Christian Forums

Years ago I had a landlord who gave me a Prince of Peace edition, which I found is similar to KJV. Several people I respect go by NIV and the study in application of life version. In my study of money, I prefer the KJV quotes typically but wonder if I am being lead by my own ideology.

Another poster here supporting Universalism referenced 1 Timothy 2:4, which in the KJV says what God will do but the NIV translates it to what God wants to do, a BIG difference. So, I'd like to know what you recommend and why. Also, what concordance would you recommend?

I am perhaps not the best one to answer, but I usually read the NIV, as do many I know.  However, our study group will  reference a few versions to gather a broader view.  KJV stands out for obvious reasons, the Message and the Amplified Bible always presents an interesting view, and others.  There are some pretty severe discrepancies we have come across so tread carefully.

I keep meaning to get a copy of a Catholic Bible for reference.

My son wants a Brick Bible, even though he is 17 and you'd think be beyond such, but I think I might enjoy it too.

In other words, sorry can't help you, but I sincerely believe the Holy Spirit helps us in this regard, a version appropriate for one may not serve another as well.

Bible Gateway has a huge database of versions and scripture and it is easy to switch between versions.

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

I am very interested in the response to this thread, thanks for starting it, it should be interesting.

Carey.

I just noticed the section of the board we are in, I came in through the main menu, perhaps my post does not belong.

Thanks Carey! I appreciate your thoughtful answer even if it is not authoritative.

The NIV:


The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!


The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!

COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"


The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.


The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES!

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!

Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?

Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!

The NIV robs Jesus Christ of worship!

In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 "worshipped him" is removed in the NIV! Why doesn't the NIV want Jesus Christ to be worshipped? Hint: see Luke 4:7, Matt. 4:9.
 

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!

Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High." And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish!

ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR".

BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?

Doesn't Revelation 22:16 say, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR".

The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?

The NIV removes and perverts the place of hell!

The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the NIV it occurs - ZERO! The word "hell" is NOT in the Old Testament of the NIV!

And what do they do with "hell"? Take PSALM 9:17 for example: The King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL. . ." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE. . ." We ALL "return to the GRAVE"! By removing "hell" the NIV perverts Psalm 9:17 into nonsense!

In the New Testament the NIV zaps out "hell" 9 times. And what "clearer" "easier to understand" word does the NIV "update" hell with? Five times they use - HADES! (Matt 16:18, Rev 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14) What "common person" understands HADES? Everybody knows what HELL is! Do you know what HADES is? Hades is not always a place of torment or terror. The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines HADES: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". The NIV perverts your Bible into MYTHOLOGY!


The NIV perverts The Lord's Prayer into The Devil's Prayer!

LUKE 11:2-4: The KJB reads, ". . .Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." The NIV removes everything that refers to a Holy God in heaven -"WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Everything that distinguishes God from the Devil is REMOVED! "OUR FATHER" of the NIV is "NOT IN HEAVEN" and "DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!" I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44)


The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God!

Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ."

Proverbs 30:6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words . . ."

And just in case you missed it, GOD'S LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, ". . . If any man SHALL ADD unto these things. . . And if any man shall TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. . ."

And Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:12, gives a clear aim of Satan, ". . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word . . ."


The NIV completely "TAKETH AWAY" 17 verses!

Wonderful and precious verses like:
MATTHEW 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.".
ACTS 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."

The NIV PERversion completely "TAKETH AWAY" Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!
 

After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses! And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!

After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" ZAP-There goes another 12 verses!

Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!

That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!


The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!

Don't look for the "mercyseat" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for "Jehovah" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for the "Godhead" in the NIV - GONE!

The NIV removes wonderful Bible "terms" like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others!

Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words! Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"!

That equals REMOVING the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more - COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible!

In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses!

Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"


This isn't ALL that's Wrong with the HIV bible!  But it should be enough for people to dump it


Don't ever listen to anyone who says you need the orignal text to know which is right and which is wrong when comparing bibles!

Quote from: KNOWLEDGE BOMB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 09:48:49
WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

It may still be a 'better' translation but as you pointed out, not a perfect translation.

To be honest, I am not sure what to make of the removed verses and wonder if other Christians consider the NIV perverted blasphemy.

These alarmist rants about the NIV are bogus.

The word was never originally arranged in verses! Anything that seems to be removed is still there!

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 11:37:32

Quote from: KNOWLEDGE BOMB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 09:48:49
WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

It may still be a 'better' translation but as you pointed out, not a perfect translation.

