Are The New Bible Versions Today Really Sound? This Is Not A 'kjv Only' Post ...

[God is Love]

It wasn't meant to be 'positive'...or ear tickling. It was meant to wake people up to what is going on with these 'alternative texts'. The whole lot of them hinges on one man who is very suspect in his account. The Sinaiticus has a very sketchy discovery and has been considered by many to be a forgery or even made in the 1800's by many. There are no real eyewitness accounts that can attest to the legitimacy of that text. If it is a fake, then history takes a big turn in a different direction. Do some research and you may just get a shock like I did...

TC

Ugh, I really did want to be done with this thread... Do you really think God would make it so complicated that people have to basically learn 10 billion things just to be able to read the Bible? No, I think it is clear he just wants us to read the Word. http://www.openbible.info/topics/reading_the_word_of_god

Does everyone need to start learning and reading the biblical languages too or else they are being subject to heresy? When does it stop?

The Word of God is in the NIV bible despite whatever "evidence" you have.. Pick one up and you'll realize you're reading the same book.

Euph- the Holy Spirit is the one who led me away from those counterfeit Bibles and out of the apostate 'American church system'. I am inclined to think the 'spirit' you listen to is different than the one I hear for that very reason...

Now you are questioning other believers? What gives you the right?

 

[The Town Crier]

Yeah, I'm still up. Shouldn't be, but I am. Isaiah 28. I tried to figure out how to make a better transliteration of the words, but I give up. Let's just try this: "tzav l'tzav, tzav l'tzav, qav l'qav, qav l'qav." That is extremely close to the words in this Scripture.

Thanks!

G'night!!

You are welcome...uh I am a bit confused though. what is the mistake there? Let's look at what I wrote about that verse:

My PDF says

'Compare Isaiah 28- verses 9-10:


KJV:


Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:




NIV:


9 “Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast? 10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”

NIV Footnotes:


Isaiah 28:10 Hebrew / sav lasav sav lasav / kav lakav kav lakav (probably meaningless sounds mimicking the prophet’s words); also in verse 13


The NIV calls verse 10 ‘meaningless sounds that are mimicking a prophet’…?


And they do say that ...according to their own footnotes- those are meaningless sounds mimicking the prophet... But that verse is actually describing how the word of God is written. Therefore we should study it that way... hence giving the example of Paul teaching about those on 'the milk'. I also pointed out that the NIV adds a question mark after 'those taken from the breast' which is huge because it hides the answer and turns it into a question instead:

*Notice a question mark is placed after ‘those taken from the breast’ in the NIV, changing it from being the answer to the questions to being an additional question. This is a huge change that removes ‘how and when’ we begin to receive knowledge. The KJV specifically says that knowledge is taught ‘to those who are removed from babies milk’- which matches the New Testament where Paul taught the same thing- that those on ‘babies milk’ are unskillful (lack knowledge) in the word of God:


Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

Old Testament writing matches New Testament teaching...Everything Jesus and the apostles taught is found within the pages of the Old Testament and it lines up perfect with what Paul said about those 'on milk'. Maybe I missed your point there, so I won't go any further without letting you clarify your point...God Bless and Good Night to you as well!

TC

 

[The Town Crier]

Ugh, I really did want to be done with this thread... Do you really think God would make it so complicated that people have to basically learn 10 billion things just to be able to read the Bible? No, I think it is clear he just wants us to read the Word. http://www.openbible.info/topics/reading_the_word_of_god

Does everyone need to start learning and reading the biblical languages too or else they are being subject to heresy? When does it stop?

The Word of God is in the NIV bible despite whatever "evidence" you have.. Pick one up and you'll realize you're reading the same book.

Euph- the Holy Spirit is the one who led me away from those counterfeit Bibles and out of the apostate 'American church system'. I am inclined to think the 'spirit' you listen to is different than the one I hear for that very reason...

Now you are questioning other believers? What gives you the right?

Man I get sick to my stomach when I read the NIV...It is disgusting! How people can read that garbage is beyond me...it is so far away from the truth that it is not even funny.

I said nowhere that people need to start learning and reading 'biblical languages'...Just compare the versions with each other and it is very easy to see the differences in the translations. Turn of the stinkin TV for a few weeks and go compare the two in a serious manner! Oh-do some serious fasting and praying while you are at it.. If you earnestly search and compare, I believe you will see something truly shocking...

I am not 'questioning another believer'... I am questioning whether or not he 'really is a believer'. If he cannot discern the times we are in and the condition of American churches, then I will certainly question what 'spirit' he listens to.


