cure-real
Page 1 of 11 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 151

Thread: NIV ERRORS

  1. #1
    ZAROVE Guest

    NIV ERRORS

    Ro answer a queastion raised as to why I say the new I nternational VCerson of the Bible is flawed, I presernt a small sample if errors.

    By no means an exhaustive list, these are but a few errors one finds in the NIV version of the Holy Bible. There are hundreds of such errors int he text, here are but a few.

    This, I trust, shows why I do not trust it.Below is the KJV and NIV compoared in select verses form the new testement alone.




    KJV

    Ephesians 4:6
    "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all"

    NIV


    "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"




    Again another, here Joesoph is Jesus's father.

    KJV

    Luke 2:33
    "And Joseph and his mother marveled…"

    NIV


    "The child's father and mother marveled…"

    KJV

    Mark 10:24
    "…Jesus answereth again, … Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"


    NIV


    "…Jesus said again, 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'"


    KJV

    Mark 15:28
    "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.


    NIV

    Mark 15:28

    [Omitted]


    KJV

    Luke 9:54-56
    54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
    55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
    56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.


    NIV


    54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" [comparison with Elias omitted]
    55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, [Jesus' words of rebuke omitted]
    56 [Jesus' reason for coming to earth omitted] and they went to another village.



    The above and more are reasons why I do not trust the NIV.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Clevelandish, OH
    Posts
    146
    How do you know the KJV isn't wrong?

  3. #3
    ZAROVE Guest

    EASY

    I know Hebrew, thus the Old testiment passes. ( NIV itsself makes mistakes there too and I can check agaisnt the origionals.) This alone draws doubt that the KJV, which is accurate in the old,is somehow inaccurate in the new.

    NIV Is wrong in the old, thus if there is a conflict, I trust KJV more then NIV. Because I also know the old testiment Hebrew and have read the Torah.

    Further, other scholars, biblical theologians, and various texts on the origional greek will affirm the King James accuracy, as opposed to the New International Version.

    I have spoekn to several, read many articels, and seen for myself much that is accurate inn the King James that si altered in the new International version.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2
    I've heard about this a while back, I checked my youth pastor about it and htis is what he told me. He said that the original bible didn't have chapters or verses so the stuff they did omit was no big deal he then went on to tell me that he reads the NIV cuz its easier to read. He told me to compare it with the KJV if you didn't understand something. I don't know what to think.

    On Jesus-is-Lord.com there is a whole big thing about this what they call "Bible Perversion" I honestly don't know what to think of it all. I still read the NIV.
    "Never forget, you're unique, just like everybody else."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Living a Dream
    Posts
    16
    Blog Entries
    2
    Sounds like a bad answer from a good guy, Peterguy. I think your youth pator is mistaken when he made a generalized comment about omissions in the Bible being no big deal.

    Their are Bibles out that strip away the mission and diety of Jesus. And could you imagine trying to look up and read thru and study the Bible without the Chapter and verse markings? Yikes!!! My days are not long enough to spend HOURS searching for John 3:16 or the Book of Ruth.

    There is a place in the KJV that says, "These kind come out only with FASTING and prayer," [speaking of a demon]....... In the NIV it removes the word FASTING and puts it in a hard to see footnote. Now to me this seems like something that should not be in a footnote. Since I found this I have not liked the NIV except for a refferance Bible when checking thru other translations.

    Originally posted by Peterguy
    I've heard about this a while back, I checked my youth pastor about it and htis is what he told me. He said that the original bible didn't have chapters or verses so the stuff they did omit was no big deal he then went on to tell me that he reads the NIV cuz its easier to read. He told me to compare it with the KJV if you didn't understand something. I don't know what to think.

    On Jesus-is-Lord.com there is a whole big thing about this what they call "Bible Perversion" I honestly don't know what to think of it all. I still read the NIV.
    While it is true that politicians can use any word they want, we reply that language works only when those using it agree on what the words mean, and that the meaning of words cannot be unilaterally changed by someone without the agreement of others. -William Lutz

  6. #6
    Follower Guest
    AboutTomorrow,

    Sounds like a bad answer from a good guy, Peterguy. I think your youth pator is mistaken when he made a generalized comment about omissions in the Bible being no big deal.
    Agreed.

    There is a place in the KJV that says, "These kind come out only with FASTING and prayer," [speaking of a demon]....... In the NIV it removes the word FASTING and puts it in a hard to see footnote. Now to me this seems like something that should not be in a footnote. Since I found this I have not liked the NIV except for a refferance Bible when checking thru other translations.
    Would you like to tell us what the Greek says in Matthew 17.21? Or, the end of Mark 9.29? I recommend a good interlinear Bible for doing this type of study. And oh, by the way, I think you'll find that "most" texts show that there is no greek in Matthew 17.21 or the end of Mark 9.29, which is why many translations have removed them.

    I believe that to compare/criticize the KJV and/or the NIV without understanding the underlying translation issues, is a bit of a disservice.

    In Jesus' love,

    Follower

    “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Knoxville/Bearden
    Posts
    23
    Blog Entries
    2
    wow, some of that stuff is interesting, I'll remember it
    "If there is no God, one will lose nothing by believing in him. If there is a God, one will lose everything by not believing"
    "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation, that He exists."
    Blaise Pascal

    __________________________________________________
    Edited by God : May 22nd 1992 at 07:43 PM. Edited 174698718157 times since then

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Clevelandish, OH
    Posts
    146
    If the NIV is so bad, Zarove, then why do so many other Hebrew/Greek scholars NOT have a problem with it?

