Try Answering These From Your NIV

[Kiwi Christian]

These are what I consult most often;

Can you quote from your NASB the following verses, please?

Luke 4: 4
Luke 4: 8
Matt.27: 35
Mark 13: 14
Col.1: 14

Thank you.

 

[Kiwi Christian]

Oooo that was illuminating... won't finish but had no idea how much was added to the texts.... I am glad I don't read KJV too much. Thank you for showing me that.

Yeah, people hate the truth.

 

[Hall]

KJV, NIV, ABC, XYZ...as long as one of those gets us on the right path is what counts.

 

[Hall]

Also, how about ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS?

It's too long and I feel sleepy lol...maybe later

 

[Kiwi Christian]

It's too long and I feel sleepy lol...maybe later

heh. i will look forward to it.

 

[Hall]

I've recently acquired an Interlinear Bible keyed to the Greek and Hebrew text using Strong’s Concordance.
Also read the KJV and NIV

 

[frienden thalord]

Oooo that was illuminating... won't finish but had no idea how much was added to the texts.... I am glad I don't read KJV too much. Thank you for showing me that.

The kjv is the accurate bible.
this is missing from the niv. And it aint the only bible to omit or change things.

 

[Hall]

I was in your country in 2013 Kiwi, had a great time. Visited Queenstown, Methven, the Fiords and the North Island. Bungy jumped, Heli skied, surfed and kayaked. Very reviving uplifting trip.

 

[High Fidelity]

Can you quote from your NASB the following verses, please?

Luke 4: 4
Luke 4: 8
Matt.27: 35
Mark 13: 14
Col.1: 14

Thank you.

I won't play your games

The NASB is a textually and faithfully superior translation. The KJV is used less and less by scholars and professors that are serious about their accuracy.

I know there's no changing your mind, though. I've banged my head against this wall before and no amount of objective fact changes the opinion of KJV-O, so there's no point bothering.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


I did s little clean up. Please keep it civil. Zeal is one thing. Insults are another.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Hall]

Also, how about ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS?

Well, not to sound sarcastic, I was going to do the test but noticed on the bottom of the page that it says "(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?"-
So they obviously are missing. It won't keep me from still reading the NIV and the KJV though, but thank you for the heads up.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Try Answering These From Your NIV

By Rex L. Cobb

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________
According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"
Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.

You must be a KJV onlyist. Am I right?
I love the NIV84 short answer.
How do you feel about unauthorized additions to the Bible...even though well-intentioned?
Read Romans 13:2 in KJV...ever had a speeding ticket? if so you are damned rather than judged as rightly put in the NIV
Read I Corinthians 11:29 in KJ then read the following passages esp. 32-32; it is obvious that judgement is meant and not damnation in verse 29...by their own renderings. These are very serious issues...they raise doubts and hopelessness in a person rather than to instruct, correct and give life and hope.

 

[Hall]

I was aware they modified the NIV quite a bit but cannot remember the reason why. The way I look at it is that there aren't suficient scriptures removed to not be able to feed our spirit with it, because it feeds my spirit just fine. It is good to be aware that some verses have been removed and can always cross check important verses with the KJV.

 

[TheSeabass]

I prefer and will use bible versions that are based on a word-for-word translation. The NIV fails for instead of a word-for-word it contains what the authors of the NIV "think" the verse is saying and of course the NIV is biased towards the authors theologies instead of being an accurate picture of what God said.

One need not go no further than the NIV preface to see how it discredits itself (in blue).....
New International Version Preface (2011)

The complete NIV Bible was first published in 1978. It was a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The translators came from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, giving the translation an international scope. They were from many denominations and churches — including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and others. This breadth of denominational and theological perspective helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias. For these reasons, and by the grace of God, the NIV has gained a wide readership in all parts of the English-speaking world.

The authors of the NIV deny the oneness of the Lord's church and the oneness of faith, Ephesians 4:4-5 and act as if the body of Christ has many divisions and many different faiths.

The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers.

The authors of the NIV speak as if they can read the minds of the inspired bible writers in knowing what those inspired writers 'meant' to say. This made it easy for the NIV authors to substitute their biases as what the biblical writers 'meant' to say.

This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts.

The authors of the NIV admit your not getting an accurate word-for-word translation of God's word but instead getting a full dose of their theological biases. The authors of the NIV were not translators but commentators supplying their theological into verses as they see fit.

Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.

"In the abstract these words sound lofty and reasonable; in reality one wonders if all the changes they made were indeed justifiable. Although the above explanation makes sense, anyone comparing their translation to the Greek or other accurate, literal translations must wonder if there was not a huge wheel being spun with the parts of speech on it instead of dollar amounts like the television program, Wheel of Fortune.

Suppose in the Greek a word is a verb. Spin the wheel and make it an adjective. What about this noun, which is the subject of the sentence? Give the wheel a spin; hey, it's a verb now. What will we do with this adjective? Spin the wheel and --all right, a special prize--an early lunch break. Not only is this fun, but with a few endorsements from denominational heavyweights, this thing will be a best seller.

