PDA

View Full Version : I have switched to the NIV Bible



Gentile
Jan 8th 2011, 10:34 PM
After years and years of reading, and being a fan of the KJV, i have turned the tides and now read the NIV. I actually like the NIV much better. I realize no edition of the bible is the "true" bible, and after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

Reynolds357
Jan 8th 2011, 10:52 PM
After years and years of reading, and being a fan of the KJV, i have turned the tides and now read the NIV. I actually like the NIV much better. I realize no edition of the bible is the "true" bible, and after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

I would have to disagree that the KJV is "deceiving." I like modern translations. NIV is close to the bottom of my list of translations, but I do not oppose it.

Bandit
Jan 8th 2011, 10:53 PM
I started out with the KJV back in the 60's when I was a kid. There is nothing deceiving about it; it just uses out of date English and perhaps not the best original texts. Today I use mostly the NASV and NKJV; I just never really liked the NIV, though I will occasionally see how it reads.

Gentile
Jan 8th 2011, 11:12 PM
I would have to disagree that the KJV is "deceiving." I like modern translations. NIV is close to the bottom of my list of translations, but I do not oppose it.

What is your favorite modern version?

-SEEKING-
Jan 9th 2011, 01:07 AM
What is your favorite modern version?

What would you consider a modern version? Like after what year exactly? Me personally I enjoy many versions but I would say that the NASB is my go-to choice.

amazzin
Jan 9th 2011, 01:12 AM
My choice is either NASB or TLB. They are literal translations into the modern language. The NIV is a "Nearly Inspired Version" ;)

AndrewBaptistFL
Jan 9th 2011, 01:13 AM
I am and always have been a fan of the NIV :)

amazzin
Jan 9th 2011, 01:16 AM
I am and always have been a fan of the NIV :)

Won't keep that against you.....yet ;)

AndrewBaptistFL
Jan 9th 2011, 01:18 AM
Won't keep that against you.....yet ;)

Saw what you will my friend. I've got away to many notes in it to switch now. :)

amazzin
Jan 9th 2011, 01:22 AM
Saw what you will my friend. I've got away to many notes in it to switch now. :)

Isn't that a very important comment really? I for one, have memorized many verses over many years in NKJV. If I am given another translation I am almost lost finding the verses. So I preach and study in NKJV and from time to time I make my point I use other versions.

Whatever makes it easier for you, use it. I too have lots of notes and colors from all the years I have used the Bible I use today. I can't see myself departing from it

-SEEKING-
Jan 9th 2011, 01:23 AM
I am and always have been a fan of the NIV :)

I enjoy it as well. It was my first ever bible translation.

Slug1
Jan 9th 2011, 01:37 AM
My fav version is the NKJV. Next is the ESV. I like the HCSB version also, I have that Bible in the door of my truck so I always have a Bible handy no matter where I travel. Plus it's small enough I can stick it in my back pocket.

Gentile
Jan 9th 2011, 01:40 AM
What would you consider a modern version?

I have no clue, that is what I am asking. I know alot of people think the NASB is the best "modern" bible out there. I have never even heard of the NASB version. But I will find out now.

-SEEKING-
Jan 9th 2011, 01:43 AM
I have no clue, that is what I am asking. I know alot of people think the NASB is the best "modern" bible out there. I have never even heard of the NASB version. But I will find out now.

Well just in case you have a hard time finding it, it's the New American Standard Bible.

Gentile
Jan 9th 2011, 01:44 AM
The one problem I do have with the NIV version, it feels like I am reading a kids story book. It's almost written to simplified, or "dumbed down"

-SEEKING-
Jan 9th 2011, 01:46 AM
The one problem I do have with the NIV version, it feels like I am reading a kids story book. It's almost written to simplified, or "dumbed down"

Really. You have to also take into consideration that this is not considered a literal translation. It's not word for word, it's more thought for thought.

-SEEKING-
Jan 9th 2011, 01:47 AM
How long have you had the NIV now Gentile?

BrckBrln
Jan 9th 2011, 01:47 AM
A revised version of the NIV has recently came out and will be available in print in a few months. I'm not a great fan of the NIV but I will give the new version a chance.

Reynolds357
Jan 9th 2011, 02:04 AM
What is your favorite modern version?

Toss up between NASB and NKJV.

Reynolds357
Jan 9th 2011, 02:05 AM
My choice is either NASB or TLB. They are literal translations into the modern language. The NIV is a "Nearly Inspired Version" ;)

I prefer to call it the non inspired version.

Reynolds357
Jan 9th 2011, 02:06 AM
My choice is either NASB or TLB. They are literal translations into the modern language. The NIV is a "Nearly Inspired Version" ;)

TLB. The living Bible? It's a paraphrase.

Gentile
Jan 9th 2011, 02:07 AM
Interesting blog post: http://thefoolishgalatian.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/niv-vs-esv-and-why-piper-switched/


@seeking: I have had the NIV version for about two years. I went back to it because that seems to be the most popular bible that people tend to flock to. I know this contradicts my initial post, but I still have problems with the NIV because of it's simplistic tone.

Reynolds357
Jan 9th 2011, 02:09 AM
A revised version of the NIV has recently came out and will be available in print in a few months. I'm not a great fan of the NIV but I will give the new version a chance.

I am even less of a fan of TNIV and the newest update. What has been leaked out about the update to the NIV will only create more problems with it, not solve any.

JohnDB
Jan 9th 2011, 02:27 AM
Tossing in my two cents,

I happen to like the NIV.
Mostly because I am familiar with the work and style of the translators of the original text...no other reason.

The main problem which can't be resolved is the idioms and metaphors that may or may not be literally transcribed into English. The English language is one of the poorest receptor languages the four original languages the Bible was written in. So many of the nuances are lost in translation.

So...where the NIV isn't the best translation...neither is any other translation out there...even the "word for word" translations really aren't word for word. If they really were you wouldn't be able to understand them. Those ones too have to make adjustments for a westernized reading audience to make clear the intent of the writer's original wording. And even still many of the nuances are lost in those translations even still.

I ain't saying that you need to really read the Bible in the original formats and manners...it is a difficult study of alphabets and grammar rules that is simply beyond even some of the most studious people.

What you can have faith in is that the translators have usually done the best work that they could. They have taken their jobs seriously and without intent of misdirection....mostly.

There are a couple of things that you should be aware of with any translation.

I can use John 1:12 without stepping on any one's particular theology.
Read it carefully.
For those that received him, for those that believed in his name, He gave the right to be called Sons of God.

(I did this from memory so if it is off a bit don't kill me) And I know that at first glance that this is going to read correctly to you...unless you pay attention to the tense that this verse is written in.

ahhhh....lightbulb moment?

Past tense....and so a serious student wonders why John would write it this way....as if it was all over...past history? Don't I have a chance even now? I am supposed to...why is it written this way? (I had all these questions)

So...I found out.

