Why the NIV cannot be the word of God, even thought it contains portions of God's word.

[SaintJoeNow]

Let's try to keep the discussion civil and refrain from any form of personal attacks or insults. God allows us all to have varying beliefs in the limbo of this world between heaven and Hell. In heaven God's rule will be perfectly followed and agreed upon by all. In Hell, God's rule will be known in the fire of His wrath which burns against ungodliness of His rebellious creatures, and those creatures can have varying beliefs but will not be able to escape believing they are unable to get out of the heat of the Lake of Fire. I hope to see you all in heaven, I will be there with the Lord soon....very soon, and I'm looking forward to that day with great joy and am enduring whatever sufferings the Lord takes me through, always saying I'm better than I deserve to be because I know I deserve to burn in Hell forever for my sins. If you are not sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, and you have doubts of being completely forgiven now and forever and that you are now and forever saved from Hell, I will be more than happy to show you from the Bible how God wants you to be confident in knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven to be with the Lord forever the moment your time in this world is over...and I will be more than happy to show you from God's word how you can know without doubt that these things are true for you.

Presenting the Gospel to lost souls is the driving force in the time God has given me in this world. All of my posts and threads are intended to sow seeds which might grow toward that intended purpose. The controversy of modern versions is used to bring the focus on God's word. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. We know Him by His written word and His Spirit which is Jesus Christ Himself living in us. They call us Christians because they see us being about and like Jesus. Jesus said the world would hate you the same as they hated Him if you follow Him; if you are not finding His statement to be true, something is missing in the way you are following Jesus. Are you willing to suffer for His name's sake? Are you willing to fall into the ground and die like a kernel of corn which must die before it can become a fruitful plant? Are you willing to take up your cross and follow Jesus? Discussion around these statements and questions are welcome in this thread. The only thing I will not entertain here is posts which focus on attacking the King James Bible.


As many seem to enjoy attempting to validate their belief that the King James Bible is not the word of God preserved in English, in this thread I will make the same attack against modern versions. Starting with the NIV in this thread and then another of the most popular of the 300 modern versions in a following thread, I will show why none of them can be the word of God and are in fact only the word of their version creators using portions of God's word while omitting others, and inserting words that could not possibly be from God because they present doctrines which are contradictory to God.

This thread will focus on the NIV. In this thread I will not entertain discussions attacking the King James Bible, and I ask others to refrain from or ignore any such attacks in this thread. The focus of this thread is an attack against the NIV which purports itself as carrying or conveying the word of God. In Genesis 3:1, the serpent claimed to be exposing the truth of God's word while in fact he was twisting it, and this is in reality what the NIV does. This thread is to expose the sinister attack on God's word in the NIV.

I welcome all questions about the NIV and all comparisons of the NIV to the King James Bible, but any attack against the King James Bible will not be acknowledged by myself and, again, I want to discourage all King James Bible only believers from engaging in arguments which focus on defending the King James Bible rather than attacking the claims of the NIV to be a good or acceptable version of the Bible. The focus of this thread is to show that the NIV is neither a good or acceptable version and should not be held as such by Christians.

Once again, this thread is designed as an expose' of the NIV with the ultimate goal of promoting the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ, hoping to see more souls saved from Hell with full assurance of their home being heaven now and forever. Please focus this thread on attacking or defending the NIV, and not on attacking the King James Bible, or on discussing the power of the Gospel in your life and how others can know that same resurrection power. I will not respond to posts which ignore this request and are focused on attacking the King James Bible more than on defending the NIV if the poster thinks it is possible to defend the NIV as being God's word.

To attacks against the King James Bible, my intention is to reply "this is an attack on the King James Bible more than an attempt to defend the NIV as being the word of God. If you wish to defend the NIV as being, containing, or conveying the word of God, please focus on the NIV as the support of your position, or on discussing the power of the Gospel in your life.

 

[mikenold]

Bibles like the NIV came from Alexanrean translations. Origen was a major contributer and translator.