To be honest, I am not sure what to make of the removed verses and wonder if other Christians consider the NIV perverted blasphemy.

How can it be better when it's compared with the KJV and these are the results. 
It's not even worthy of being used! Don't people understand the devils changed verses and removed things... You look most will be key things....  I doubt many Christians have any idea! I ran from my NKJB... Only the KJV for me

As far as lively stone she or they talk without first finding out... It's called running the mouth.... She just wants to argue when she again has no idea.  Maybe you should look before you speak and that way you won't look so foolish.... A hinderance to the truth!

Lively stone said:

The word was never originally arranged in verses! Anything that seems to be removed is still there!


KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

since there are no bibles without verses you remark doesn't make sense!

But it shows me where your coming from...





A laugher!

The best translation is the one you create yourself from the Greek manuscripts.

Jarrod

In regards to Mattew 6:13.

The missing finale of the Lords Prayer I encountered in Catholic Mass, (yes I know KB, Catholics bad).  We recited the prayer and all of a sudden, being a protestant,  I was alone reciting, with all eyes upon me.

Apparently, it is not included in the original Greek text, and thus left out of the Catholic mass and some Bible translations.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carey says:

"Therefore it seems that here is not a deficiency in the NIV, but rather in the KJV?"

How does KNOWLEDGE BOMB reply?







I concede there is little doubt that there are some valid concerns which you point out, However, I see no malicious intent in the NIV, and most of these concerns are easily addressed in one's studies.

Quote from: KNOWLEDGE BOMB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 17:11:13

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 11:37:32

Quote from: KNOWLEDGE BOMB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 09:48:49
WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

It may still be a 'better' translation but as you pointed out, not a perfect translation.

To be honest, I am not sure what to make of the removed verses and wonder if other Christians consider the NIV perverted blasphemy.

How can it be better when it's compared with the KJV and these are the results. 
It's not even worthy of being used! Don't people understand the devils changed verses and removed things... You look most will be key things....  I doubt many Christians have any idea! I ran from my NKJB... Only the KJV for me

As far as lively stone she or they talk without first finding out... It's called running the mouth.... She just wants to argue when she again has no idea.  Maybe you should look before you speak and that way you won't look so foolish.... A hinderance to the truth!

Nonsense. Your alarmist nonsense is ages old, and based in fear and lack of knowledge.

I completely disregard your views now as they are foolishness, and they are the hindrance you are so worried about avoiding.

Quote from: KNOWLEDGE BOMB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 17:17:13
Lively stone said:

The word was never originally arranged in verses! Anything that seems to be removed is still there!


KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

since there are no bibles without verses you remark doesn't make sense!

But it shows me where your coming from...





A laugher!

Seeing as originally there were no verses, then you have to understand that the thought for thought basis in translation is taken into account. Nothing is missing in the NIV. I can smell your fear.

Thoughts from Rev. William E. Oldham concerning the NIV translation of the Holy Bible:

The NIV differs from all of the other verions before it, because the manuscripts they used were older than those that were used to translate the King James Version.  These manuscripts were discovered in the late 1940's near the Dead Sea; thus they were named the Dead Sea Scrolls.  These manuscripts dated back to 300 to 400 AD, and one back to about 2 AD.  Since every other translation before the NIV utilized the same manuscripts as those uesd in translating the KJV, there are some significant differences.  But these differences do not, in any way, alter the meaning of the Scripture we have in any other translation.

It should be noted that the NIV was translated bya group of Bible scholars from various parts of the world, thus the name "International Version".  Referring back to a previous statement about getting many different people, of various backgrounds, to agree on what the old manuscript's language means in today's language, amy be a potential problem for this version.  Nvertheless, I believe that the NIV is good for use as a study resource by both the novice and the serious Bible scholar.

============================================================

Personally, I choose the King James, but will use the Complete Jewish Bible as a comparison study on occasion.  In contrast, my 90 year old dear Saint of a mother chooses the NIV, with the King James as an additional study source.

Seems to me that whatever the translation (with the exception of the Mormon translation), folks are discovering which translation is best suited for them and their understanding of the Scriptures, and isn't this the most important thing?

Let us extend the same "grace" to those who choose a different translation than us to read as did God extend His grace to us who were so unworthy.  Let us love others as He loved us.

 



Great perspective sage advice p.r.

Cheers,
Carey.

