Apparently I'm not saved

[razzelflabben]

Well, the NIV is truly a disgusting version, let her read the ESV, it's one I suggest. The NIV attacks the deity of Jesus, His blood atonement, and the virgin birth. It also removes a good number of passages. "Sodomite" is found nowhere in the NIV because a senior editor for the Bible is a lesbian. Check this out:

The New International Version - NIV


Get your daughter an ESV translation.

Please show evidence in the NIV for these claims, I use the NIV as much as I do the KJV and have never found a problem with the deity of Jesus, His blood atonement, the virgin birth, or the issue of homosexuality, in fact, I just finished an essay on homosexuality and found the NIV to be a great help in finding connecting passages that show it to be a sin...The same is true for the deity of Christ, not long ago, I was in a huge debate on the issue of Christ's deity, the NIV was very helpful to supporting the deity...I'm afraid you need to show in the NIV the problem, not just a site that tells you what you should believe. Thanks

 

[Barefooter]

I prefer the KJV, but I personally know several people that were saved reading the NIV. I would be careful talking bad about other translations. After one is saved and start getting into "strong meat" they can start learning the difference between translations. Burning other translations and then telling them they're going to hell is just going to discourage new christians. It's like leading someone to Christ, than immediately telling them they have to stop doing things that aren't Christlike. It's a slow process in many things. Most will come to drop things from there life without even telling them. As they read and learn more about Christ the old leaves will drop off. We never wan't to discourage new christians and lay too much on them all at once.

 

[mdseverin]

This past weekend I tried a new church. I met with the pastor and his wife afterwords and he told me that their church only used the real bible which he said was the KJV. I said that I agreed that the KJV is wonderful but I do read from other translations. Then he preceded to tell me that anyone who reads from "perverted" versions are deceived and not truly saved. He also said that they burn other versions of the bible. I couldn't believe it, I have been researching and their are many people who are KJV onlyists who burn the bible and accuse anyone who reads anything else a worker of satan. It really hurts me that people are putting their faith in translations more than Jesus Christ.

Please tell me the name of this church so I can avoid it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, what was "inspired" was the original epistles and books written in the original Koine Greek, Hebrew, and a couple chapters of Aramaic in the book of Daniel. The translations are not "inspired' and diligent work is done to ensure we have correct translations. Here is the big issue. The KJB is the only English version taken strictly from the Textus Receptus Greek/Messoretic manuscript. All other versions are from the textual criticism efforts of Westcott and Hort, two unbelievers. These men rejected that Christ was divine, that His blood bought redemption, that he resurrected bodily from the grave, and His virgin birth. They were Gnostic in their ideology.

The modern versions that rely on the W&H Greek come not from the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts, but from two manuscripts which originated from the pagan theological school in Alexandria, Egypt. The Textus Sinaiaticus and Textus Vaticanus.

Example, does her bible have Mark 16:16?

I just did a quick online search on bible gateway, and guess what, Mark 16:16 comes up in the NIV translation....Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Care to share how that is anti deity, blood atonement or virgin birth?

Does it even have the last 12 verses of Mark?

ends with vs..20, the KJV ends with...no way...vs. 20...in fact, on the rare and I mean rare case there a vs. is not there, my hard copy NIV has a note as to what was left out of which version and why, and then in addition, it puts why they decided to do what they did...pretty straight forward stuff.

The Gnostics expurgated verse like these because it dealt with the resurrection of Christ which they rejected. If a version has those verses in them it will say something to the effect of "most earliest translations do not include these verses and they were later added by a well-intentioned copyist".

it's in mine...I wonder why my NIV version has the verse and doesn't leave it out but yours does? Curious

The problem with that is Irenaeus quotes from the last 12 verses of Mark in 150 AD and Hippolyteus quotes from them 70 years later. The Gnostics removed these verses for their TV & TS manuscripts. And the reason some of them survived to appear as the "oldest" translation is most early Christians were not using them!!! The Antiochian manuscripts were getting worn completely out every 60-70 years and a new handwritten copy had to be made of them.