TC

 

[CeileDe]

Man I get sick to my stomach when I read the NIV...It is disgusting! How people can read that garbage is beyond me...it is so far away from the truth that it is not even funny.

I said nowhere that people need to start learning and reading 'biblical languages'...Just compare the versions with each other and it is very easy to see the differences in the translations. Turn of the stinkin TV for a few weeks and go compare the two in a serious manner! Oh-do some serious fasting and praying while you are at it.. If you earnestly search and compare, I believe you will see something truly shocking...

I am not 'questioning another believer'... I am questioning whether or not he 'really is a believer'. If he cannot discern the times we are in and the condition of American churches, then I will certainly question what 'spirit' he listens to.


TC

I see you completely ignored my post #53. Please answer that post.

 

[Euphemia]

nah...I know what Spirit I have been taught by and it is easy to see that American churches are fallen. I have more good quality fellowship going to a small home group and working in the ministry every day than I ever did at 'institutionalized churches'. They are all just going through the motions...most are too busy watching NFL Football, shopping for idols, and taking the kids to soccer practice to do the will of God! Sad situation but true...

TC

Pessimism is not of God. Not every church is fallen. God is bigger than that. Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, His spotless Bride. I am part of that---aren't you? I am glad that you are in a fruitful home church., but I can see by your attitude that you look down on other Christians, and make general condemnations about them. Sad.

Romans 8:1 (NKJV)
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

 

[Euphemia]

Man I get sick to my stomach when I read the NIV...It is disgusting! How people can read that garbage is beyond me...it is so far away from the truth that it is not even funny.

What you have said here is very telling. Do you know that people find Jesus Christ and are fed solidly through the study of God's word in the NIV? Your judgment is foolhardly, reckless, and is born out of highmindedness.

I said nowhere that people need to start learning and reading 'biblical languages'...Just compare the versions with each other and it is very easy to see the differences in the translations.

Many, many Christians do that already, but it isn't necessary for everyone, because it is Holy Spirit who is our teacher, not the letter. A child doesn't need to be so critically thinking to receive from God.

I am not 'questioning another believer'... I am questioning whether or not he 'really is a believer'. If he cannot discern the times we are in and the condition of American churches, then I will certainly question what 'spirit' he listens to.

You are setting yourself and your knowledge above others. That is pride. God is perfectly capable of revealing Himself and His truth through any of the widely accepted English versions of the bible we have today. We don't need conspiracy theorists, doomsayers or fearmongers telling us what you seem to have come to say, and to do, which is to try to rob the believer of his/her confidence in the word for truth!

 

[Huntingteckel]

Man I get sick to my stomach when I read the NIV...It is disgusting! How people can read that garbage is beyond me...it is so far away from the truth that it is not even funny.

I said nowhere that people need to start learning and reading 'biblical languages'...Just compare the versions with each other and it is very easy to see the differences in the translations. Turn of the stinkin TV for a few weeks and go compare the two in a serious manner! Oh-do some serious fasting and praying while you are at it.. If you earnestly search and compare, I believe you will see something truly shocking...

I am not 'questioning another believer'... I am questioning whether or not he 'really is a believer'. If he cannot discern the times we are in and the condition of American churches, then I will certainly question what 'spirit' he listens to.


TC

Condescending much?

 

[TezriLi]

I guess you did not read the warnings that God put in His book for us to look out for false doctrine then...Go do your own research on the Codex Sinaiticus and a couple guys named
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)

Then ask yourself how legitimate their Greek translation work really is...I will not try to convince you- just check it out for yourself...

TC

Town, I don't know you. I have no agenda against you. You are another person on this hard, cold media that presents itself to me as a pale blue rectangle with squiggly markings I read as words and numerals. That's it. But I have learned to enjoy these persons and their personalities as presented here, and I imagine that I "know" them a little. So I admit that when I read words that seem angry, that seem to put people down, I admit I wonder why. Perhaps you are so intent on making sure people understand your writings, that you save people from these Bibles, that you don't realize what you are writing. This makes it hard for me to respond. I do appreciate that you are kind to me, but I ask you to lighten up, so I can see who you really are. Is that all right? Please?

The first time I ran into Westcott and Hort was at a church convention @ 1995 in a pamphlet being passed around there and appreciated by the leadership and the majority of the others. It was claimed to be written by a lawyer, as if that should impress us, who knew nothing about the author -- just a name, whether a pen name or his own was unknown. But the book, which deserved ridicule rather than the praise it was being given there, piqued my curiosity about these two persons (Wescott and Hort) and about those who put together the KVJ.