This section of John in early Latin (extremely similar and the same as Greek most of the time) there is a tense that doesn't exist in the English language called the perfect aortist tense.
What tense this is is past, present, and future tense all three at the same time. But when translating it the first translators had to choose a tense to write this one in (and others similar in plurality besides this one) and so they chose past tense. Traditionally all translators have followed suit with this writing things in the past tense.

There are many traditions in the manner with which our modern bible is written and translated in. Real wars have been fought over the manner in which certain sections have been translated. (Matthew 19 comes to mind) And the most obscure manner of translating that section remains in tradition today because of the spilled blood.

But...

Since the Word is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword...the messages of hope, grace, peace with God, and especially love are clear and repeated over and over again.

Athanasius
Jan 9th 2011, 02:56 AM
I like the KJV because of this:

2 Corinthians 10:4-5

4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Now, compare that with the NIV (2010):

4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Or the NASB:

4for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
5We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

I hope you can tell why I like the KJV rendering - it's poetic, and exciting. The NIV and NASB feel boring, to be honest. That's coming from someone who reads the NASB more than any other version (and even then the KJV is third on the list). Well, it could also have something to do with this song, which I heard as a child:

7gFXbfeQL4c

But whatever the case, I read the NASB, KJV and ESV the most.

-SEEKING-
Jan 9th 2011, 04:10 PM
I know this contradicts my initial post, but I still have problems with the NIV because of it's simplistic tone.

So maybe this is a silly question but, why then did you switch to the NIV?

Bandit
Jan 10th 2011, 12:33 AM
Toss up between NASB and NKJV.

Reynolds357 and I are on the same page... or bible versions. Those are my two favorites. I have just started to read the NRSV; it seems to be ok so far. (So far I think it better than the NIV.)

Slug1
Jan 10th 2011, 01:45 AM
Interesting blog post: http://thefoolishgalatian.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/niv-vs-esv-and-why-piper-switched/


@seeking: I have had the NIV version for about two years. I went back to it because that seems to be the most popular bible that people tend to flock to. I know this contradicts my initial post, but I still have problems with the NIV because of it's simplistic tone.Don't worry about the tone... worry about the message :P

I did the same thing long ago, went with the flow of what people did and said. God eventually pointed out to me that this was one of the ways that I was more like a wave on the ocean. Do what the people are doing, think what the people are thinking, say what the people are saying, teach what the people are teaching.

God GOT IN MY FACE and said.. what am I doing, what am I thinking, what am I saying, what am I teaching?

Gentile, so what's in your heart to read? They are ALL Bibles but which one is God speaking to you through that you actually read with your spiritual eyes open and there is NO TONE except the tone in which God is speaking to you as you read His Word? Who cares what others say and the majority flocks to. The Bible is the Living Word of God and to hear a person say the tone of the Bible is simplistic, then it seems you are reading it on a fleshly level and not a spiritual level when you actually hear or even "feel" the tone in which God is speaking to you as you read.

When Jesus went all ballistic on those people selling in the temple... while you read this scripture, do you feel the anger Jesus felt? When He wept, did you? When He felt fear in the garden, did you?

Are the words we read in the Bible "just" words or are they the very Words of Jesus speaking to you? When a person tells you their testimony... do you feel some of their emotion or at least you get emotional? The Bible, specially the Gospels are a testimony of Jesus... so we say it's simplistic? I think to say something like that means the whole purpose of those words, actually went right over your head.

ShawnW
Jan 10th 2011, 01:57 AM
I prefer to call it the non inspired version.

That's a pretty tough stance. I like when a believer can take an unpopular stance and support it with well thought out reasoning. I am curious as to your reasoning. I use whatever translation I can get my hands on...but I have two in my home. I have the NIV and the Concordant Literal. I like to see the contrast. I have considered getting a Young's Literal Translation and/or the Christian Bible as well.

Gentile
Jan 10th 2011, 02:57 AM
@slug, great post and I agree with everyone you said. I think I am just in search of bible where I feel comfortable with and can just stick to one version. Like I said before I have been reading the KJV for years, but recently want to switch to a more modern version. One thing I do know I don't feel comfortable at all reading the NIV, I was forcing myself to like it. The NIV to me is a book of brief footnotes of the word of God.

I think I am going to pick up a ESV Bible, being a fan of the KJV, the ESV would seem like a good fit for since it follows the pattern of the KJV.

But they are just words, the true spirit of God is more important. Look at Enoch in the bible, in his day there no such thing as a bible, but he had tremondous knowledge of God, and a strong relationship, and very strong prayer life. He didn't have a book to tell him what to do, or what prayer was, he just knew.

-SEEKING-
Jan 10th 2011, 02:59 AM
Wow. Complete reversal in less than 24 hours.

Reynolds357
Jan 10th 2011, 04:22 AM
That's a pretty tough stance. I like when a believer can take an unpopular stance and support it with well thought out reasoning. I am curious as to your reasoning. I use whatever translation I can get my hands on...but I have two in my home. I have the NIV and the Concordant Literal. I like to see the contrast. I have considered getting a Young's Literal Translation and/or the Christian Bible as well.

No point in rehashing the NIV bashing.

-SEEKING-
Jan 10th 2011, 04:24 AM
No point in rehashing the NIV bashing.

Great point Reynolds. It appears that was the intent.

ShawnW
Jan 10th 2011, 05:35 AM
No point in rehashing the NIV bashing.

Gotcha. Well can we talk about some of the translational problems with the NKJV? :)

ShawnW
Jan 10th 2011, 05:37 AM
Great point Reynolds. It appears that was the intent.

It's not my intent to bash the NIV since I use it. I want to know why some people believe some translations to be inspired and others are not. Is it because grandma used a certain version? Is it because that is what your church uses? Is it because your pastor told you it's the most correct? I have noticed few like to be pinned down with these questions because many just use the version most comfortable to them. But, I do want to know if some here have done the research and resolved in their own spirit which translation/s is/are the most accurate respresentation of the original languages.

chad
Jan 10th 2011, 07:40 AM
For anyone interested...Why the KJV differs from the NIV/NASV.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

Why does the KJV differ from the NIV?

The reason the King James version differ from the NASV and the NIV in a number of readings is because it is translated from a different text-type than they are.

A) The King James Version was translated from Erasmus' printed Greek New Testament which made use of only five Greek manuscripts the oldest of which dated to the 1,100 A.D. These manuscripts were examples of the Byzantine text-type.

b) The NASV and the NIV make use of the United Bible Societies 4th Edition 1968 of the New Testament. This edition of the Greek New Testament relies more heavily on the Alexandrian text-type while making use of all 5,664 Greek manuscripts. The reasons that the NASV and NIV find the Alexandrian text-type more reliable are the following:

This text-type uses manuscripts date from 175-350 A.D. which includes most of the papyri, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
The church fathers from 97-350 A.D. used this text-type when they quoted the New Testament.
The early translations of the New Testament used the Alexandrian text-type.