Of course, this is a bit of an exaggeration. But consider a few examples. Part of Luke 24:49 reads (correctly) in the Interlinear: "I send the promise of My Father upon you." The KJV, NAS, and the NKJV all keep promise as a noun, the direct object of the sentence. The NIV translators must have spun the wheel at this juncture and decide that promise should be made into a verb. They complicate a simple sentence by rendering it: "I am going to send you what my Father has promised." Although this involves no great theological significance, grammatically speaking you has been made an indirect object, and the direct object (consisting of one word) has been replaced by a noun clause which changes a former noun into a verb. (Don't trust these fellows to figure your income tax!)

Consider 2 Corinthians 5:11. Literally, the first part of the verse reads: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men," which is exactly how the KJV and the NKJV render it. The NAS is only slightly different with its "Therefore knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men." None of these translations found it necessary to make any structural change in the sentence. And the NIV?: "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men." This time the wheel came up with "noun-into-verb" Terror or fear is a noun, but the NIV makes it part of an infinitive phrase! and although the focus of attention here is to notice changes in parts of speech, one cannot but help wonder where did "we try to persuade" come from? Paul didn't say we try to persuade men, thus weakening the force of the verse; he said we persuade men!

Most Bible students are familiar with Matthew 5:28. The KJV records: "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her..." Literally, the verse is "everyone that looks on a woman to lust after her..." The NKJV and the NAS say "to lust for her," but substantially they are the same. To lust remains an infinitive phrase. The NIV renders the verse: "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully." An aorist infinitive has been changed into an adverb.

This kind of handling is the way "Dynamic Equivalence" works. It can become as loose as the translators see fit. Upon a whim they can change nouns into verbs, verbs into nouns, infinitives into adverbs, etc. Nor are these isolated examples. One can read literal translations side-by-side with the NIV and see that the NIV's translators can scarcely string a dozen verses together without rearranging the grammar and sentence structure. [To look at the NIV renderings of Ephesians 5:19 (i.e. "make music in your hear"), Ephesians 4:13 (i.e. "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature"; cf. 1 Cor. 13:10), and Acts 2:31 (i.e. "that he was not abandoned to the grave") is to see just how seriously translation principles can affect meaning. Study closely the NIV's change of "takes" and "sees her nakedness" to "marries" and "they have sexual relations" in Leviticus 20:17. "Takes" does not necessarily involve marriage, and isn't it possible to "see" a person's nakedness without having "sexual relations" with that person? Should anyone think this is an unimportant point, he should perhaps be asked by the single Christian (or non-Christian): "Just how far can I go sexually before I get married?" For my part, I plan to stay with the more Form or Content Oriented translations like the ASV, KJV, and NKJV!

Again, numerous reviewers have noticed the NIV's almost freehand altering of sentence structure. That is not to say that occasionally any translation might not change a verb into a noun--if it is a difficult passage to comprehend; the complaint against the NIV is that they do so needlessly. Many of the verses they tamper with are plain passages of Scripture which translate easily into English. The NIV committee altered them because they wanted to, not because they needed to."
by Gary Summars
A REVIEW OF THE NIV



=====


The NIV is not God's word but an attempt by man to substitute man-made teachings for God's word.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I prefer and will use bible versions that are based on a word-for-word translation. The NIV fails for instead of a word-for-word it contains what the authors of the NIV "think" the verse is saying and of course the NIV is biased towards the authors theologies instead of being an accurate picture of what God said.

One need not go no further than the NIV preface to see how it discredits itself (in blue).....
New International Version Preface (2011)

The complete NIV Bible was first published in 1978. It was a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The translators came from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, giving the translation an international scope. They were from many denominations and churches — including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and others. This breadth of denominational and theological perspective helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias. For these reasons, and by the grace of God, the NIV has gained a wide readership in all parts of the English-speaking world.

The authors of the NIV deny the oneness of the Lord's church and the oneness of faith, Ephesians 4:4-5 and act as if the body of Christ has many divisions and many different faiths.

The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers.

The authors of the NIV speak as if they can read the minds of the inspired bible writers in knowing what those inspired writers 'meant' to say. This made it easy for the NIV authors to substitute their biases as what the biblical writers 'meant' to say.

This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts.

The authors of the NIV admit your not getting an accurate word-for-word translation of God's word but instead getting a full dose of their theological biases. The authors of the NIV were not translators but commentators supplying their theological into verses as they see fit.

Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.

"In the abstract these words sound lofty and reasonable; in reality one wonders if all the changes they made were indeed justifiable. Although the above explanation makes sense, anyone comparing their translation to the Greek or other accurate, literal translations must wonder if there was not a huge wheel being spun with the parts of speech on it instead of dollar amounts like the television program, Wheel of Fortune.

Suppose in the Greek a word is a verb. Spin the wheel and make it an adjective. What about this noun, which is the subject of the sentence? Give the wheel a spin; hey, it's a verb now. What will we do with this adjective? Spin the wheel and --all right, a special prize--an early lunch break. Not only is this fun, but with a few endorsements from denominational heavyweights, this thing will be a best seller.