Honesty,
My bible teachers in college( Christian college) totally screwed up my head because of all their back biting regarding which translation was better and blah blah blah.....Then I studied Greek and found out how any given word could be translated a dozen slightly different ways. UGH!

Every single time I go to read my bible, I still have to overcome all that anxiety all over again.

Nevertheless,
I teach my kids out of and have them do their own reading in the Message Bible.

I have found, that the only thing that really matters, in regard to reading the Bible, is for what I am reading to touch my heart and to connect me to God. That is the great thing about the Message, it is smooth and comforting and makes me feel like God is having a conversation with me. When on occasion I am stuck on a concept, the Holy Spirit is faithful to translate for me.

any way, it works for me.

 

Problem is this:
1) Translations are from Greek, Hebrew, etc. into Englsh. English is probably the WORST language to translate into.
2) and this is the most important: translators are biased toward their denomination. EVEN the KJV does this. After all there was at least 28 major revisions done over the centuries to the KJV.

For you KJV Only:
Do you believe in a unicorn?
Do you believe in a satyr?
Or even a cockatrice?

I'm 17 yrs postdoctoral Ed.D. in higher education.

I look at three areas: data base, brain function and the spirit.

You need help.

Quote from: makahiya on Thu Jul 12, 2012 - 23:18:07
I'm 17 yrs postdoctoral Ed.D. in higher education.

I look at three areas: data base, brain function and the spirit.

You need help.

Romans 12:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Proverbs 21:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

Psalm 101:5
King James Version (KJV)
5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.

Psalm 119:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed, which do err from thy commandments.

Oh and a favorite:
Proverbs 26:12
Non Inspired Version (NIV)
"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

I discovered the 'amplified' well over 20 years ag, and have never looked back. It gives various meanings for words if there are more than one. I would never use anything else now. Its fantastic.

 

Seems we have a KJV ONLY type here!

Ok.... What about the times where the NIV is more accurate than the KJV? That is when the KJV left out something and the NIV has it in their version.... would that not make the KJV "uninspired?"

 

What does scripture say about adding verses to the bible?

Why does the KJV have verses none of the older texts have?

Your comments on the NIV below, show a very one sided approach to judging it.  Anyone can make a conclusion they predetermined they would have. 

NIV does somethings better, some things worse than the other translations.  It's introduction of the phrase, "sinful nature" paints a much more accurate example than the term flesh does.

Although "flesh" is the literal word, it associates his conversation to the human body to anyone who is a casual reader and not a student.   If you study it, you'll find if it is meaning the corporeal body, then Paul was a walking animated skeleton straight out of Dungeons and Dragons.

I'm not griping at you, calling you names or anything, but anyone with that biased of an approach, can't hope to be taken as informative.

Quote from: KNOWLEDGE BOMB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 09:45:34
The NIV:


The NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!


The NIV perverts the virgin birth!

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!

COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"


The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.


The NIV perverts TRUTH into LIES!

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!

Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!

The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?

Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!

What does scripture say about adding and taking away verses?

The King James was translated from much older texts than the NASB, NIV, ASV, etc...   The older texts have no record of those "mysteriously added" verses you find in the KJV.  Also, in regards to the verses regarding the Trinity, when the TRINITY was being debated a couple of hundred years after the lives of the apostles, some of those verses in the KJV would have certainly been used in the debates.  And they weren't.

The most logical conclusion is not that the NIV took them out, unless they could time travel, but that they didn't exist in the earlier, and ended up in the later versions.  So how worried should people that translated the KJV be because extra verses got added in?  Scripture is pretty poignant on that point.

Any research, rather than parroting other's comments, would have revealed this information.  For some one to be so passionate as SOME are on this point, and not have a fair representation in their assessment of how they vss got "removed" is pure oneside preaching, not debating, not discussing.

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 11:37:32

Quote from: KNOWLEDGE BOMB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 - 09:48:49
WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

It may still be a 'better' translation but as you pointed out, not a perfect translation.

To be honest, I am not sure what to make of the removed verses and wonder if other Christians consider the NIV perverted blasphemy.

Quote from: ccfromsc on Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 11:34:43


Problem is this:
1) Translations are from Greek, Hebrew, etc. into Englsh. English is probably the WORST language to translate into.
2) and this is the most important: translators are biased toward their denomination. EVEN the KJV does this. After all there was at least 28 major revisions done over the centuries to the KJV.

