 1:24-27:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. - Romans 1:24-27 KJV

Okay, let's now look at the same verse in the NIV:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. - Romans 1:24-27

Romans 1:24-27 is the verse that I would use to point out the fact that homosexuality is 'perversion' Scripturally and there are others but this verse is the most direct on the issues of female and male homosexuality.

I'm not saying that we can't 'like' the KJV more or appreciate it for it's language but we've got to be cautious criticizing other translations in a false light.

Be well.

 

[rbell]

Look in my funny NIV thread.

Or does it not matter if God can lie or not? Is this not important anymore? I think everything is important.
I think you people cannot even grasp the size of this problem. You always come up with the same phrases like "Well, no real doctrine is affected by it." Who freaking cares!?
This is real doctrine! Wether Jesus is the only begotten son or the one and only son is doctrine! Wether the Trinity is biblical or not is doctrine. Wether Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the bible or not is important. Don't you understand where this is going!??!

Every single footnote causes doubts in the believers! The NIV basically gives you a license to doubt! It says these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts this means you can decide wether it has relevance to you or not.

And by the way the NIV also changes the whole homosexuality issue but I don't have time to quote all the stuff now which I heard today. It's so crystal clear. They manipulate everything and make it look as if the people in Sodom were only punished because they were rapists but normal homosexuals are okay.

xdx,

you're being "tossed with every wind of doctrine." Please get into a local church and dive into discipleship. You're getting too much doctrine from TBN preachers and KJVO character assassins.

This post of yours is chock full of untruths:

• No, God doesn't lie...in the NIV or KJV.
• The NIV does not subvert the deity of Christ or the Trinity. Read the entire witness of Scripture and that will be plain to you.
• If you think that the NIV says "homosexuals are okay," you need help.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Xdisciplex: //This is real doctrine! Wether <sic> Jesus is the only begotten son or the one and only son is doctrine! Wether the Trinity is biblical or not is doctrine. Wether Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the bible or not is important. Don't you understand where this is going!??!//

Yes, I know exactly where it is going, and many here are trying
to help others NOT GO THERE. The KJVO (King James Version
Only) heresy is going right into the English Only
Bible Codes (EOBC) divination heresy.

For the English Only Bible Codes (EOBC) can only 'work' if
there is ONE AND ONLY ONE accepted English Bible. The
EOBC conspiracy has focused on the KJV1769 Edition.

Deuteronomy 18:9-11 (KJV1611 Edition):
9 When thou art come into the land which
the Lord thy God giueth thee,
thou shalt not learne to doe after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you any one
that maketh his sonne, or his daughter to passe thorow the fire,
or that vseth diuination, or an obseruer of times,
or an inchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard, or a Necromancer.

Deuteronomy 18:9-11 (NIV):
9 When you enter the land
the Lord your God is giving you,
do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there.
10 Let no one be found among you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire,
who practices divination or sorcery,
interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
11 or casts spells, or who is a medium
or spiritist or who consults the dead.


divination from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=

DIVINATION, n. [L., to foretell. See Divine.]
1. The act of divining; a foretelling future events,
or discovering things secret or obscure,
by the aid of superior beings,
or by other than human means.
The ancient heathen philosophers divided divination into two kinds,
natural and artificial. Natural divination was supposed
to be effected by a kind of inspiration or divine afflatus;
artificial divination was effected by certain rites,
experiments or observations, as by sacrifices,
cakes, flour, wine, observation of entrails, flight of birds,
lots, verses, omens, position of the stars, &c.

BTW, " artificial divination was effected by ... " lists things which
are called 'magic' in the Pagan religions. So 'artificial divination'
that kind of 'magic' (not the slight-of-hand type).

In other words God really hates divination such as done with
the Equidistant Bible Codes. So when I say: "English Only
Bible Codes (EOBC) divination heresy" I know exactly what
I'm talking about and GOD HATES IT

 

[Ed Edwards]

xdx,

you're being "tossed with every wind of doctrine." Please get into a local church and dive into discipleship. You're getting too much doctrine from TBN preachers and KJVO character assassins.

This post of yours is chock full of untruths:

• No, God doesn't lie...in the NIV or KJV.
• The NIV does not subvert the deity of Christ or the Trinity. Read the entire witness of Scripture and that will be plain to you.
• If you think that the NIV says "homosexuals are okay," you need help.

Amen, Brother Rbell -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

I do not see anywhere in the NIV where the Trinity is removed or not there. The fact that the NIV translators made sure to note that NOT ALL MANUSCRIPTS have Mark 16:9-20 is being honest - they have evidence that it was NOT in the originals and made sure to note that. They do NOT decide it's not important but note with historical accuracy the facts of that passage of Scripture.

Not every single footnote will cause doubts in the believer. It never did for me and I grew up on the NIV. You said "It says these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts this means you can decide wether it has relevance to you or not." - that's just laughable. If something is in the MOST RELIABLE MANUSCRIPTS, wouldn't you want to know? And if something is NOT, wouldn't you want to know?? I don't understand your argument. If it's there, it's in the Bible. If it's not, it's footnoted because it's not in the older manuscripts. What you are basically saying is, because it's in the KJV, it's right - even if looking at the manuscript evidence shows that it might not be.

As for the homosexual issue, I grew up on the NIV and always knew that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed due to the evil in the city - that they were all depraived - and involved in homosexuality, promiscuity and who knows what else!!! So, your argument doesn't hold much water, IMO.

Amen, Sister Annsni -- Your testimony ROCKS* :thumbs:
You can trust the NIV.

*The SOLID ROCK - Jesus

Jesus said:
Luke 6:47-48 (KJV1611 Edition):
Whosoeuer commeth to me, and heareth my sayings,
and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like.
48 He is like a man which built an house,
and digged deepe, and layd the foundation on a rocke.
And when the flood arose, the streame beat
vehemently vpon that house, and could not shake it:
for it was founded vpon a rocke.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Xdisciplex: //Every single footnote causes doubts in the believers!
The NIV basically gives you a license to doubt!
It says these verses are not in the most reliable manuscripts
this means you can decide wether it has relevance to you or not.//

In the Name of 'Jesus', the Messiah, I must disagree.
Such statements are totally misleading and in error.
Such statements show a complete lack knowledge
of what such Translator footnotes are are all about.

BTW, valid KJVs also has the translator footnotes,
(The KJV1611 Edition reprent that I have has translator
sidenotes). Does your statement then make this KJV
causing doubt in believers? If so, you are damning not
only the NIV but the valid KJVs as well.

 

[xdisciplex]

No no!

I am not a KJVO. This is the usual argument. This is not about the KJV it's about the NIV being a manipulated bible where everything is changed and watered down. This is the real issue! Even if the KJV wasn't perfect it wouldn't change anything. The NIV would still be a corrupted bible. You cannot deny all these changes, you simply cannot deny them.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=82603122659

Listen to this sermon, it's totally clear.

 

[Ed Edwards]

No no!

I am not a KJVO. This is the usual argument. This is not about the KJV it's about the NIV being a manipulated bible where everything is changed and watered down. This is the real issue! Even if the KJV wasn't perfect it wouldn't change anything. The NIV would still be a corrupted bible. You cannot deny all these changes, you simply cannot deny them.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=82603122659

Listen to this sermon, it's totally clear.

I am boycotting Internet audio.
It has killed three of my computers

 

[xdisciplex]

You can download the file and my computer is still working. Don't be so scared. This is a christian site and not a malware site.