Examples that show why the KJV differs from the NIV and NASV in certain verses

In the following examples the King James Version differs from the NIV, and NASV. because it bases it's translation on the Byzantine text-type and the NIV and NASV base theirs on the Alexandrian text-type.
A. KJV 1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."

NIV 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that testify: v. 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood: and the three are in agreement."

1. When Erasmus first printed the Greek New Testament in 1514 it did not contain the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth," because they were not found in any of the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus looked at.

2. These words were not quoted by any of the Greek church fathers. They most certainly would have been used by the church fathers in their 3rd and 4th century letters if found in the Greek manuscripts available to them.

3. These words are not found in any ancient versions of the New Testament. These include Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, nor in the Old Latin in its early form.

4. These words begin to appear in marginal notes in the Latin New Testament beginning in the fifth century. From the sixth century onward these words are found more and more frequently.

5. Erasmus finally agreed to put these words into new editions of his Greek New Testament if his critic's could find one Greek manuscript that contained these words. It appears that his critics manufactured manuscripts to include these words.

6. These additional words are found in only eight manuscripts as a variant reading written in the margin. Seven of these manuscripts date from the sixteenth century and one is a tenth century manuscript.

7. Erasmus' New Testament became the basis for the Greek New Testament, "Textus Receptus", which the King James translators used as the basis for their translation of the New Testament into English.

B. Mark 16 verses 9-20 are found in the King James Version. However, both the NASV and the NIV note that these verses are not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark (see The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20).

1. Neither Codex Sinaiticus nor Codex Vaticanus have Mark 16:9-20.

2. Mark 16:9-20 is also absent from some Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts.

3. Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses.

4. 4. The earliest church father to note the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 was Irenaeus, around 180 A. D.

C. Luke 2:14 reads:

KJV: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men."
NIV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

The Greek text from which these two versions are translated differ by only one letter. The NIV is translated from manuscripts that have an "s" on the end of the Greek word for good will. This reading is supported by the oldest Alexandrine text-types.

ShawnW
Jan 10th 2011, 08:08 AM
Chad, good post and interesting read.

TomaxandXamot
Jan 10th 2011, 09:45 PM
After years and years of reading, and being a fan of the KJV, i have turned the tides and now read the NIV. I actually like the NIV much better. I realize no edition of the bible is the "true" bible, and after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

Theres a lot of bible translations that arent as Godly as the reader thinks it is. Be careful that the NIV isnt really satanically mucked with here or there. Are you familiar with the "Bible code" phenomina? Its a phenomina where ppls names are encoded in the KJV. I have the program that does it. And my personal fav is the NLT.

JLM-223
Jan 11th 2011, 12:34 PM
After years and years of reading, and being a fan of the KJV, i have turned the tides and now read the NIV. I actually like the NIV much better. I realize no edition of the bible is the "true" bible, and after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

Out of curiosity, is it the "thee's", thou's", and "thine's" that made you switch to the NIV, or were there some translational issues you saw? I currently use the NKJV since it maintains the translational integrity of the KJV, but is a bit more readable to me.

Slug1
Jan 11th 2011, 01:05 PM
Out of curiosity, is it the "thee's", thou's", and "thine's" that made you switch to the NIV, or were there some translational issues you saw? I currently use the NKJV since it maintains the translational integrity of the KJV, but is a bit more readable to me.Words like "doth" did it for me when I was younger and still does it for me today :lol:

I too have the NKJV as my primary Bible to reach for.

AndrewBaptistFL
Jan 11th 2011, 01:11 PM
Still a user of the NIV. :)

-SEEKING-
Jan 11th 2011, 02:09 PM
Theres a lot of bible translations that arent as Godly as the reader thinks it is. Be careful that the NIV isnt really satanically mucked with here or there. Are you familiar with the "Bible code" phenomina? Its a phenomina where ppls names are encoded in the KJV. I have the program that does it. And my personal fav is the NLT.

NIV is fine. Bible Code however, is a farse.

TomaxandXamot
Jan 11th 2011, 05:14 PM
NIV is fine. Bible Code however, is a farse.

I guess that means youv never seen proof of the bible code. Again; I have the program, and it does work.

-SEEKING-
Jan 11th 2011, 05:17 PM
I guess that means youv never seen proof of the bible code. Again; I have the program, and it does work.

I read the book and saw the movie but God doesn't need a code for us to understand His word. That's just another one of man's attempt at thinking he's quite clever.

Slug1
Jan 11th 2011, 05:45 PM
I read the book and saw the movie but God doesn't need a code for us to understand His word. That's just another one of man's attempt at thinking he's quite clever.Amen... God put it in black and white for us and we have the Holy Spirit to illuminate all meaning from scripture. Not some code only a few believe works. The Holy Spirit ALWAYS is working and is ALWAYS accurate.

Any illumination of scripture other than by the Holy Spirit... isn't from God.

TomaxandXamot
Jan 11th 2011, 09:08 PM
by Terry Watkins


". . . ye have PERVERTED the words of the living God. . ."
Jeremiah 23:36

This generation has a hunger for perversion. What was perversion just a few years ago, is now "normal". What was "hiding" in the closet is now "parading" in our streets. Perversion has found a welcome home - from the living room, to the White House; from our churches - to even the word of God!
Our friend Webster, defines "pervert" as 1. to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true... 2. to twist the meaning or sense of: misinterpret (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977, p.856).

A perfect definition of The New International Version (NIV): "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true" and "to twist the meaning or sense of". If you doubt that, before you start reading this tract - get the NIV and check it as you read this tract!


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 and sexual perversion!
Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" ". . . the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ." Verses 26-27 says "FOR THIS CAUSE (vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE") 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, . . ."

The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS".


The NIV & Zondervan
A little known fact: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality described as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,. . . Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships. . .the intricacies of love play. . ." and many other pro-homosexual books!

HarperCollins is a subsidiary of the global media empire, The News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock. The News Corporation empire include Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. Fox Broadcasting produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups.

VERY IMPORTANT! For the REAL PROOF Check out this link to HarperCollins

Now where is Don Wildmon when we really need him? Don was quick to boycott Kmart because subsidiary, Waldenbooks sold Playboy and Penthouse. Kmart can't "hold a candle" to the "filth" spewed by The News Corporation. Why isn't Don boycotting Zondervan and the NIV? Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — AND THE SATANIC BIBLE! "Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?" Amos 3:3

Jesus Christ plainly said in Matthew 7:17-18:

Even so every GOOD tree bringeth forth GOOD fruit; but a CORRUPT tree bringeth forth EVIL FRUIT. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a CORRUPT tree bring forth GOOD FRUIT. (Matthew 7:17-18)

Do you think Jesus Christ was LIEING?