For you KJV Only:
Do you believe in a unicorn?
Do you believe in a satyr?
Or even a cockatrice?

And if so divinely inspired, then why did they take the Apocrypha OUT.   And if they had it wrong the first time, and God corrected them, as the language changes why doesn't God have the right and/or ability to correct it again?

I mean, I'm just sayin'

All except the Kiss was great!  :)

Quote from: year2027 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 - 20:02:57
God first

thanks Catalyst

then there the great Bible

The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Sir Thomas Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

The Great Bible includes much from the Tyndale Bible, with the objectionable features revised. As the Tyndale Bible was incomplete, Coverdale translated the remaining books of the Old Testament and Apocrypha from the Latin Vulgate and German translations, rather than working from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it is known by several other names as well: the Cromwell Bible, since Thomas Cromwell directed its publication; Whitchurch's Bible after its first English printer; the Chained Bible, since it was chained to prevent removal from the church. It has also been termed less accurately Cranmer's Bible, since Thomas Cranmer was not responsible for the translation, and his preface first appeared in the second edition

then there The Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible was the first English Bible to use verse numbers based on the work of Stephanus (Robert Estienne of Paris). It also had an elaborate system of commentary in marginal glosses. This annotation was done by Laurence Tomson, who translated (for the 1560 Geneva Bible) L'Oiseleur's notes on the Gospels, which themselves came from Camerarius. In 1576 Tomson added L'Oiseleur's notes for the Epistles, which came from Beza's Greek and Latin edition of the Bible (1565 and later). Beginning in 1599 Franciscus Junius' notes on Revelation were added, replacing the original notes deriving from John Bale and Heinrich Bullinger. Bale's The Image of both churches had a great impact on these notes as well as Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Both the Junius and Bullinger-Bale annotations are explicitly anti-Roman Catholic and representative of much popular Protestant apocalypticism during the Reformation.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was printed in Roman type—the style of type regularly used today—but many editions used the older black-letter ("Gothic") type. Of the various later English Bible translations, the next to use Roman type was the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582 (New Testament) and 1609–10 (Old Testament).

The Geneva Bible was also issued in more convenient and affordable sizes than earlier versions. The 1560 Bible was in quarto format (218 × 139 mm type area), but pocketable octavo editions were also issued, and a few large folio editions. The New Testament was issued at various times in sizes from quarto down to 32º (the smallest, 70×39 mm type area [3]). In the late sixteenth century it is likely that the Geneva New Testament cost less than a week's wages even for the lowest-paid labourers.

The 1560 Geneva Bible contained a number of study aids, including woodcut illustrations, maps and explanatory 'tables', i.e. indexes of names and topics, in addition to the famous marginal notes. Each book was preceded by an 'argument' or introduction, and each chapter by a list of contents giving verse numbers. Smaller-format editions might be unillustrated and lack the marginal notes, but some large folio editions had additional illustrations, such as one showing Adam and Eve, where Adam wears a typical Elizabethan beard and moustache.

then there The Tyndale Bible

The Tyndale Bible generally refers to the body of biblical translations by William Tyndale. Tyndale's Bible is credited with being the first English translation to work directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. Furthermore it was the first English biblical translation that was mass produced as a result of new advances in the art of printing. The term Tyndale's Bible is not strictly correct, because Tyndale never published a complete Bible. Prior to his execution Tyndale had only finished translating the entire New Testament and roughly half of the Old Testament.[1] Of the latter, the Pentateuch, Jonah and a revised version of the book of Genesis were published during his lifetime. His other Old Testament works were first used in the creation of the Matthew Bible and also heavily influenced every major English translation of the Bible that followed


Wycliffe's Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bible in English
Old English (pre-1066)
Middle English (1066–1500)
Early Modern English (1500–1800)
Modern Christian (1800–)
Modern Jewish (1853–)
Miscellaneous
v t e


Beginning of the Gospel of John from a 14th century copy of Wycliffe's translation
Wycliffe's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English that were made under the direction of, or at the instigation of, John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395.[1] These Bible translations were the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In the early Middle Ages, most Western Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually conducted in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe's idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular.

[...] it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence.[2]
Long thought to be the work of Wycliffe himself, it is now generally believed that the Wycliffite translations were the work of several hands. Nicholas of Hereford is known to have translated a part of the text; John Purvey and perhaps John Trevisa are names that have been mentioned as possible authors. The translators worked from the Vulgate, the Latin Bible that was the standard Biblical text of Western Christianity, and the text conforms fully with Catholic teaching. They included in the testaments those works which would later be called deuterocanonical by most Protestants, along with 3 Esdras which is now called 2 Esdras and Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans.