Adamantius Origen (A.D. 184-254), was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and was one of the most famous so called "church fathers". He was instrumental in editing manuscripts upon which the NIV, NASB, and all modern versions, are based. He attended the School of Alexandria, which was a theological school and was established in the 2nd century after Christ. This school mixed Greek philosophy or Gnostic beliefs (secret mystical occult knowledge) with Biblical teaching.

Adam Clarke says Origen was the first "Christian" teacher of purgatory. A pupil of the Gnostic star worshipper Clement of Alexandria, Origin lightly esteemed the Bible's historical basis. "The Scriptures," Origen maintained, "are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."

He is known for the Old Testament six-column Bible called the "Hexapla" in which each column had a different version of the Bible. Origen was well known for his labor to produce a "so-called" correct text of the Greek New Testament. He was known for spiritualizing or turning biblical events into allegories: stories in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation.

Some of Origen's Beliefs:

• Origen believed that man was divine. (god)
• He believed in the pre-existence of souls
• He taught that everyone, including the Devil, would eventually be saved.
• He described the Trinity as a "hierarchy," not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.
• He believed in baptismal regeneration (baptism is necessary for salvation)
• He believed in purgatory.
• He taught that the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by God.
• He believed Christ was created.
• He taught transmigration (this is the belief that at death the soul passes into another body).
• He denied a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, taught that it was a "myth" and taught that there was no actual person named "Adam."
• He taught that Christ "became" God at His baptism.
• He taught, based on Matthew 19, that a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.
• He denied the physical resurrection of believers.

Origen taught many non-Christian doctrines. He stated that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy.

Origen greatly influenced Eusebius (260-340), who produced 50 copies of an "ecumenical" Bible (at the behest of Emperor Constantine). Although Constantine is remembered for establishing Sunday worship and the "Christian" Catholic Church as the state religion, his action in choosing Eusebius' rendition of Origen's Bible was perhaps more important, since ALL MODERN VERSIONS are based on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are of the Eusebio-Origen type.

Jack Moorman, author of the book Forever Settled writes: "He (Origen) is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man."

According to Les Garrett in his book Which Bible Can We Trust?, "Origen, being the textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt."

And this man and his ideas are to be relied upon for the basis of translating most of the modern versions of the bible?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Two of the hundreds of reasons the NIV cannot be the word of God....

The NIV omits Matthew 18:11...."For the Son of man is come to save that which is lost". This crucial omission is an attack on the work Jesus completed for us on the cross.

The NIV omits Acts 8:37 which gives the requirement of having and understanding saving faith before being baptized. "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 omission of this verse is convenient for many denominations which teach infant Baptism or salvation by Baptism or Baptism by being sprinkled, but sadly it is even affecting Baptist circles evidenced by the thread I saw here recently where the poster stated they are turning against believer's Baptism. This is a key doctrine deleted here in the NIV. Jesus commanded two ordinances; baptism for believers and communion, both testimonies of what the Lord did for us. The agenda of the NIV is against God's word, for diluting and obscuring God's word. It is not God's word.

The NIV omits "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14. We do not have redemption except through Jesus' blood, but the NIV chooses to exclude this doctrine here.

The NIV omits "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." in 1 John 5:13. For some reason, the NIV is weakening key doctrines of the Bible.

The NIV omits the entire verse of Acts 28:29. Maybe the editors did not like "great reasoning". Whatever their reason for leaving this verse out, the NIV is less than the Bible, attacks and dilutes key doctrines, and does not contain or convey the word of God but rather corrupts and obscures the word of God.

The NIV leaves John 5:4 out entirely. Again, the NIV is not the Bible. The Bible records John 5:4 as God's word because God inspired it. The verbal inspiration of scripture is attacked by the NIV, supplanting God's will with the will of it's editors.

The NIV omits Mark 11:26 and Matthew 24:14. It also omits the last sentence of Mark 6:11 which mentions the day of judgment against Sodom and Gomorrha, probably at the behest of the lesbian who influenced the NIV and softened what the Bible says against homosexuality.