Do you really believe God would ALLOW His HOLY word to be "owned" by that group? ". . .for what fellowship hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? and what communion hath light with darkness?"2 Cor. 6:14

Do you actually believe God would ALLOW His Holy Word to published by the same ungodly people who publish the Satanic Bible?

Being born again, not of CORRUPTIBLE seed, but of INCORRUPTIBLE, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)


Isn't it EQUALLY amazing that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not OWNED by men?

That's right! The King James Bible has no COPYRIGHT ownership! It's copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which ALLOWS it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME! Without asking ANYBODY for permission!

". . .but the word of God is NOT BOUND." 2 Timothy 2:9



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"

Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"! And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3???


The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .
LIE 1) The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed.
FACT: The NIV denys the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

LIE 2) The NIV is easier to read and understand.
FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209)

LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110) And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!

LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."


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

". . . ye have PERVERTED the words of the living God. . ."
Jeremiah 23:36

The New International
PER-Version!

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

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."
Psalms 12:6, 7

Athanasius
Jan 11th 2011, 09:09 PM
That is nothing but misinformation and slander.

TomaxandXamot
Jan 11th 2011, 09:10 PM
Amen... God put it in black and white for us and we have the Holy Spirit to illuminate all meaning from scripture. Not some code only a few believe works. The Holy Spirit ALWAYS is working and is ALWAYS accurate.

Any illumination of scripture other than by the Holy Spirit... isn't from God.

What I do agree with is that the bible code; doenst have to be too consentrated on. That just specifially says something to me; which I will explain when my book is released.

RollTide21
Jan 11th 2011, 09:27 PM
I like the KJV because of this:

2 Corinthians 10:4-5

4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Now, compare that with the NIV (2010):

4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Or the NASB:

4for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
5We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

I hope you can tell why I like the KJV rendering - it's poetic, and exciting. The NIV and NASB feel boring, to be honest. That's coming from someone who reads the NASB more than any other version (and even then the KJV is third on the list). Well, it could also have something to do with this song, which I heard as a child:

7gFXbfeQL4c

But whatever the case, I read the NASB, KJV and ESV the most.I think it's perfectly valid to prefer the more poetic nature of the KJV. Especially with books like Isaiah, which is beautiful poetry. I think it simply means that God meets you where you are with the KJV as opposed to another translation.

RollTide21
Jan 11th 2011, 09:52 PM
by Terry Watkins
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!
Just going to take this one...

This is NIV online that I often refer to when discussing things on this board. I use an NIV at home, as well.

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that,
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

With all due respect, it's clearly obvious who "He" is in this passage. Give me a break with "it perverts the deity of Jesus Christ".

Slug1
Jan 11th 2011, 10:05 PM
What I do agree with is that the bible code; doenst have to be too consentrated on. That just specifially says something to me; which I will explain when my book is released.Well, that'll be one book I don't need to buy... no matter what translation you wrote it in :P

The Bible speaks to ALL in the world. So if a code specifically speaks to you :hmm:

TomaxandXamot
Jan 12th 2011, 12:34 PM
Well, that'll be one book I don't need to buy... no matter what translation you wrote it in :P

The Bible speaks to ALL in the world. So if a code specifically speaks to you :hmm:

In my book; its not a just a "code" that I specifically talk about. I shouldnt have said anything about this in the 1st place; oops my bad. And that "code" DID say something specifically to me, with a certain conclusion that my readers might find interesting. And my book wont be for sale; but a free giveaway.

AndrewBaptistFL
Jan 12th 2011, 12:39 PM
NIV is fine. Bible Code however, is a farse.

Yes, I agree.


I guess that means youv never seen proof of the bible code. Again; I have the program, and it does work.

Given enough letters, you can make them say anything. You can mathematically prove many things known to be false.

Slug1
Jan 12th 2011, 03:34 PM
In my book; its not a just a "code" that I specifically talk about. I shouldnt have said anything about this in the 1st place; oops my bad. And that "code" DID say something specifically to me, with a certain conclusion that my readers might find interesting. And my book wont be for sale; but a free giveaway.Without knowing what this "code" SAID to you, I will ask you this.

How did you test this message?

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Also, whenever we read anything concening scripture and receiving revelation from scripture that is not provided by the Holy Spirit, this is CLUE #1 that another spirit is involved. We are warned in the Bible with many scriptures and I'll put this one in my reply:

Matthew 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

So, if any message is heard from the Bible and this message is provided by anything other than the Holy Spirit and then this message is passed to others... this is what scripture calls a "false" prophet. This code is nothing but to DECEIVE and if you are pushing the messages given from this code then you are a DECEIVER and thus, a false prophet that we are warned about from scripture.

Rosalyn
Jan 12th 2011, 04:10 PM
My Two Cents
My preferred Bible is KJV. It is the Bible that I grew up with and the one which the Lord speaks to me through. When I study, I study using the NKJV because I can get through the nuances of Old English and to the meat. For reading plans like "read your bible through in a year and such, I read NIV or ESV. I prefer ESV more for some reason I can't quite put my finger on. I havent tried any other modern translations except those mentioned.

Reynolds357
Jan 12th 2011, 09:08 PM
In my book; its not a just a "code" that I specifically talk about. I shouldnt have said anything about this in the 1st place; oops my bad. And that "code" DID say something specifically to me, with a certain conclusion that my readers might find interesting. And my book wont be for sale; but a free giveaway.

I have some books I have authored that I could give away for free. There is no way anyone in their right mind would publish them but If giving your books away counts, then I am an author.:lol:

Reynolds357
Jan 12th 2011, 09:11 PM
My Two Cents
My preferred Bible is KJV. It is the Bible that I grew up with and the one which the Lord speaks to me through. When I study, I study using the NKJV because I can get through the nuances of Old English and to the meat. For reading plans like "read your bible through in a year and such, I read NIV or ESV. I prefer ESV more for some reason I can't quite put my finger on. I havent tried any other modern translations except those mentioned.
If the Lord "speaks to you" best through the KJV, why do you "Study" from the NKJV? That confuses me a bit.

RollTide21
Jan 12th 2011, 10:25 PM
If the Lord "speaks to you" best through the KJV, why do you "Study" from the NKJV? That confuses me a bit.Since he hasn't answered, I will take a crack at it. God can speak to us through Scripture outside of intensive study. A big example of this is a Word of comfort or peace in a time of trial. Books like the Psalms or Isaiah are often mentioned in these times. If a person is sensitive to the more poetic language, God can use that to pierce a person's heart with His Spirit. On the other hand, Bible Study is largely an academic process whereby we try to read and understand so that we can store that understanding for use in our daily walk. God often will reveal His Word through that understanding as it unravels a Truth relating to a particular circumstance we are dealing with. In that respect, it's not about being sensitive to the language. It's about understanding the text.