Although unauthorized, the work was popular. Wycliffite Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. Over 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible survive.

Surviving copies of the Wycliffite Bible fall into two broad textual families, an "early" version and a later version. Both versions are flawed by a slavish regard to the word order and syntax of the Latin originals; the later versions give some indication of being revised in the direction of idiomatic English. A wide variety of Middle English dialects are represented. The second, revised group of texts is much larger than the first. Some manuscripts contain parts of the Bible in the earlier version, and other parts in the later version; this suggests that the early version may have been meant as a rough draft that was to be recast into the somewhat better English of the second version. The second version, though somewhat improved, still retained a number of infelicities of style, as in its version of Genesis 1:3

there the Roman Catholic Bible and the King James Version

but I say the add been added to

Scripture was wrote in Scrolls the word of God was never supposed a book of many books

so Holy word is not done who says God does not add more today

with love and a holy kiss Roy

I grew up with the KJV.  Never understood much of the language until my junior year of HS where I played Lancelot Gobo in Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice." (immersion into Elizabethan English) I got a copy of "Good News for Modern Man" new testament and a friend had a copy of the New American catholic bible so I had him get me one also.

It was in college listening to Derek Prince I realized there were weaknesses in all translations including the KJV which is what he used back then. Dr Prince actually thought the NASB was more accurate, so I bought that.  When the NIV came out, I bought a copy right away but was disappointed. It was too "watery."

These days I usually read the NASB and the NKJV (based on different manuscript families) but I also read the ESV and the new Tree of Life Version (TLV).

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 13:39:26
Years ago I had a landlord who gave me a Prince of Peace edition, which I found is similar to KJV. Several people I respect go by NIV and the study in application of life version. In my study of money, I prefer the KJV quotes typically but wonder if I am being lead by my own ideology.

Another poster here supporting Universalism referenced 1 Timothy 2:4, which in the KJV says what God will do but the NIV translates it to what God wants to do, a BIG difference. So, I'd like to know what you recommend and why. Also, what concordance would you recommend?

What version of the Bible have many of our brothers and sisters been killed for? What version of the Bible has satan tried to get rid of for century and not able to do so? What version of the Bible has many Christians have died to protect?

Is it not Scriptural that the world will get worse and worse into the last days? It does not say it will get better, it does not teach it will get better. Is it not true that scholars try to find the oldest copies of Scriptures for authority and verification. For the English speaking people that Bible is the KJV, Many of our Christian brothers and sisters have died writing it, copying it, protecting it, hiding it, transporting it. Many people have come to the Lord via the KJV Bible. So when God decided to translate the Bible into English for English speaking people, would He not make sure it was exactly as He wanted it to be? He's God! He made sure it was exactly as He wanted it to be. Now in the year 1940 when it was RE-translated into another version, was that God trying to correct a mistake of His, did God interpret it wrong when the KJV came about? Why was there are need for God to correct His own interpretation into English? Theres NOT! Now would it be in satan's best interest to get rid of the KJV? yes it would be, and he tried over and over again to extinguish that particular version, but was not able to do so, God would not let him. So then satan does the next best thing, if he can't get rid of the KJV, he will create many other versions, to get people to stop reading the True version. This he has successfully done.

Are other version wrong or evil? God forbid NO! Any book that teaches about Christ is not bad, and most version can and does bring people to the Lord, this is a good thing. But if a person is going to do some serious studying of the Word, or use the Word as authority, they should always use the KJV. When conflicts arise between the KJV and other versions, people should always use the KJV as the authoritative version, if you do not, there will be much division, which is exactly the plan of satan. Leave it to the last days generation to say the KJV was not good enough, too confusing to understand, and desired to create another version, because they lacked understanding of the KJV. i read the KJV as a kid 3 times before HE started giving me understanding of it, it was on the fourth time reading the entire Bible that He opened my understanding and it was easy to understand. Which by the way is why He created the KJV Bible the way that He did, to weed out people who truly do not want to know and understand His Word, people read it once say it is too confusing, only to never read it again, did not truly desire to understand His Word. Leave it to the last days generation to bypass God's testing, and create, what they say is an easier, simpler translation, so that people can understand it better.