The above are only a few of the omissions of the NIV. The NIV is NOT the word of God, and coveys and contains a purposeful corruption of God's word designed to me more acceptable for people who want to make up their own rules.

Not all Christians who use the NIV want to make up their own rules; some if not most of them are godly Christians who walk in obedience to God living holy lives.....but the creators of the NIV certainly made up their own rules to disregard and corrupt God's word.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Bibles like the NIV came from Alexanrean translations. Origen was a major contributer and translator.


Adamantius Origen (A.D. 184-254), was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and was one of the most famous so called "church fathers". He was instrumental in editing manuscripts upon which the NIV, NASB, and all modern versions, are based. He attended the School of Alexandria, which was a theological school and was established in the 2nd century after Christ. This school mixed Greek philosophy or Gnostic beliefs (secret mystical occult knowledge) with Biblical teaching.

Adam Clarke says Origen was the first "Christian" teacher of purgatory. A pupil of the Gnostic star worshipper Clement of Alexandria, Origin lightly esteemed the Bible's historical basis. "The Scriptures," Origen maintained, "are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."

He is known for the Old Testament six-column Bible called the "Hexapla" in which each column had a different version of the Bible. Origen was well known for his labor to produce a "so-called" correct text of the Greek New Testament. He was known for spiritualizing or turning biblical events into allegories: stories in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation.

Some of Origen's Beliefs:

• Origen believed that man was divine. (god)
• He believed in the pre-existence of souls
• He taught that everyone, including the Devil, would eventually be saved.
• He described the Trinity as a "hierarchy," not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.
• He believed in baptismal regeneration (baptism is necessary for salvation)
• He believed in purgatory.
• He taught that the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by God.
• He believed Christ was created.
• He taught transmigration (this is the belief that at death the soul passes into another body).
• He denied a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, taught that it was a "myth" and taught that there was no actual person named "Adam."
• He taught that Christ "became" God at His baptism.
• He taught, based on Matthew 19, that a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.
• He denied the physical resurrection of believers.

Origen taught many non-Christian doctrines. He stated that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy.

Origen greatly influenced Eusebius (260-340), who produced 50 copies of an "ecumenical" Bible (at the behest of Emperor Constantine). Although Constantine is remembered for establishing Sunday worship and the "Christian" Catholic Church as the state religion, his action in choosing Eusebius' rendition of Origen's Bible was perhaps more important, since ALL MODERN VERSIONS are based on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are of the Eusebio-Origen type.

Jack Moorman, author of the book Forever Settled writes: "He (Origen) is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man."

According to Les Garrett in his book Which Bible Can We Trust?, "Origen, being the textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt."

And this man and his ideas are to be relied upon for the basis of translating most of the modern versions of the bible?

Excellent post, these facts are ignored by people who support the NIV as equal to or better than the King James Bible. A good tree brings forth good fruits, an evil tree brings forth bad fruits. The root of the tree from which modern versions emerge is corrupt, the whole tree is corrupt, and all the fruits are corrupt. God kept His word from holy roots, incorruptible, forever.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The false doctrines and beliefs contrary to the word of God among the creators of modern versions is ignored, as well as the roots of the manuscripts, while scholastics is held in higher esteem than facts, and scholastics is used to twist, obscure, and ignore historical facts which prove in many ways that the roots of modern versions are corrupt

 

[High Fidelity]

I agree. The NASB is the closest literal word-for-word translation we have in English

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The NIV removes literally tens of thousands of words from the Bible. Some of the words which are completely removed from the Bible in all places and left completely out of the NIV are "Godhead" (that removal alone should be enough for a Christian to burn any NIV's they have), Calvary, propitiation, regeneration, mercyseat, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, quickened, infallible.....all completely removed from the NIV.