TrustGzus
Jan 16th 2011, 02:41 AM
I saw one member comment on Watkins commentary on 1 Timothy 3:16. I'd like to comment on the supposed idea that the NIV perverts the virgin birth.
by Terry Watkins

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. First of all, the NIV clearly teaches the virgin birth. Look at this from Matthew . . .
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mt 1:22-25.Secondly, since Watkins quotes Luke, let's also look at Luke . . .
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Lk 1:29-34.Thirdly, we can quote selectively from the KJV and play the same game Watkins does and make it look like the KJV "perverts the virgin birth."
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

The Holy Bible : King James Version., Lk 2:48.There you have it. Mary denying the virgin birth in the KJV when Mary, herself, calls Joseph Jesus' father. Don't fall for the claims that the NIV is a perverted Bible. Every single argument that Watkins brings up is refuted, and rather easily I might add.

DumbOx
Jan 16th 2011, 07:44 AM
After years and years of reading, and being a fan of the KJV, i have turned the tides and now read the NIV. I actually like the NIV much better. I realize no edition of the bible is the "true" bible, and after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

Yes, the NIV is a very smooth read indeed. No doubt about that at all. Many of us have "started out" with the NIV, but have since gone on to the more literal translations: NASB, ESV, to name just a few. I'm puzzled by your realization that "the KJV is the most deceiving version out there." Please share with us some of the research that you've done that prompts you to make that statement.

fees
Jan 16th 2011, 10:01 PM
I think safety lies in reading more than one translation. Herein we can notice the differences between the translations and then ask ourselves why and then do a little research. The literal translations(Nasb, Nkjv) have benefits and the thought for thought translations(Nlt, Tlb, Message) have their benefits. I would rather first read the literal a few books then move from there to the thought for thought though.

Stan777
Jan 17th 2011, 12:22 AM
Yes, the NIV is a very smooth read indeed. No doubt about that at all. Many of us have "started out" with the NIV, but have since gone on to the more literal translations: NASB, ESV, to name just a few. I'm puzzled by your realization that "the KJV is the most deceiving version out there." Please share with us some of the research that you've done that prompts you to make that statement.

I would like to know myself to why the king james is deceiving.

Vince777
Jan 17th 2011, 12:44 AM
I've used the King James version for a long time but I started reading the NIV version for about ten years though I'm not sure which Bible is considered the most literal.

chad
Jan 17th 2011, 02:20 AM
I actually use both the NIV and KJV. I use the NIV for reading, then I use the KJV side by side when I want to go back to the original greek word and study it's meaning.

JohnDB
Jan 17th 2011, 03:10 AM
I would like to know myself to why the king james is deceiving.

I think he is saying that because of the language shifts of the meanings of many of the words it is deceiving.

superfluity of naughtiness is one of those catch phrases that never seems to set well...

There is also the Thee, thine, thou, dilemma as far as plural vs singular and on and on it goes.

A person has to be really proficient at Elizabethan English to really understand the KJV.

Stan777
Jan 21st 2011, 11:14 AM
I think he is saying that because of the language shifts of the meanings of many of the words it is deceiving.

superfluity of naughtiness is one of those catch phrases that never seems to set well...

There is also the Thee, thine, thou, dilemma as far as plural vs singular and on and on it goes.

A person has to be really proficient at Elizabethan English to really understand the KJV.

Yes very true, i guess it could be deceiving then. Never looked at it that way.

Uncle Bud
Jan 21st 2011, 02:14 PM
What would you consider a modern version? Like after what year exactly? Me personally I enjoy many versions but I would say that the NASB is my go-to choice.Any version beginning with the Revised Version of 1881 based on Westcott and Hort and corrupted manuscripts.

RabbiKnife
Jan 21st 2011, 02:18 PM
We also need to be clear on another issue.

The MESSAGE is a great read, but it is a paraphrase, not a translation. It never pretended to be a translation. It is like the old Living Bible...it is a paraphrase and should not be used for doctrinal study or development. It is useful, but was never intended to be a translation of any original language text.

Firefighter
Jan 21st 2011, 02:23 PM
Any version beginning with the Revised Version of 1881 based on Westcott and Hort and corrupted manuscripts.

Have you ever read the Revised Version of 1881!?!?! I happen to have one (1895), and I would challenge that statement.

Here is a question for you Gilligan... Which version of the KJV is inspired?

Uncle Bud
Jan 21st 2011, 02:25 PM
Have you ever read the Revised Version of 1881!?!?! I happen to have one (1895), and I would challenge that statement.

Here is a question for you Gilligan... Which version of the KJV is inspired?

There is only one version of the KJV. The so-called "revisions" since 1611 were the removal of printers' errors and standardization of spelling, which was completed in 1769.

See this article about those "revisions":
http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=05.htm

Firefighter
Jan 21st 2011, 03:32 PM
There is only one version of the KJV. The so-called "revisions" since 1611 were the removal of printers' errors and standardization of spelling, which was completed in 1769.

See this article about those "revisions":
http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=05.htm


Really !?!!?


Deuteronomy 26:1 — “which the Lord giueth” vs. “which the LORD thy God giveth”
Joshua 13:29 — “tribe of Manasseh, by” vs. “tribe of the chil*dren of Manasseh by”
Ruth 3:15 — “he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”
Psalm 69:32 — “seeke good” vs. “seek God”
Jeremiah 49:1 — “inherit God” vs. “inherit Gad”
Matthew 16:16 — “Thou art Christ” vs. “Thou art the Christ”
Mark 10:18 — “There is no man good” vs. “there is none good” (note that now “there is” is marked as being added by the trans*la*tors for clarity)
1 Corinthians 4:9 — “approued to death” vs. “appointed to death”


In addi*tion to all of those vari*a*tions, there is another inter*est*ing one at Jeremiah 34:16. Modern ver*sions of the KJV (the Oxford edi*tion and the Cambridge edi*tion) vary on this mat*ter. The Oxford ed. says “…whom ye had set at lib*erty…” while the Cambridge ed. says “…whom he had set at liberty…”

Who is correct?

NoChurchHome
Feb 20th 2011, 10:52 PM
I may get criticism for reviving an old thread but ...


Good for you about the NIV. Many people really like and get a lot from that translation. I was attending Assemblies of God church when they officially endorsed that translation to go along with the KJV. Personally, I don't care for the NIV, but if it works for you then great.

-SEEKING-
Jun 23rd 2011, 10:40 PM
After years and years of reading, and being a fan of the KJV, i have turned the tides and now read the NIV. I actually like the NIV much better. I realize no edition of the bible is the "true" bible, and after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

Hmm. .