Here's my point: the pamphlet lauded the KJV and solidly denounced all other versions. Many of the points in your paper were in the pamphlet, but certainly not all, and it had other points. (Somewhere around here, I still have the book with my red notes ablaze in it, but finding it would be tedious, our library being such a mess right now.) But it spurred me on to look into others who edited Bibles, including the KJV.

Town, I really think that before you publish your paper, which seems to put forth the KJV as the ideal -- even the only! -- acceptable Bible, you might want to do a little work on your statements about Westcott and Hort. If you criticize them, then you must also look into those who put the KJV together. The temptation may be there to pass over the entertainment provided for those persons while they worked on the KJV; for some of them, to ignore their really messy personal lives; to decide that they just didn't have the "light" and must be excused. The problem is that when we open up criticism for the editors of the NIV (or any other Bible), we have to accept that the readers will become curious about the editors of the Bible you promote. When they check into these things, your writing will only be seen through what they learn, and you will have lost your readers.

 

[calvin]

First, go read post 19 and answer the questions there. Second- there is no 'conspiracy. It is a fact that the new versions com from a different set of texts. no one argues that. the question is why is the evangelical church using Catholic writings for their Bibles...

TC

TC the conspiracy theory is evident in your post....."the question is why is the evangelical church using Catholic writings for their Bibles... "
As for post #19 it is way too long.
If you can't get your point across in less that 10 lines.................give up.

 

[DavidG]

Town, I don't know you. I have no agenda against you. You are another person on this hard, cold media that presents itself to me as a pale blue rectangle with squiggly markings I read as words and numerals. That's it. But I have learned to enjoy these persons and their personalities as presented here, and I imagine that I "know" them a little. So I admit that when I read words that seem angry, that seem to put people down, I admit I wonder why. Perhaps you are so intent on making sure people understand your writings, that you save people from these Bibles, that you don't realize what you are writing. This makes it hard for me to respond. I do appreciate that you are kind to me, but I ask you to lighten up, so I can see who you really are. Is that all right? Please?

The first time I ran into Westcott and Hort was at a church convention @ 1995 in a pamphlet being passed around there and appreciated by the leadership and the majority of the others. It was claimed to be written by a lawyer, as if that should impress us, who knew nothing about the author -- just a name, whether a pen name or his own was unknown. But the book, which deserved ridicule rather than the praise it was being given there, piqued my curiosity about these two persons (Wescott and Hort) and about those who put together the KVJ.

Here's my point: the pamphlet lauded the KJV and solidly denounced all other versions. Many of the points in your paper were in the pamphlet, but certainly not all, and it had other points. (Somewhere around here, I still have the book with my red notes ablaze in it, but finding it would be tedious, our library being such a mess right now.) But it spurred me on to look into others who edited Bibles, including the KJV.

Town, I really think that before you publish your paper, which seems to put forth the KJV as the ideal -- even the only! -- acceptable Bible, you might want to do a little work on your statements about Westcott and Hort. If you criticize them, then you must also look into those who put the KJV together. The temptation may be there to pass over the entertainment provided for those persons while they worked on the KJV; for some of them, to ignore their really messy personal lives; to decide that they just didn't have the "light" and must be excused. The problem is that when we open up criticism for the editors of the NIV (or any other Bible), we have to accept that the readers will become curious about the editors of the Bible you promote. When they check into these things, your writing will only be seen through what they learn, and you will have lost your readers.

Great post.

@The Town Crier :
I don't quite understand your argument(s). I won't argue that NIV occasionally borders on paraphrase over translation, but showing differences between NIV and KJV and then weighing in on the basis of spiritual import of the changes rather than proximity to the autographs doesn't have much to do with accuracy or quality of translation.

One could easily make the case that concerned clergy made additions in the chain that led to the TR "for the sake of clarity" as easily as one may argue that MT,NTG,or NA28 purged or corrupted text.

As to Catholic influence...there was plenty of Catholic scholarship on all sides here. Why trust Erasmus more than others? If Catholicism is the issue (or modern American bible scholarship) why not go with the German Bible Society?

If these arguments aren't the point, if the Holy Spirit is somehow leading you to the TR why endorse the KJV over the NKJV for better modern understanding?

 

[The Town Crier]

I see you completely ignored my post #53. Please answer that post.

sorry about that- wasn't intentional..If you had read the PDF and the context of it- I am making the point that the new versions diminish the gospel by removing a 'little here and a little there'. I did not claim it took out 'every one of them'- just the most prominent ones. I could list many more places the Triune nature of God is removed in the NIV but here are the examples that I gave

The NIV removes that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one in 1 John 5:7-8

KJV:

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 Jn 5:8 nd there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The NIV completely removes the triune Godhead in their version:

NIV: For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


The NIV also removes God’s name from Timothy 3:16-that clearly shows Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

KJV:

1 Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


NIV:

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.