But it seems the NIV puts them there, let me look at biblos, they have an NIV version as well........Yep, 16-20 is there, see if my hard copy is handy...no, darn, but my sons is, and his has vs. 16-20, again no footnotes, just the passage, as would the KJV, etc. Why do you think I can't find the portion you claim is missing in any of my NIV resources?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

For what it's worth, I found this, from Robertson and Pierpont, which makes a very interesting argument for Byzantine Priority as against the modern critical text approach.

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html

They are arguing for the use of the Byzantine type texts which were used in the Textus Receptus, arguing against giving priority to the Alexandrian type texts which are used in the modern critical text of Wescott-Hort or Nestle-Aland -based translations.

 

[JCFantasy23]

This past weekend I tried a new church. I met with the pastor and his wife afterwords and he told me that their church only used the real bible which he said was the KJV. I said that I agreed that the KJV is wonderful but I do read from other translations. Then he preceded to tell me that anyone who reads from "perverted" versions are deceived and not truly saved. He also said that they burn other versions of the bible. I couldn't believe it, I have been researching and their are many people who are KJV onlyists who burn the bible and accuse anyone who reads anything else a worker of satan. It really hurts me that people are putting their faith in translations more than Jesus Christ.

That's all pretty scary.

The KJV is not the end-all of translations, and it's not perfect and without flaw. It is yet another translation of the Holy Word. Language has changed since then in many ways, we don't even have the same meanings as some of the words used anymore! People work hard to keep as accurate as they can to the Holy Word while translating to today's language so everyone has the chance to understand God's message and peace.

 

[NOTurTypical]

How did we know that the Gnostics did that or that the scribes or translaters didn't just add to the text unintentionally I don't want peoples opinions in my bible I want scripture. I don't think I or anyone else is ever going to truly understand all the history stuff or how it was translated. But it seems that all the translations teach the same doctrine. I don't think that the ESV or newer versions are denying the virgin birth or resurrection. But the bible doesn't save, Jesus does that is my point I guess. It seems like a lot of King James Onlyists put their trust in how the words in their bible were translated then Jesus Christ. What if all the KJVs were destroyed or never sold again. We would have to do with the newer versions. But I still think it is safe to stay with the kjv but it has been changed since the 1611 edition. And to say that people aren't saved or cannot be saved or that God cannot speak to them through other versions is rediculous.

Attacking the virgin birth: replacing "Joseph" with "the boy's father". Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

You're missing the entire point. Modern versions may be great translations, but they are translated from totally different manuscripts than the Textus Receptus the KJB is translated from. They aren't just modern translations, they are different translations from different manuscripts. These manuscripts were rejected as "corrupt" by the early church.

 

[NOTurTypical]

Please show evidence in the NIV for these claims, I use the NIV as much as I do the KJV and have never found a problem with the deity of Jesus, His blood atonement, the virgin birth, or the issue of homosexuality, in fact, I just finished an essay on homosexuality and found the NIV to be a great help in finding connecting passages that show it to be a sin...The same is true for the deity of Christ, not long ago, I was in a huge debate on the issue of Christ's deity, the NIV was very helpful to supporting the deity...I'm afraid you need to show in the NIV the problem, not just a site that tells you what you should believe. Thanks

They are listed in the link. Do you really want me to go to the NIV online and copy/paste the same information the link addresses? Does that make sense to you?

 

[buzzini]

I told the pastor that my husband and I let our 8 year old daughter read the NIV because she has tried to read the KJV and she cannot understand the language. He then told me that I am preparing her to go to hell.

I'm more interested in why you still stay in a brimstone and hell fire church and think your kid will grow up not like those harsh people?

They stick with bible version only because they know not the Word, thus they argue what bible jacket is most holy. They miss the whole internal truth of the Word and only arguing the surface letter. Run like hell!


Oh, and if this doesn't convince you, look at those people who argue the bible version and their profile pics, they reveal a lot of their internal hearts. Do you want to be like them?