The Mighty Sword
Jun 26th 2011, 10:43 PM
It's ok we all make mistakes.

-SEEKING-
Jun 26th 2011, 11:21 PM
It's ok we all make mistakes.

Indeed .

Faithful One
Jun 27th 2011, 01:31 AM
..... after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

You really have become a "gentile", Gentile. :D :lol:

...

Slug1
Jun 27th 2011, 02:51 AM
http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Gentile http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2596614#post2596614)

..... after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.



Hmm. .Ya know... this is either a messageboard example of tug-of-war or it's an example of a wave in the water.

I'll ask... Gentile, so which is it?

fewarechosen
Jun 27th 2011, 03:13 AM
esword and concordence, i find they still mess up hades, shoel, and ghenna(spelling) in whatever versions are out there so i dont take anything for granted.

TrustGzus
Jun 27th 2011, 11:57 AM
esword and concordence, i find they still mess up hades, shoel, and ghenna(spelling) in whatever versions are out there so i dont take anything for granted.What do you mean they mess those words up? Do you think those words shouldn't be translated and should just be brought into English as transliterations?

fewarechosen
Jun 27th 2011, 03:53 PM
What do you mean they mess those words up? Do you think those words shouldn't be translated and should just be brought into English as transliterations?

in most transaltions the lump all those words as - hell

kjv does it and thats one i use in my casual reading. once i looked at concordence i saw the translators were using hell when it is actually 3 different words pertaining to 3 very different things.

i guess i dont trust any version of the bible i trust the spirit that is behind those words. the Holy spirit guides me and lets me grow and discern and shows me i have a long way to go.

TrustGzus
Jun 27th 2011, 04:20 PM
in most transaltions the lump all those words as - hell

kjv does it and thats one i use in my casual reading. once i looked at concordence i saw the translators were using hell when it is actually 3 different words pertaining to 3 very different things.

i guess i dont trust any version of the bible i trust the spirit that is behind those words. the Holy spirit guides me and lets me grow and discern and shows me i have a long way to go.That "most" translations do that is simply false. The KJV uses the word "hell" 54 times. Look at the NIV, NASB and ESV. NIV and NASB use "hell" 13 times. The ESV 14 times. The HCSB only uses "hell" 10 times. In most cases, these translations transliterate hades directly into English. Same with Sheol, though the NIV usually uses "grave". But the ESV and NASB transliterate Sheol into English.

fewarechosen
Jun 27th 2011, 05:01 PM
That "most" translations do that is simply false. The KJV uses the word "hell" 54 times. Look at the NIV, NASB and ESV. NIV and NASB use "hell" 13 times. The ESV 14 times. The HCSB only uses "hell" 10 times. In most cases, these translations transliterate hades directly into English. Same with Sheol, though the NIV usually uses "grave". But the ESV and NASB transliterate Sheol into English.

yea that was a misspoken statement i agree its a false.

i think what i was getting at is that in the translations i have read they all have what i would consider differences from what i get when i translate the words. so i tend to esword and scan over much of the words. I find it adds to the depth and lets me gain clarity.

i have no full grasp of scriptural understanding, but i do not trust anyone translating.

TrustGzus
Jun 27th 2011, 08:20 PM
yea that was a misspoken statement i agree its a false.

i think what i was getting at is that in the translations i have read they all have what i would consider differences from what i get when i translate the words. so i tend to esword and scan over much of the words. I find it adds to the depth and lets me gain clarity.

i have no full grasp of scriptural understanding, but i do not trust anyone translating.If you don't trust anyone translating, are you fluent in reading the original languages?

fewarechosen
Jun 27th 2011, 08:59 PM
nope just look at where and when that word was used in scripture and relate that against translations then ponder it and pray and when the holy spirit is ready it lets me know whats right.

but for sure i NEVER trust anyones translating - for all men are liars

the devil has children as well

Withoutfcf
Jun 28th 2011, 12:33 AM
Uh i'm a fan of The bible.....i like it...a lot...

PilgrimPastor
Jun 28th 2011, 01:33 AM
I am and always have been a fan of the NIV :)

I haven't always cared for the NIV, but in the church I Pastor now I use it since it is in the pews and in doing so I have grown to really appreciate the translation quality. I like the ESV a little better and reference it often, along with the NASB for translation accuracy and the NET / NLT for additional inisights into the text. I use the NIV 1984 addition as I'm not such a big fan of the recent updates.

TrustGzus
Jun 28th 2011, 12:06 PM
I use the NIV 1984 addition as I'm not such a big fan of the recent updates.Why not? What do you think is wrong with the TNIV or NIV2011?

PilgrimPastor
Jun 28th 2011, 04:06 PM
Why not? What do you think is wrong with the TNIV or NIV2011?

TNIV is great for use as a secondary source, very much like the New Living Translation in that way, it is great for ease of readability and it is a translation unto itself with accuracy to the original languages. The NIV2011 has made what I think are simply unnecessary gender inclusion language choices.

A good example of this is in Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (NIV84) vs.
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NIV2011)

Consider the Greek word translated in one instance as "men" and then in the more recent update as "mankind." Strong's: "G444 anthrōpos, anth'-ro-pos, manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man." The choice of the usage mankind is not in error. Its a good choice, BUT what I find troubling is that the time was taken to "fiddle" with the NIV in order to created this update when that time could have been more well spent creating a translation for an un-reached people group.

Are there really that many women who will now come to Christ because they were previously offended that the NIV ued "Men" and not "Mankind?" I doubt it. Every woman I have ever asked if they are troubled by the masculine use of language in these cases in the Bible has not cared in the slightest. They understand that language has certain nuance and sometimes the masculine is used in referrence to all.

NIV2011 is a good translation, BUT was it a needed update? Don't we have enough GREAT translations and shouldn't we (English speakers) be more concerned with reaching other people groups than with the constant revision of the plethora (do you have a plethora of pinatas El Guapo... couldn't resist...) of translations we already have?

TrustGzus
Jun 28th 2011, 05:34 PM
Are there really that many women who will now come to Christ because they were previously offended that the NIV ued "Men" and not "Mankind?" I doubt it. Every woman I have ever asked if they are troubled by the masculine use of language in these cases in the Bible has not cared in the slightest. They understand that language has certain nuance and sometimes the masculine is used in referrence to all. I'd ask about the geography and age of the women you asked. I don't know how old you are. I am 40. For older males like myself, I don't misunderstand the meaning. I work with youth almost exclusively and I have been surprised that many youths take "men" in a wooden literal sense as males.