Jesus said "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". The NIV is designed to be a starvation diet, to weaken the doctrines of God in appeal for ecumenical compromise. The preface makes clear that this is the intention of the NIV. It was created to eliminate things that cause divisions. God wants us to stand on truth which divides from error, rather than be united in error by compromising doctrine. The NIV is not, and never was intended to be, God's word. It Is a compilation designed to unite religions in mutual error, and it has done a pretty good job of it.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I agree. The NASB is the closest literal word-for-word translation we have in English

The NASB was mentioned in the OP as one of the popular versions which will be the topic of a future expose' similar to the expose' of the NIV in this thread. This thread is not for discussing anything except the proofs of the NIV not being the word of God. Please focus on the OP, and look for an expose' of the NASB in an upcoming thread where your defense of the NASB will be more than welcome.

This thread is about the NIV, and I am requesting all posters to ignore this attempt to change the thread into discussing the NASB

 

[mikenold]

I agree. The NASB is the closest literal word-for-word translation we have in English

Have you looked at the texts used in the translation of the NASB?

Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of mainly two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples of how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

Omitted and Corruped Passages
SINAITICUS completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 13:2.

VATICANUS omits the following verses while Sinaiticus retains them: Matthew 12:47. Luke 23:17 - This verse is omitted in B and the NASB, NIV yet it is in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all Greek texts "For of necessity he must release on onto them at the feast." Yet B omits Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" while it is retained in Sinaiticus and this time kept in the NASB, NIV. Go figure.

Sorry, this bit of information included both the NIV AND THE NASB.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Again, to all posters, please keep the focus here on the NIV. While it is true that all modern versions have their roots in the corrupt Alexandrian family, I still want to keep the focus on exposing the NIV. The KIng James Bible is often attacked exclusively while some or all modern versions are promoted and supported. Here, the attack is exclusively against the NIV to expose the fact that it cannot be God's word and should be burned as a heretical corruption of God's word.

 

[mikenold]

The NIV removes literally tens of thousands of words from the Bible. Some of the words which are completely removed from the Bible in all places and left completely out of the NIV are "Godhead" (that removal alone should be enough for a Christian to burn any NIV's they have), Calvary, propitiation, regeneration, mercyseat, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, quickened, infallible.....all completely removed from the NIV.

Jesus said "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". The NIV is designed to be a starvation diet, to weaken the doctrines of God in appeal for ecumenical compromise. The preface makes clear that this is the intention of the NIV. It was created to eliminate things that cause divisions. God wants us to stand on truth which divides from error, rather than be united in error by compromising doctrine. The NIV is not, and never was intended to be, God's word. It Is a compilation designed to unite religions in mutual error, and it has done a pretty good job of it.

NIV, the starvation diet. Great comparison.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Have you looked at the texts used in the translation of the NASB?

Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of mainly two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples of how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

Omitted and Corruped Passages
SINAITICUS completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 13:2.

VATICANUS omits the following verses while Sinaiticus retains them: Matthew 12:47. Luke 23:17 - This verse is omitted in B and the NASB, NIV yet it is in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all Greek texts "For of necessity he must release on onto them at the feast." Yet B omits Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" while it is retained in Sinaiticus and this time kept in the NASB, NIV. Go figure.

Please keep the focus here on the NIV. A similar thread later will expose the heresies of the NASB, or you can create such a thread and I will join you there to attack and expose the heresies of the NASB. Many people will come here and try to derail this thread and put in a lot of confusion which will hinder readers from focusing and discourage them from seeking the truth by using a shotgun approach shooting many angles to disrupt, and derail. One version at a time here please. Regardless, I appreciate all of your efforts in defending the word of God.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Other words completely removed from the Bible by the NIV are:........sodomite, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit.
No surprise that "sodomite" and other words dealing with sexual sin are completely removed when you consider the FACT that the chairman of the Old Testament committee for the NIV, Dr. Marten Woudstra, (deceased) was an unrepentant homosexual, and of course the homosexual community eagerly supports the new 2011 NIV.
The Bible is always against all sexual sin while the NIV does everything it can to soften God's stance against sexual sin, especially homosexuality.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

It's hard for me to do this. I don't need 1/10 of these evidences to know that the NIV is evil. The evidences against the NIV are many more than what have been posted here, and I want to encourage others to post more of them. The divisions of modern versions are attacks to hinder the power and spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the NIV is said by Wickedpedia to be the most popular version today. It needs to be exposed, and reading the materials against it which have not yet been posted here frustrates me that some Christians are so hard to convince of the evils of the NIV.