‘He’ leaves an open door for the heretical teaching that Jesus was not the manifestation of God... The NIV does it again in 1 John 3:16. The KJV says that God laid down His life for us. The NIV changes ‘God’ laid down His life for us to ‘Jesus Christ’ removing yet another identifier of God being manifested in the flesh:

KJV: 1 Jn 3:16 ereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

NIV: 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

And I ask the question again:

Why does the NIV (and other new versions) change those three places, when the Greek says ‘Theos’... And why would the places in the Bible that clearly show Jesus and God are one be removed?

The reason is because the manuscript that the NIV comes from is different and corrupted. the evidence is everywhere...

Go read the PDF and it explains a little on how the doctrine of grace is changed in the new versions as well...

TC

 

[The Town Crier]

Town, I don't know you. I have no agenda against you. You are another person on this hard, cold media that presents itself to me as a pale blue rectangle with squiggly markings I read as words and numerals. That's it. But I have learned to enjoy these persons and their personalities as presented here, and I imagine that I "know" them a little. So I admit that when I read words that seem angry, that seem to put people down, I admit I wonder why. Perhaps you are so intent on making sure people understand your writings, that you save people from these Bibles, that you don't realize what you are writing. This makes it hard for me to respond. I do appreciate that you are kind to me, but I ask you to lighten up, so I can see who you really are. Is that all right? Please?

The first time I ran into Westcott and Hort was at a church convention @ 1995 in a pamphlet being passed around there and appreciated by the leadership and the majority of the others. It was claimed to be written by a lawyer, as if that should impress us, who knew nothing about the author -- just a name, whether a pen name or his own was unknown. But the book, which deserved ridicule rather than the praise it was being given there, piqued my curiosity about these two persons (Wescott and Hort) and about those who put together the KVJ.

Here's my point: the pamphlet lauded the KJV and solidly denounced all other versions. Many of the points in your paper were in the pamphlet, but certainly not all, and it had other points. (Somewhere around here, I still have the book with my red notes ablaze in it, but finding it would be tedious, our library being such a mess right now.) But it spurred me on to look into others who edited Bibles, including the KJV.

Town, I really think that before you publish your paper, which seems to put forth the KJV as the ideal -- even the only! -- acceptable Bible, you might want to do a little work on your statements about Westcott and Hort. If you criticize them, then you must also look into those who put the KJV together. The temptation may be there to pass over the entertainment provided for those persons while they worked on the KJV; for some of them, to ignore their really messy personal lives; to decide that they just didn't have the "light" and must be excused. The problem is that when we open up criticism for the editors of the NIV (or any other Bible), we have to accept that the readers will become curious about the editors of the Bible you promote. When they check into these things, your writing will only be seen through what they learn, and you will have lost your readers.

Fair enough tez and well spoken! Completely set aside who Wescott and Hort are then and just compare scripture with scripture as that is the real evidence of a Word that is tried and pure...I responded to your post above about Isaiah 28 so lets look at that now and please tell me where I am mistaken that the NIV removes the description of how the Word of God is written...(see post #82)

Blessings,
TC

 

[The Town Crier]

TC the conspiracy theory is evident in your post....."the question is why is the evangelical church using Catholic writings for their Bibles... "
As for post #19 it is way too long.
If you can't get your point across in less that 10 lines.................give up.

Why ...you cant compare more than ten lines of scripture? the Bible is a very big book with a lot of information. Paul wrote far more than 'ten lines' in his letters to the churches...Many preachers have written entire books on just one verse to make their point so I hardly see those few lines as a stumbling block for you...What I posted there is a very minimal amount of info that even a ten year old could read so I know for a fact that you can too...

TC

 

[Huntingteckel]

Why ...you cant compare more than ten lines of scripture? the Bible is a very big book with a lot of information. Paul wrote far more than 'ten lines' in his letters to the churches...Many preachers have written entire books on just one verse to make their point so I hardly see those few lines as a stumbling block for you...What I posted there is a very minimal amount of info that even a ten year old could read so I know for a fact that you can too...

TC

There you go again with the insults.

 

[The Town Crier]

There you go again with the insults.

That was not an insult- it was a fact. He is claiming a lack of ability to read ten lines of explanation when it is more likely to be laziness or even worse a willingness to at least consider what someone might be saying...

It is akin to when Paul fed them milk not meat because they were carnal and couldn't bear it..If it walks like a duck...

Let him answer for himself.

TC

 

[The Town Crier]

Great post.

@The Town Crier :
I don't quite understand your argument(s). I won't argue that NIV occasionally borders on paraphrase over translation, but showing differences between NIV and KJV and then weighing in on the basis of spiritual import of the changes rather than proximity to the autographs doesn't have much to do with accuracy or quality of translation.

One could easily make the case that concerned clergy made additions in the chain that led to the TR "for the sake of clarity" as easily as one may argue that MT,NTG,or NA28 purged or corrupted text.

As to Catholic influence...there was plenty of Catholic scholarship on all sides here. Why trust Erasmus more than others? If Catholicism is the issue (or modern American bible scholarship) why not go with the German Bible Society?

If these arguments aren't the point, if the Holy Spirit is somehow leading you to the TR why endorse the KJV over the NKJV for better modern understanding?

These words are spirit and they are life...We are quickened by the precepts of God. Man shall not live but by every word of God

If the food you are getting looks good, tastes good, and fills you up for awhile, is laced with slow killing poison... how good is that food really? The new versions- though they may look and sound good- are clever counterfeits. They are laced with poisonous doctrines and that is the very reason that today there is a lack of spiritual discernment and carnality among congregations.

They are part of the reason that gay marriage is being accepted rather than rejected, they are the reason why people are still idolators and fornicators and abusers of themselves...because the word they are reading is not having any real effect on them. Today's Bibles are diluted copies of the Word. I would offer up this challenge to you. Read the KJV or another olderBible that is based on the majority/ received text for three months and compare it just to itself- not with other translations. Watch what happens...The subtle differences between it and the 'revised text' translations like NIV, NASB, ESV, etc will begin to stand out like a sore thumb to you...

TC

 

[Huntingteckel]

That was not an insult- it was a fact. He is claiming a lack of ability to read ten lines of explanation when it is more likely to be laziness or even worse a willingness to at least consider what someone might be saying...

It is akin to when Paul fed them milk not meat because they were carnal and couldn't bear it..If it walks like a duck...

Let him answer for himself.

TC

He's not claiming lack of ability to read ten lines. He's saying he doesn't want to. I also don't feel like reading short novels from people who think they are special just because they did a PC file with nothing original in it.

 

[Euphemia]

The new versions- though they may look and sound good are clever counterfeits. They are laced with poisonous doctrines and that is the very reason that today there is a lack of spiritual discernment and carnality among congregations.

They are part of the reason that gay marriage is being accepted rather than rejected, they are the reason why people are still idolators and fornicators and abusers of themselves...because the word they are reading is not having any real effect on them. Today's Bibles are diluted copies of a the Word.

Not true.

 

[CeileDe]

sorry about that- wasn't intentional..If you had read the PDF and the context of it- I am making the point that the new versions diminish the gospel by removing a 'little here and a little there'. I did not claim it took out 'every one of them'- just the most prominent ones. I could list many more places the Triune nature of God is removed in the NIV but here are the examples that I gave

The NIV removes that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one in 1 John 5:7-8

KJV:

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 Jn 5:8 nd there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The NIV completely removes the triune Godhead in their version:

NIV: For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


The NIV also removes God’s name from Timothy 3:16-that clearly shows Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

KJV:

1 Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


NIV:

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.


‘He’ leaves an open door for the heretical teaching that Jesus was not the manifestation of God... The NIV does it again in 1 John 3:16. The KJV says that God laid down His life for us. The NIV changes ‘God’ laid down His life for us to ‘Jesus Christ’ removing yet another identifier of God being manifested in the flesh:

KJV: 1 Jn 3:16 ereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

NIV: 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

And I ask the question again:

Why does the NIV (and other new versions) change those three places, when the Greek says ‘Theos’... And why would the places in the Bible that clearly show Jesus and God are one be removed?

The reason is because the manuscript that the NIV comes from is different and corrupted. the evidence is everywhere...

Go read the PDF and it explains a little on how the doctrine of grace is changed in the new versions as well...

TC

You made the claim that the NIV is of the devil. You claimed it took away the divinity of Jesus. You also claim that,most Christians in the US aren't saved because of the NIV. That comment is no biblical.

 

[The Town Crier]

He's not claiming lack of ability to read ten lines. He's saying he doesn't want to. I also don't feel like reading short novels from people who think they are special just because they did a PC file with nothing original in it.

You are right about one thing...there is nothing 'original' in it. These same warnings have been going out for years by preachers and pastors far more understanding of the Word of God than me...I am just blowing the trumpet as well.

1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

TC