Craig Blomberg wrote in regard to the TNIV (http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/todays-new-international-version-the-untold-story-of-a-good-translation/) . . .
I also wish to close with a plea. Though I am sure it is not anyone's intention, the critics of the TNIV are making it harder for me to bring up my girls in the Christian faith and to be a faithful witness for Christ in a postmodern culture. For one thing, many people see Christians once again squabbling about something they should not be and are repulsed. Even more seriously, it is becoming harder to differentiate complementarianism (which I endorse) from the anti-inclusive language movement, because so many leaders of the former are joining the latter. For the majority of folks who do not understand the fine differences, it is becoming too easy simply to reject complementarianism altogether, assuming that the hostile polemic against translations like the TNIV is a necessary consequence of that position.

This was brought home to me dramatically, shortly after the NIVI came out, when we had an evangelistic service at our church that included a performance by our children's choir. At that time my older daughter was ten years old and sang in the choir. She invited an unsaved girlfriend of hers to come, and the girl seemed to enjoy the concert and follow our (now retired) Children's Ministry Director as she concluded the service with a very tasteful appeal to trust Christ. In so doing, however, she quoted 2 Cor. 5:17 out of the KJV (the translation she had used almost all her life): “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.” At that point, my daughter's friend, who was sitting between my wife and me, leaned over to my wife and asked with disgust, “Does your church always use language like that?” Of course, we could have explained that the term was generic,83 that even in the NIV which we normally used, “man” and “he” were not present, but the moment of spiritual openness was gone. She knew, from public school upbringing and from common parlance, that such language was neither common nor necessary, and therefore smacked of chauvinism. The woman who read the Scripture I'm sure had no clue what happened and I knew of no effective way to bring up the topic with her, because of her attitude over the years on this issue.

The incident is not an isolated one. This summer, in Ireland, after a presentation at a local church on the gender roles debate, I had a man who must have been at least in his thirties come up and object to my very “moderate” complementarian approach by pointing out how common masculine language was throughout Scripture, following the NIV, and that it seemed large parts of it were addressed only to men. In Colorado, as a guest teacher in an adult Sunday School at a nearby evangelical church, a woman who must have been in her fifties but was a new convert, asked me why the Proverbs were almost exclusively about and addressed to men. In another church, a long-time Christian challenged me when I suggested that there were some leadership roles appropriate for women in the church, by quoting Heb. 13:17 from the NIV: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” I pointed out to him that there was no word for “men” in the Greek, only a generic masculine participle. He was surprised and agreed to reconsider his position. My girls, now fifteen and eleven, understand the gender-inclusive debate (in more detail than they care to given their father's work on this paper!) and can recognize gender- inclusive masculines in the NIV (or NASB which is our current pastor's version of choice), but it continues to sound both odd and exclusive to them whenever they hear it, because that is not how either their friends or their teachers talk.

So I can sympathize with you because I've never misunderstood the passage you mentioned, but the Committee on Bible Translation has kept a thumb on the beat of culture and how their Bible (NIV 84) has been misunderstood as time goes by and culture changes.

So, are you saying you don't object to the changes themselves, just that they made changes at all? I'd say we not only need to continue translating into untranslated languages, but we also need to refine English translations if we can make more English speaking people understand it more accurately.

PilgrimPastor
Jun 28th 2011, 06:16 PM
I'd ask about the geography and age of the women you asked. I don't know how old you are. I am 40. For older males like myself, I don't misunderstand the meaning. I work with youth almost exclusively and I have been surprised that many youths take "men" in a wooden literal sense as males.

Craig Blomberg wrote in regard to the TNIV (http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/todays-new-international-version-the-untold-story-of-a-good-translation/) . . .

So I can sympathize with you because I've never misunderstood the passage you mentioned, but the Committee on Bible Translation has kept a thumb on the beat of culture and how their Bible (NIV 84) has been misunderstood as time goes by and culture changes.

So, are you saying you don't object to the changes themselves, just that they made changes at all? I'd say we not only need to continue translating into untranslated languages, but we also need to refine English translations if we can make more English speaking people understand it more accurately.

My gripe is a VERY soft gripe... almost nonexistent...

I just don't like the consumer mindset of Bible translators, more specifically those who market and pay for their work. I went out of my way to update my Bible software with the 2011 update but I continue to use the 1984 version as primary. Its whats in the pews and if people (especially visitors) choose to follow along while I read the Scripture I want them to be reading what I am reading to avoid any confusion. When I used to read from the ESV I didn't like that the pews didn't match and the Bibles are not old enough to replace! :P

I'm 34 and most of these women have been older. I pastor and have been the pastor of churches that have an older average age dynamic. It may very well be that younger people in general are consistent with your specific experience. NIV is a good translation. I've come to appreciate it much more than I used to. It gets at the meaning of the text and it actually retains a lot of sentence structure and word usage in common with the KJV, to its credit.

howszat
Jun 28th 2011, 07:33 PM
After years and years of reading, and being a fan of the KJV, i have turned the tides and now read the NIV. I actually like the NIV much better. I realize no edition of the bible is the "true" bible, and after doing alot of research I have realized the KJV is the most deceiving version out there.

If you are Christian, you are no longer a Gentile. Here is the appropriate cites from the NIV to prove it:

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/chapter/?verse=Ephesians+2&version=niv

Jew and Gentile Reconciled Through Christ

11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.



Therefore, it appears you are not a Gentile. :)

TrustGzus
Jun 28th 2011, 09:17 PM
My gripe is a VERY soft gripe... almost nonexistent...

I just don't like the consumer mindset of Bible translators, more specifically those who market and pay for their work. I went out of my way to update my Bible software with the 2011 update but I continue to use the 1984 version as primary. Its whats in the pews and if people (especially visitors) choose to follow along while I read the Scripture I want them to be reading what I am reading to avoid any confusion. When I used to read from the ESV I didn't like that the pews didn't match and the Bibles are not old enough to replace! :P

I'm 34 and most of these women have been older. I pastor and have been the pastor of churches that have an older average age dynamic. It may very well be that younger people in general are consistent with your specific experience. NIV is a good translation. I've come to appreciate it much more than I used to. It gets at the meaning of the text and it actually retains a lot of sentence structure and word usage in common with the KJV, to its credit.Cool. Thanks for the reply.

-SEEKING-
Jun 30th 2011, 04:11 AM
So, what's the final verdict Gentile?

Hunter121
Jun 30th 2011, 04:17 AM
I'm joining in late :) but in my view I don't like the NIV, I think it's more deceiving, I really like the NKJV.

-SEEKING-
Jun 30th 2011, 04:18 AM
I'm joining in late :) but in my view I don't like the NIV, I think it's more deceiving, I really like the NKJV.

More deceiving than what?

The Mighty Sword
Jun 30th 2011, 03:35 PM
I'm joining in late :) but in my view I don't like the NIV, I think it's more deceiving, I really like the NKJV.