How many Christian brothers and sisters shed their blood so that the NIV can come about? Didn't the NIV come about with open arms, and well accepted by the WORLD, in these last days?

Again, not saying there is anything wrong with other versions, they just are not the Word of God. Yes they can bring people to the Lord, this then makes them good, but all study and authority should be placed on the version that God put into authority hundreds of years ago, and that is the KJV.

To any serious person who is seekign first the kingdom of |God and his rightousness.Sooner or later they will be faced with a choice.
A hunger for God will not accept anything that is not from God. For only that which comes from God will lead you back to God.That which does not leads you away.
There are any number of good books found in any good christian book shop that lay out the arguments for this and against others.
The stand is always for the KJV as beign the most accurate english translation and the proof given (some given in  posts here)
as to the errors in others.
That by itself and alone  is not enough.
A man must be fully persuaded in thier own hearts and mind by the HOly Ghost of  the truth.

Some by definition  are against the KJV  because they are not saved at all.
Others have been misled to think that the KJV is unreliable.

The only two arguments I have ever heard are.

1) The perceived archaic langauge.
2) That accodign to some .There are verses that are not in the orginnal texts. Yet they never explain or indeed can how these verses they say should not be there are out of harmony with all other scripture.
yet the same people will willingly blindly ignore  those grave errors that are so against the grain of scripture in the versions they love more.
That argument then is no one at all but simply an assertion.

As to the argument of langauge of the KJV.

There are two answers.
The natural one.
Shakespear: Albeit  very similar  no voice is heard about that 'archaic langauge ' and impossible to understand. Quite the reverse he is words are revered and held up to be the finest  English work other than the KJV.

But the KJV is not elizebethen. it is BIBLICAL langauge.
In this regard.
God has said "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts"

What are words if not expression of thought?
If then His Word  is but the expression of His mind inpsired by the holy ghost "who knoweth the mind of God"
Should not then the bible expression of English be  of a higher order than the normal use of it?

For the bible  is and are the expressions of how GOD thinks and sees things. Not man.
and it is designed for us to think as he thinks and see how sees things .
How is it then that men seek to bring the Word fo God down to conform to man rather than lift the Word up and seek to conform to it?
if then  hsi thoughts are higher than ours then the expression of those thoughst should also reflect that thinking that his higher than ours also.
Yet what do we find?
A continual demand that the scripture is made easy to understand and thus change that high expression and brign it down to the level of ,man.
But tell me all you who have gone to university?
Did you find it easy?
Did you find that your tutors bowed to your will ?
Was not the langauge hard  to understand? Expecialy in law and sciences.
Tell me was it for the university to change the langauge for your sake ?  or for you to learn the langauge?
if then you would not expect it of mans university .
Why then do you expect it of Gods?
and how much the more it is encumbant on all students of the bible to conform to God?

To any then who truly desire to have the best .I have complete confidence in God to lead you to it.

To any and all who seek thier own will and are full of thier own ways they will choose according to their reasoning and perceptions.

in Christ

gerald

Gerald, where HAVE you been for the last 4 decades? 

Many productions of Shakespeare's plays that use his original wording include translation guides in the program notes so those not familiar with 400 year old english can understand what is being said.

Many other directors have re-written the text into modern language.

I was in Merchant of Venice in High School (1972) and the play book had as much translation notes in it as it did dialog.

To me one of the biggest problems with both Shakespeare and the KJV is that they has held up the English language from proper development.

And it IS Elizabethan English.  It is most decidedly NOT Biblical language. I am not sure even Koine Greek is "biblical language."   Biblical Hebrew?  Perhaps.  But I am loathe to elevate ANY language to an idol state by adding that title to it.

Several of us looked at Acts 12:4 a few weeks back on this forum.  That is one of the many errors of the KJV, so any claim that the KJV is somehow void of error is a false statement.  Like a dog returning to his vomit, we still have the KJVO return every once and a while coming here to promote idolatry.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Aug 28, 2012 - 07:09:38
Gerald, where HAVE you been for the last 4 decades? 

Many productions of Shakespeare's plays that use his original wording include translation guides in the program notes so those not familiar with 400 year old english can understand what is being said.

Many other directors have re-written the text into modern language.

I was in Merchant of Venice in High School (1972) and the play book had as much translation notes in it as it did dialog.

To me one of the biggest problems with both Shakespeare and the KJV is that they has held up the English language from proper development.

