Kjv

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 15, 2013
176
8
18
27
Was curious to hear what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ thought about the other perverted versions of the Bible, especially NIV. ESV is ok but KJV is certainly the only way to go. There are so many perversions in the NIV it disgusts me. Some would say anyone who reads the NIV is not a true christian. I am not prepared to make a judgemnt but I will say that they are certainly ignorant and misguided.

One example (and there are plenty of them) and probably the worst is the way in which the NIV downplays Gods role as Jesus's father. KJV says "And JOSEPH and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him."

The NIV reads "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him."

This is simply disgraceful as the NIV is clearly implying that Joeseph was the father of Jesus. It's almost as if the NIV wasn't even written down by true believers.

We should do a much better job as Christians of warning people about this perverted version of the Bible.

I think this cartoon pretty much sums it up.
 

Attachments

PeaceLikeaRiver

Inactive
Jun 18, 2014
1,483
213
63
Canada
Was curious to hear what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ thought about the other perverted versions of the Bible, especially NIV. ESV is ok but KJV is certainly the only way to go. There are so many perversions in the NIV it disgusts me. Some would say anyone who reads the NIV is not a true christian. I am not prepared to make a judgemnt
It sounds like you just did.
 

PeaceLikeaRiver

Inactive
Jun 18, 2014
1,483
213
63
Canada
You judged all the other versions of the Bible pretty harshly in your first couple sentences. Then said you weren't prepared to make a judgment.
 

Barnabas

Inactive
Jul 10, 2014
227
57
28
36
In regards to Luke 2:33, most manuscripts say "Joseph" not "his father". Many modern translators are Atheists (I can't prove it, but I'm not dumb). The Atheist translator will argue that Greek copyists changed "his father" to "Joseph" to support the doctrine of the virgin birth. There are many changes in modern translations, vs. the KJV, that exist because of anti-christian, and PC, bias in modern translation teams.
 
Jun 1, 2014
201
126
43
Was curious to hear what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ thought about the other perverted versions of the Bible, especially NIV. ESV is ok but KJV is certainly the only way to go. There are so many perversions in the NIV it disgusts me. Some would say anyone who reads the NIV is not a true christian. I am not prepared to make a judgemnt but I will say that they are certainly ignorant and misguided.

One example (and there are plenty of them) and probably the worst is the way in which the NIV downplays Gods role as Jesus's father. KJV says "And JOSEPH and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him."

The NIV reads "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him."

This is simply disgraceful as the NIV is clearly implying that Joeseph was the father of Jesus. It's almost as if the NIV wasn't even written down by true believers.

We should do a much better job as Christians of warning people about this perverted version of the Bible.

I think this cartoon pretty much sums it up.
It does get a little snippy, but this thread still gives a sense of where many folks on the site are translation-wise, if you're interested: http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/are-the-new-bible-versions-today-really-sound-this-is-not-a-kjv-only-post.39069/
 
Apr 15, 2013
176
8
18
27
In regards to Luke 2:33, most manuscripts say "Joseph" not "his father". Many modern translators are Atheists (I can't prove it, but I'm not dumb). The Atheist translator will argue that Greek copyists changed "his father" to "Joseph" to support the doctrine of the virgin birth. There are many changes in modern translations, vs. the KJV, that exist because of anti-christian, and PC, bias in modern translation teams.

The niv does not say his father. Other versions are perverse but not as perverse as the niv and that is why this post in particular focuses in on that disgusting version. I suppose a good analogy would be the drug war. It would be nice to rid the world of all drugs but it is more prudent to eradicate the harder drugs first, meth, heroin, crack etc before pot and peyote. niv is the heroin of biblical versions and must be done away with in my humble opinion!
 
Apr 15, 2013
176
8
18
27
All I said is that I study it when re-evaluating Protestantism. It's a Protestant version, is it not?

Another version I like is Douay-Rheims but I often only read this in bible study groups.
Well if it is not a protestant version then im not sure why you would whip it out when studying Protestantism exclusively.

Never heard of the real whacky versions. People have to be careful, there are so many dark perverse versions out there. Wolves in sheep's clothing I suppose.
 
Apr 15, 2013
176
8
18
27
  • Like
Reactions: DavidG

PeaceLikeaRiver

Inactive
Jun 18, 2014
1,483
213
63
Canada
I think this cartoon pretty much sums it up.
Let's talk about that cartoon for a second. We have what appears to be a Catholic priest, Satan, and someone else saying "We hope you like our Bible," implying that the Catholics and Satan designed their own Bible version.

Apart from being highly offensive to Catholics, isn't it a BIT of a stretch to say that a translation of the Bible could be so off the mark that Satan himself would be endorsing it? It IS the Bible, after all.

Finally, that picture comes from the Jesus-is-savior.com website. Type it in your web browser now if you don't believe me. David J. Stewart, who runs the website, is a convicted child abuser.

http://davidjstewartexposed.blogspot.ca/

Are you really sure you want to be quoting from a website like that one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntingteckel
Status
Not open for further replies.