Over the past couple of days, I'm finding more and more that the NIV (caps) has far more original translation that I first thought concerning Aramaic, now with that being said I have been comparing the NIV the KJV and the Aramaic bible and to my surprise the NIV has many of the same passages and the AB, but many words were removed such as "begotten" etc.... but not enough to close the pages of the NIV because of translation, also keep in mind many believe the NIV is more of a greek translation as opposed to the KJV written from the codex vatanicus which many words and passages were changed from a latin perspective. For myself I have concluded the NIV and the KJV should be used simultaneously for those who have that option and the variances can be balanced to again "the open minded reader" which I have recently become and you'll find like the OT original text written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Syriac and so was the NT.

Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
NIV/KJV. And remember a treasure is not so easily found.

Love, peace and chicken grease.

TMS

TrustGzus
Jun 30th 2011, 07:35 PM
TMS,

I appreciate your newest post. KJV and NIV are both great translations. I am really curious about your strong view of Aramaic originals. I agree that Aramaic was the primary language of Jews. It's universally accepted that portions of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic. You state in your newest post . . .
For myself I have concluded the NIV and the KJV should be used simultaneously for those who have that option and the variances can be balanced to again "the open minded reader" which I have recently become and you'll find like the OT original text written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Syriac and so was the NT.
It's obvious that your opinion is the NT was written in Aramaic. My question is, what evidence do you have of this? The NIV Committee on Bible Translation has a different opinion of this and so while you give the NIV some positive review here, they have a differing conclusion than you. From their introduction we read about the Old Testament . . .
For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text have been divided differently than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text. They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes. The translators also consulted the more important early versions—the Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Pe****ta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes. Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text. Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes.

The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.So they state that their main text was the Hebrew Masoretic text based on the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica and that they consulted the Aramaic Targums.

In regard to the New Testament they state . . .
The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where uncertainty remains.
The New Testament authors, writing in Greek, often quote the Old Testament from its ancient Greek version, the Septuagint. This is one reason why some of the Old Testament quotations in the NIV New Testament are not identical to the corresponding passages in the NIV Old Testament. Such quotations in the New Testament are indicated with the footnote “(see Septuagint).”


The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.That first sentence of the second paragraph sums up their view. "The New Testament authors, writing in Greek, often quote the Old Testament from its ancient Greek version, the Septuagint."

Ronald Youngblood is a scholar whose speciality is Old Testament and Hebrew. He is one of the editors of Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. So if the NT had good evidence of being written in the native tongue of the Jews, I would expect Youngblood to surely be a scholar to bring this up. Yet in Nelson's it states . . .
While the New Testament was written in the Greek language, the language Jesus spoke was probably Aramaic. “Talitha, cumi” (Mark 5:41) and “Ephphatha” (Mark 7:34) are two Aramaic phrases spoken by Jesus that have been preserved in English versions of the New Testament.

Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Nashville: T. Nelson.
I find it interesting that the editors write Jesus "probably" spoke Aramaic. They aren't definitive on that. Two of the three editors (Youngblood and Harrison) were Old Testament scholars. So if there was a bias in the editors, I'd think it would be towards Old Testament kind of thinking if a bias were present.

So, while it could be true that everything was written in Aramaic logically speaking (i.e. no laws of logic are violated), some facts are:

men who have spent their entire professional lives on these issues, who even specialized in Old Testament, believe that the NT was written in Greek and more often than not quotes a Greek version of the OT.
Greek had become a universal language due to Alexander the Great and thus the arise of the Septuagint around 250 bc (give-or-take) is very understandable.
The Gospel was meant to go the entire world. Most of which was speaking Greek, not Aramaic.
The oldest NT manuscripts are Greek.



So with that in mind, back to my question -- what evidence do you have that suggests to go with the idea that the NT was written in Aramaic?

I don't write this to be argumentative and fight you. I write this to say please convince me. But I hope you can see from the little I've written why the idea of an Aramaic NT original appears to not be likely.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The Mighty Sword
Jun 30th 2011, 07:44 PM
TMS,

I appreciate your newest post. KJV and NIV are both great translations. I am really curious about your strong view of Aramaic originals. I agree that Aramaic was the primary language of Jews. It's universally accepted that portions of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic. You state in your newest post . . .
It's obvious that your opinion is the NT was written in Aramaic. My question is, what evidence do you have of this? The NIV Committee on Bible Translation has a different opinion of this and so while you give the NIV some positive review here, they have a differing conclusion than you. From their introduction we read about the Old Testament . . . So they state that their main text was the Hebrew Masoretic text based on the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica and that they consulted the Aramaic Targums.

In regard to the New Testament they state . . . That first sentence of the second paragraph sums up their view. "The New Testament authors, writing in Greek, often quote the Old Testament from its ancient Greek version, the Septuagint."

Ronald Youngblood is a scholar whose speciality is Old Testament and Hebrew. He is one of the editors of Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. So if the NT had good evidence of being written in the native tongue of the Jews, I would expect Youngblood to surely be a scholar to bring this up. Yet in Nelson's it states . . .
I find it interesting that the editors write Jesus "probably" spoke Aramaic. They aren't definitive on that. Two of the three editors (Youngblood and Harrison) were Old Testament scholars. So if there was a bias in the editors, I'd think it would be towards Old Testament kind of thinking if a bias were present.

So, while it could be true that everything was written in Aramaic logically speaking (i.e. no laws of logic are violated), some facts are:

men who have spent their entire professional lives on these issues, who even specialized in Old Testament, believe that the NT was written in Greek and more often than not quotes a Greek version of the OT.
Greek had become a universal language due to Alexander the Great and thus the arise of the Septuagint around 250 bc (give-or-take) is very understandable.
The Gospel was meant to go the entire world. Most of which was speaking Greek, not Aramaic.
The oldest NT manuscripts are Greek.
So with that in mind, back to my question -- what evidence do you have that suggests to go with the idea that the NT was written in Aramaic?

I don't write this to be argumentative and fight you. I write this to say please convince me. But I hope you can see from the little I've written why the idea of an Aramaic NT original appears to not be likely.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

I could easily ask " what evidence do you have to proves it wasn't, none. So to cure you of your curiosity here ya go.
http://www.ntcanon.org/Pe****ta.shtml
(http://www.ntcanon.org/Pe****ta.shtml)
And I quote "By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church's version of the Bible, the Pe****ta ('simple' translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books - all of the present New Testament except:II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John"
As you can imagine I'm not one that entertains the status quo :D, not really big on , but, but, but they said. :idea:
And here is where I can read it http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/matthew/10.htm

Hunter121
Jul 1st 2011, 04:05 AM
What do you all think of the NKJV, I say this because it's really the only that I've read, besides KJV and NIV.

The Mighty Sword
Jul 1st 2011, 11:58 AM
What do you all think of the NKJV, I say this because it's really the only that I've read, besides KJV and NIV.

I think the NKJV is fine, get what you can out of it and if and when you're ready to move on at least you will be able to say " been there and done that".