And it IS Elizabethan English.  It is most decidedly NOT Biblical language. I am not sure even Koine Greek is "biblical language."   Biblical Hebrew?  Perhaps.  But I am loathe to elevate ANY language to an idol state by adding that title to it.

I am told to hold up the Word of God above all.
There are a great number of versions I would not even hold level let alone lift up.
Ill still hold up the KJV it has been a proved tried and tested armour and weapon  to me and Im fully persuaded of its merits.
Not only been proven by the positives and its use. The far better proof.
But also in the negative  by those who say they have better understanding and presumably a better knowledg of God. But by thier arguments and lack of judgement show they do not as much as they think. Either in their understanding or knowldge of God.
I can therefore only stand when having done all.
God will sort out the outcomes. and those he will have mercy upon; He so will. I hope sooner than later for the days are upon us when soon our convictions are going to be tested in storms the world has not seen for a long time.
In the UK for certain .
I dont doubt nor did I say they have never ben updated but it is in the vast majority not modern english.
But I do not hold to bringing down the Word of God to mans experience.But rather hold it up and seek to bring our expereince up to what it says.
By the grace of God  I intend to do this always. and if men do not like it or disagree without foundation to what the scriptures say then so be it.
Thier blood is not on my hands.

IN answer to your last point as you have sought always to answer mine.
I dont see any development of the english language but rather its coarsening and reduction.
Nor indeed do I hold the KJV as some idol. I was raised up Cof E choir boy alter boy the lot.
There they took it and put it at one end of the alter bowed to it in seemign reverence .Prtayed over it  and poured incence over it.
At another time they did the same at the other end of the alter and then later in the middle.
THAT is idolitory.
For they neither reverence it incence does nothing and  their prayers are of vanity.
In truth by thier traditions they mnake the Word of God of none effetc.
The Cof E was established by its seperation from Rome and its adherence to scripture rather than the traditions of rome.
Yet in keeping all the outward rituals and adornments they have now become a snare to her and she is forsaking the Scriptures and woudl rather return to her own vomit.
I therefore disagree with you even about Shakespeare. Though ive not much expereince. I did not even understand it till I saw the film of Romeo ansd Juliet  in the 70s?
and that by one phrase in the balcony scene.
That was the key for me that opened my ears to what was beign said.
I thing WS says more in a sentence  than modern thinkers can say in a paragraph or more.
Spiritualy that also applies to the Word of God.
God says more in a verse than most modern theologians say in  a book. Some never at all.
I hope  that you do not think that my posts are for contentions sake.Though they may seem  like it.
Id rather talk than type and then there are no misunderstandings..or less likey to be ones that will or can drag on.
But |I have heard nothing before God against the KJV worthy of any real consideration let alone acceptance.
Those objection s I have answered or sought to preempt are in tnhe most cases met with a blank wall.
But as ive said in so many different ways.
I cannot and will noit nopr should any accept an argument based upon another persons better understanding of greek or hebrew yet seem incapable of expressing thier understanding of it in english!
and I do not mean a word for word translation of a word.For those who use such methods do by thier own argument say this cannot be done with scripture."!
I will not nor cannot reduce the scripture to being BORNagain.
Nor can I accept or should  the idea that you can prove anything by one verse .It is an inverse pyramid built on a grain of sand.
In Christ
gerald

KJV (Exo 22:28)  Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

Seems like the KJV is espousing there are more than one God? How do you KJV Only do it?

For light reading I like the NASB or the NKJV, sometimes the ESV.  Just starting to get my feet wet with the TLV. (only the NT and Psalms are currently released)

For study you have to go to the Hebrew and Greek.

If God were going to inspire a English translation for those who speak English.Why would he not get it perfect the first time?The first translation was inspired by God,all the rest are an attempt of man to try to improve on what God ordained.So i would say the King James Version

Quote from: robert9712000 on Sat Oct 20, 2012 - 20:25:24
If God were going to inspire a English translation for those who speak English.Why would he not get it perfect the first time?The first translation was inspired by God,all the rest are an attempt of man to try to improve on what God ordained.So i would say the King James Version

He gets it right every time. He likes to administer His truth to generations whose dialect has become so far removed from the original. God is aware that language changes.

We don't speak like Shakespeare did anymore. Do you know what an Ebenezer is? Relevance is important to God.

Besides, how did God ordain the King James Version for the Chinese? Spaniards? Russians? We have to get real here, folks.