    I don't get it. Granted a lot of language experts have problems with NIV. But there obviously must be a significant portion of experts who don't.

    I have a hard time accepting the KJV as the ultimate translation, since it was the product of an era KNOWN for bending and twisting religion to satisfy the politicians.

    Besides, the KJV was translated in 1611, right? Don't you think that since then there may have been improvements in linguistics?

  9. #9
    ZAROVE Guest

    ANSWERS

    If the NIV is so bad, Zarove, then why do so many other Hebrew/Greek scholars NOT have a problem with it?

    I don't get it. Granted a lot of language experts have problems with NIV. But there obviously must be a significant portion of experts who don't.
    Yes and there are many scholars who say h#mos#xuality is not a sin in the Bible, and that where it said it was it was rtefering to pr#stit#tion.

    Sorry, but not all Scholars are reliable. The Torah has been proven byt hte Dead Sea Scrolls NOT to ahv changed. I can read Hebrew. I can compare the Tporah to the KJV and though a couple of mistakes where made, its reliable more times than not.

    The same is true fo the Greek. Incedentilly, the " Otigional greek" has problms.

    Many say " The King James Version said this, but the origional greek meant somthign else", in reality, they are using the Text of Alexandria to compare tot he Jameian Bible, which ( surprise) didnt use the Alexandian new testiment. It used the Textus Recipitus, or the received texts. Copies of the origionals that had not been revised.

    I trust is more for that reason too.


    I have a hard time accepting the KJV as the ultimate translation, since it was the product of an era KNOWN for bending and twisting religion to satisfy the politicians.
    This is a generalisation. The era may have been known for this, but this doesnt mean the King James Version was altered to suit a political agenda. Conversly, the modern Bibles are often a;ltered to suit current theology or political agendas. Indeed, there are more conflicting versions of the Bible out there NOW than there where in 1611, and there are politically corrupt peiple doing modern revisions and translations.

    There is no difference, except that I know the background and history of thre King James Bible, and I know it checks againt the origional text, thus I trust it.

    Besides, the KJV was translated in 1611, right? Don't you think that since then there may have been improvements in linguistics?
    The above is a common argument, but it doesnt stand. Anceint Greek and Hebrew are dead languages. They dont change. As a result, I learned to read hebrew, and the way I read i is the same as anyone else reading it in 1611.

    The idea of Proggress and linguistic improvement is a nice fantasy, we are in a better world than they, with computers, cars, telephones, ect, and science has greatly improved. It stands to reason so has linguistics.

    But in reality, translations of dead languages remains the same, from 1611 tot eh preasent.
    Last edited by ejant; Aug 7th 2004 at 07:38 PM. Reason: key search words

  10. #10
    ZAROVE Guest

    ARTICLE

    Here is an article whihc shows why I use the faithful King James, and why modern statements like " we have progressed, lingusitics have imporved." dotn hold water.


    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Clevelandish, OH
    Posts
    146
    I am very familiar with many of the arguments as to why the KJV alone is the best translation.

    But, I don't necessarily believe that. Sorry.

  12. #12
    ZAROVE Guest

    BELEIF

    Beleif doesnt change the fact that it DOES measure up where others fial.

    Besides, other translatiosn attempt to INTERPRET the text, not just translate it.

  13. #13
    My solution to the problem is just to use both. My bible is an NIV study bible, but i often use online bibles to check things and get a different wording.

    In many of those situations above the meaning is not changed, the words are just moved around or they use different words to mean the same thing.

    Both those ephesians quotes have the exact same meaning.


    The verse about joseph where they replace hsi name with "the childs father" doesn't change the meaning, Joseph is the child(Jesus)'s father.

    I have heard the opposite of what you say. I have heard that the KJV is full of errors, these are just rumors, I need to look aroudn to see what is true.

    For now i honestly don't knwo which is better, so i compare when i am in question. Sometimes one Bible will allow you to see somethign different from another, this can be very cool.
    A youth Without God is like a painting in a world with no light.... - GS MegaPhone

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Clevelandish, OH
    Posts
    146
    Originally posted by ZAROVE
    Beleif doesnt change the fact that it DOES measure up where others fial.

    Besides, other translatiosn attempt to INTERPRET the text, not just translate it.
    You know I love you, Zarove, but there has never been a possibility of any view other than yours being right, has there?

  15. #15
    homebild Guest

    Nonsense

    What Zarove is claiming is largely nonsense.

    There are differences in translations between the KJV and NIV and other English translations to be sure.

    But claiming to know Hebrew does not explain any of the the differences.

    The differences exist because the KJV, NIV and others were translated from differently available Greek manuscripts.

    The KJV relied largely on the Catholic created document 'Textus Receptus' that referred back to the Latin Vulgate when discrepnacies appeared.

    The NIV is largely the result of the 'majority text' which takes all known Greek texts and uses the 'majority' version when there is a controversy.

    That discrepancies occured throughout the history of the evolution of the 'Bible' is apparant. Not even the Hebrew versions completley 'agree'.

    To claim that the KJV is the 'best' English tranlsation is like claiming the New York Yankees are the 'best' baseball team....It depends upon which criteria you are using to base the claim.

    Longevity is not one of them else wise the earlier and even MORE popular Douay-Rheims version takes the cake.

    Zarove, in all due respect, is merely arguing from a point of ignorance rather than knowledge in his statements about the KJV and other bible versions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •