Nothing new. Now how do I get those 10 minutes back?
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, if I had the opportunity to banish some people to Mars with just enough supplies to sustain them for eighty years,....alongside of Bill Gates and the windoze development team, you would find the niv translators.
But I can't tar all modern translators with the same brush.
As I read your post, I was reminded of one of the chief objections to the gospel. People look at the antics of the various churches and judge the gospel accordingly. I'm talking about glass cathedrals etc.etc.
The point is and this I feel applies to your argument; just because you don't like the salesman, don't forgo buying a good and necessary product. Some people might not get the 'warm fuzzies' when thinking RC, but the honest work of their scholars should never be despised.
Now, I have a question for you:
Do you honestly think that Christians should be party to....or even the originators of conspiracy theories?
Murphy- that is not actually true...Nowhere is there real documentation that the 'critical text is from 1500 years before the reformation. Having said that- Since you think such of the NIV- answer this question...DO you believe in the triune nature of the Godhead? Is Jesus God made flesh? If so- should a translation omit those things?
The NIV removes that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one in 1 John 5:7-8:
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And 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.
1Ti 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.
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: 1Jn 3:16 Hereby 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.
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?
Now here is another fact for you...
The NIV removes ‘Lord’ 39 times, ‘Christ’ 52 times, ‘Jesus’ 87 times and ‘God’ 13 times. Yep, the Lords name or His deity is removed over 190 times.Why is that?
Here is some more for you...The NIV removes the Lords words in many places... Let’s look at the Lord’s prayer:
Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 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.
Jesus red letter words are removed...Those two verses are missing from the NIV:
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.[b]3 Give us each day our daily bread.4 Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[c]
And lead us not into temptation.[d]’”
The NIV omits ‘Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’ in Romans 8:
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
NIV: Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
In the NIV, it is removed-thus hiding the ‘spiritual nature’ of those who are saved...
The NIV omits Jesus words that they are spiritually minded disciples in Luke Chapter 9 removing the transforming power and purpose of Jesus:
Luk 9:53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.And they went to another village.
53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[b]?” 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them. 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village.
Why the changes there?
Here is one for you to explain...Jesus says He is the “morning star” in Revelation 22:16:
Rev 22:16 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 gives Satan the name ’morning star’ in Isaiah 14:12:
ISA 14-12: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
So then who is really the 'morning star'?
How important is fasting to our faith? The NIV removes it in several verses:
Example 1: Mark 9:29
KJV: And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
NIV: He replied, This kind can come out only by prayer.
Example 2: Acts 10:30
KJV : And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
NIV: Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. suddenly a man in shining clothing stood before me"
Example 3: Matthew 17: 21
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
NIV: Matthew 17:21 is completely omitted and instead a ‘footnote’ given that similar words appear in Mark...They flat out remove Jesus ‘red letter’ words of power!
Example 4: 1Corinthians 7:5
KJV: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
NIV: Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
The act of fasting is denying the flesh. It is an acknowledgement that we believe. The act of fasting is also a way that we grow in grace (spiritual strength). Why would the writers omit fasting- given that it is so important? Selah...(consider it)
This is a very small sample of thousands of errors in the new versions. Not just because of translation work- but because the manuscript they come from is different. It came mostly from Catholics texts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
They were used by two heretics named Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) to make the ‘revised’ Greek New testament that most versions today come from. These two people did not believe in the deity of Jesus, the infallibility of scriptures, the second coming of Jesus Christ or His 1,000-year reign on earth. They also did not believe in the triune Godhead or in a literal devil either. They did however believe heavily in doctrines of the Roman Catholic church as evidenced by their own words. Let’s look at a few of their ‘beliefs’...
Believed in Mary worship:
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common."
(Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
Were pro Roman Catholic:
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."
(Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
Disputed that Jesus is the Word:
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
Rejected the infallibility of Scripture:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
Didn’t believe Genesis was an actual account of Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, from Which Bible?, p. 191).
Had an infatuation with the teachings of Darwin:
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."
(Hort, from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Hort believed that they were starting a new ‘church period’:
"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)
He was right...and their aim was intentional. The fact is, the new ‘bibles’ are not sound doctrine. They are based upon faulty manuscripts from people who did not really believe the gospel. Consider this...Why does the Roman Catholic Church promote documents that are supposedly ‘Protestant’ in nature when they are against Protestantism? Do your own research on the true history of those texts, and then test the beliefs of the ‘translators’ with scripture... You will find serious problems.