Of course, this is a bit of an exaggeration. But consider a few examples. Part of Luke 24:49 reads (correctly) in the Interlinear: "I send the promise of My Father upon you." The KJV, NAS, and the NKJV all keep promise as a noun, the direct object of the sentence. The NIV translators must have spun the wheel at this juncture and decide that promise should be made into a verb. They complicate a simple sentence by rendering it: "I am going to send you what my Father has promised." Although this involves no great theological significance, grammatically speaking you has been made an indirect object, and the direct object (consisting of one word) has been replaced by a noun clause which changes a former noun into a verb. (Don't trust these fellows to figure your income tax!)

Consider 2 Corinthians 5:11. Literally, the first part of the verse reads: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men," which is exactly how the KJV and the NKJV render it. The NAS is only slightly different with its "Therefore knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men." None of these translations found it necessary to make any structural change in the sentence. And the NIV?: "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men." This time the wheel came up with "noun-into-verb" Terror or fear is a noun, but the NIV makes it part of an infinitive phrase! and although the focus of attention here is to notice changes in parts of speech, one cannot but help wonder where did "we try to persuade" come from? Paul didn't say we try to persuade men, thus weakening the force of the verse; he said we persuade men!

Most Bible students are familiar with Matthew 5:28. The KJV records: "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her..." Literally, the verse is "everyone that looks on a woman to lust after her..." The NKJV and the NAS say "to lust for her," but substantially they are the same. To lust remains an infinitive phrase. The NIV renders the verse: "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully." An aorist infinitive has been changed into an adverb.

This kind of handling is the way "Dynamic Equivalence" works. It can become as loose as the translators see fit. Upon a whim they can change nouns into verbs, verbs into nouns, infinitives into adverbs, etc. Nor are these isolated examples. One can read literal translations side-by-side with the NIV and see that the NIV's translators can scarcely string a dozen verses together without rearranging the grammar and sentence structure. [To look at the NIV renderings of Ephesians 5:19 (i.e. "make music in your hear"), Ephesians 4:13 (i.e. "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature"; cf. 1 Cor. 13:10), and Acts 2:31 (i.e. "that he was not abandoned to the grave") is to see just how seriously translation principles can affect meaning. Study closely the NIV's change of "takes" and "sees her nakedness" to "marries" and "they have sexual relations" in Leviticus 20:17. "Takes" does not necessarily involve marriage, and isn't it possible to "see" a person's nakedness without having "sexual relations" with that person? Should anyone think this is an unimportant point, he should perhaps be asked by the single Christian (or non-Christian): "Just how far can I go sexually before I get married?" For my part, I plan to stay with the more Form or Content Oriented translations like the ASV, KJV, and NKJV!

Again, numerous reviewers have noticed the NIV's almost freehand altering of sentence structure. That is not to say that occasionally any translation might not change a verb into a noun--if it is a difficult passage to comprehend; the complaint against the NIV is that they do so needlessly. Many of the verses they tamper with are plain passages of Scripture which translate easily into English. The NIV committee altered them because they wanted to, not because they needed to."
by Gary Summars
A REVIEW OF THE NIV




=====


The NIV is not God's word but an attempt by man to substitute man-made teachings for God's word.

Your conclusion is false. NIV is a translation; it is not an interpretation...KJV, which is a good translation, goes further as an interpretation than does NIV.
The word for word translations "sound" great, but not so very. Language is not taken in that way so the renderings of one of those direct, word for word translations is easily misunderstood.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Revelation 22:18-19

 

[brinny]

I really don't get why you AKJV-O fellas think your translation is superior to other translations. Do you not see the startling irony and hypocrisy when the AKJV is itself a translation?

The original texts are inspired, not translations. Quit putting it on a pedestal it doesn't deserve because at best it's borderline idolatry, at worst you can remove the borderline.

LOL! Awwwww c'mon brother, i LOVE the KJV.

Where's the love, mon?

 

[frienden thalord]

I won't play your games

The NASB is a textually and faithfully superior translation. The KJV is used less and less by scholars and professors that are serious about their accuracy.

I know there's no changing your mind, though. I've banged my head against this wall before and no amount of objective fact changes the opinion of KJV-O, so there's no point bothering.

The wise and prudent often know not the simple things that lowly humble men do.
Father I am glad you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.
these scholars of today ,my advice flee them. titles of men , praise of man.
ME. it don't matter what man thinks about me, nor do I desire any title
my desire is, that I walk lowly and humbly with my GOD.
The king james bible is beautifiul and unfiltered with mens lies.
ten thousand of the most renown men and mighty scholars could try and sway me and it wont work.
a hint. its often the renown men that are off course . not the ones who walk lowly in JESUS.

 

[frienden thalord]

LOL! Awwwww c'mon brother, i LOVE the KJV.

Where's the love, mon?

Brinny , don't want to seem as a stalker but I gotta say it one more time........I luv ya. amen.

 

[frienden thalord]

I love you too sam!!!!!!