 

[John Robie]

What doctrines are missing from the NIV?

 

[tall73]

I am not a fan of the NIV. It tends to smooth over too many idioms. While it is a dynamic equivalent, it is quite a ways along the spectrum in the direction of the paraphrase category. Morover, since I prefer the majority text, I do not agree with the underlying text of the NIV.

Having said that, one can certainly still learn about Christ from the NIV. Nor do I see all these "deletions" as any conspiracy. They base it on different manuscripts.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I am not a fan of the NIV. It tends to smooth over too many idioms. While it is a dynamic equivalent, it is quite a ways along the spectrum in the direction of the paraphrase category. Morover, since I prefer the majority text, I do not agree with the underlying text of the NIV.



Having said that, one can certainly still learn about Christ from the NIV. Nor do I see all these "deletions" as any conspiracy. They base it on different manuscripts.

Dynamic equivalent? In the preface it was clearly stated that the purpose of the NIV was to remove things that separate religious sects. The word of God divides truth from lie, not removes truth to accommodate lies. It certainly is a conspiracy toward Ecumenicalism and this is clearly stated in the NIV preface. If you are approaching the NIV the way all modern versions are sold, believing their lies when they appeal to your intellectual aspirations, and ignoring the facts which when viewed objectively, a person will talk the way you are talking apparently not caring about the facts behind the NIV, elevating it to "dynamic equivalency" with the word of God when the facts prove it is the dynamic equivalent of Satan's aspiration to be dynamically equal with God. It seems to me that any Christian who fears God would have to destroy every NIV that they have.

You don't need the Bible at all to learn about Christ. You don't need the NIV or your favorite pet "dynamically weak attempt to equal" the word of God. The Devil can tell you all about Christ, and he will pick and choose bits and pieces to insert or remove exactly as the NIV does. The to say the NIV is a "dynamic equivalent" on par with the word of God, , assuming you mean it is equal in power to the word of God, is to elevate Satan as a "dynamic equivalent" with God. How in the world anybody can think the NIV is a "dynamic equivalent" to the word of God when it removes over 60,000 words, and entirely removes the "dynamic" dozens of doctrinally distinctive words listed in the posts above...amazing how anybody can say the NIV is a "dynamic equivalent", let alone actually believe that statement.


Please look at the facts of the NIV and you might want to reconsider your beliefs about God and His word. ........and the facts listed so far in this post are maybe half of the incriminations against the NIV as being a fraud, imposter, fake Bible and dynamically equal to nobody's word other than the Devil's.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Mr Tall, this thread is an expose' of the NIV. If you want to continue supporting your belief that it is a "dynamic equivalent" to God's word, go ahead and do that but this thread is not for discussing the manuscripts used for other versions. The only two books being compared here are the Bible and the NIV. In this thread, I have no interest whatsoever in your broadening of discussion to take the thread into an argument about your generalizing textual criticisms which have nothing to do with the NIV and the facts which prove it cannot be the word of God.

So you think the NIV is dynamically equal to God's word and there is nothing wrong with it. Fine. You don't have to repeat that. If you do not want to acknowledge the facts, fine. Your never ending repeating of your belief that nothing removed or changed by the NIV makes it less than dynamically equal to God's word illustrates the point that many Christians today simply don't care about the facts.

 

[John Robie]

I'm still wondering what doctrines are missing from the NIV.

 

[Boidae]

I'm still wondering what doctrines are missing from the NIV.

I'm not sure that you will ever get an answer from them, which in truth is the true answer that you seek.