The NIV is just the worst of the offenders.
I tend to have long posts, so I find it easier to just put it in a PDF so people can look at everything at once. But I did go ahead and 'post a few of my thoughts' in post #19 to murphy. Go read them and then I'd like you to answer to the questions that I asked him...You come up with all these pdfs and expect people to read them. Why not just post your own thoughts?
You have not read what is in it...I compare some scriptures in there with each other in a way that begs the question 'why are they so different in doctrine'. I did not ask you to prove my point. I asked you to answer the questions. If you do not have a valid rebuttal to them, then I suggest you reconsider what you 'think' you know...The PDF contains no new information. This is other people's work. I'm not going to help you prove your point nor entertain you.
I for one use many translations but prefer the ESV and NASB. Jesus is God and the NIV doesn't say otherwise. There are plenty of versus in the NIV that will give the reader the understanding that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't particularly like the new version of the NIV. The King James Version isn't a very accurate translation either. How about you point out some of its mistranslations?I tend to have long posts, so I find it easier to just put it in a PDF so people can look at everything at once. But I did go ahead and 'post a few of my thoughts' in post #19 to murphy. Go read them and then I'd like you to answer to the questions that I asked him...
The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." -Catholic Catechism 107
What I don't understand about your post is, are you trying to say that RCC does not believe in the Trinity, or the translators of the NIV?
The Holy Trinity is not found in the Bible, it is a dogma propagated by the First Ecumenical Council in order to squash the heresy of Arianism, which assumed that Christ was not God.
I think what you may think is the NIV attempting to alter scripture, is actually a more literal translation that does not attempt to propagate the Trinity.
I also think, based on reading some of your selected scriptures, that you yourself may not understand the dogma of the Trinity. The basic idea is that Christ Jesus is God, Jehovah (the Father) is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but Jesus is not Jehovah, and is not the Holy Spirit. Though the three are of one substance and co-eternal and make one Godhead.
In this case, you can say Christ died, or God died, and as far as the Trinity is concerned this is an equivalent statement.
As for Mary-worship, I know of know self-respecting Catholic who will tell you that the Church instructs anyone to worship Mary. They do, however, venerate her as the "Mother of God" because the human and divine natures of Christ are indivisible.
To think, though, that the best translation of the Bible is not the original language it was written in, is just absurd to me. And what manuscripts do you think the translators of KJV used?
Not to mention, the Lord's prayer uses the addition of "Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory" even though this was an addition by I believe King Henry VIII (not sure about it though).
Whatever the case, doctrine is promulgated by traditional interpretations of Holy Scripture, not Scripture itself, which is why there are so many protestant denominations even though they all use the same Bible.
KJV is fine if that's the translation you prefer, but most of us (particularly youth) do not understand the verses of Elizabethan English as well as they do plain English and to attempt to call someone lesser because of that is utterly wrong.
TC what do you think, exactly, the RCC is trying to accomplish here?
There is absolutely no proof that Codex Sinaiticus is an older text. In fact there is as much proof of it being a forgery...
Tischendorf doesn't appear to have a very good story on how he got the text-and Constantine Simonides refutes him as well as others. People need to start questioning the authenticity of the new Bible versions given they came from the Catholic Church. You being a Catholic have no problem with them and that is the point. Me not being a Catholic am going to question them because I do not believe Catholics are Christians, and I think they are subverting hearers with their doctrines.
Hogwash there are HUGE DIFFERENCES!!!! Read the PDF in fact go to post 19 and answer the questions with sound doctrine...the fact is you cant.I'm not Catholic, I actually sympathize more with the Orthodox, but what I am saying is that there is not a distinct enough difference between modern translations and KJV to warrant you claiming a conspiracy!
From what you sound like is that you think the RCC is like demonically altering the Bible, and there is just not cause for this, especially because most Christians are Catholic. How do you expect to bring others to Christ when your only concerned with disparaging other Christian faithful? Why would someone put their faith in Christ when all they see is other Christians bickering about the authenticity of Biblical translations!
The Latin and Greek versions are the best because it is more difficult to translate the connotation of words from those languages, but, this doesn't mean that other translations are errant.