 

[NOTurTypical]

I just did a quick online search on bible gateway, and guess what, Mark 16:16 comes up in the NIV translation....Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Care to share how that is anti deity, blood atonement or virgin birth? ends with vs..20, the KJV ends with...no way...vs. 20...in fact, on the rare and I mean rare case there a vs. is not there, my hard copy NIV has a note as to what was left out of which version and why, and then in addition, it puts why they decided to do what they did...pretty straight forward stuff. it's in mine...I wonder why my NIV version has the verse and doesn't leave it out but yours does? Curious But it seems the NIV puts them there, let me look at biblos, they have an NIV version as well........Yep, 16-20 is there, see if my hard copy is handy...no, darn, but my sons is, and his has vs. 16-20, again no footnotes, just the passage, as would the KJV, etc. Why do you think I can't find the portion you claim is missing in any of my NIV resources?

I'm talking about modern versions, you can't deny that some modern versions do not have these texts. They are missing from many, or if included their authenticity is called into question via footnotes.

 

[NOTurTypical]

For what it's worth, I found this, from Robertson and Pierpont, which makes a very interesting argument for Byzantine Priority as against the modern critical text approach.

Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont

They are arguing for the use of the Byzantine type texts which were used in the Textus Receptus, arguing against giving priority to the Alexandrian type texts which are used in the modern critical text of Wescott-Hort or Nestle-Aland -based translations.

Exactly, most people think the different versions are just different translations of the same manuscripts and never realize they are totally different manuscripts altogether.

 

[OnlyHis]

I'm more interested in why you still stay in a brimstone and hell fire church and think your kid will grow up not like those harsh people?

They stick with bible version only because they know not the Word, thus they argue what bible jacket is most holy. They miss the whole internal truth of the Word and only arguing the surface letter. Run like hell!


Oh, and if this doesn't convince you, look at those people who argue the bible version and their profile pics, they reveal a lot of their internal hearts. Do you want to be like them?

That was my first time going to that church

 

[Astridhere]

Given that Jesus said to an unbaptized theif, that repented at the last minute, saying 'You will be with me in paradise', I can't see that the version of bible that one uses could have any spiritual consequences, other than those based on the reasonings of mankind and are likey flawed.

Jesus is kind and forgiving, unlike many that purport to follow in his footsteps. Jesus said you will know his people by the love they show for one another. This priest that said one is not saved based on their version of bible does not appear to meet this criterion.

 

[razzelflabben]

They are listed in the link. Do you really want me to go to the NIV online and copy/paste the same information the link addresses? Does that make sense to you?

What I am saying is that you made a claim about Mark 16:16 and it was a false claim...I also went to the site you referred to to make your case, looked at the first claim, found that where the pronoun he was indeed used, the context was very clear that the he was Jesus the Christ, the son of God...since on both accounts, I found false information, I didn't bother look at every one given, how about if you present one that has merit...

 

[If Not For Grace]

the real bible

Tell em if they want the real bible then they need to go back & read the Hebrew

 

[NOTurTypical]

What I am saying is that you made a claim about Mark 16:16 and it was a false claim...I also went to the site you referred to to make your case, looked at the first claim, found that where the pronoun he was indeed used, the context was very clear that the he was Jesus the Christ, the son of God...since on both accounts, I found false information, I didn't bother look at every one given, how about if you present one that has merit...

It wasn't a false claim, some modern versions do not have Mark 16:16. It's not constructive to straw man a person's arguments. I wasn't solely attacking the NIV. Secondly, no one is claiming the personal pronoun "He" is referring to someone other than the Lord Jesus Christ. The problem is an attack on His deity, "GOD" appeared in the flesh in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm talking about modern versions, you can't deny that some modern versions do not have these texts. They are missing from many, or if included their authenticity is called into question via footnotes.

OUr son just got his for graduation, the copyright is 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011...seems odd that your claim would be that 2011 is not a modern version...what would you consider then to be a modern version?

See, this is my problem...I hear KJVers all the time make this type of claim, but every time I try to verify the claim, I come back wondering who is feeding these lies to them, because I can't find the evidence they claim anywhere. So I confront them, asking for the evidence they claim, and they everyone make this type argument, and fail to show real evidence. Mark 16:16-20 is in every NIV version I can get my hands on currently. Yet you claim that it isn't there, why? Can you please show me an NIV version somewhere on the web even that doesn't have it there? We won't even get into the pronoun use and such stuff as that, just show one NIV that does not include Mark 16:16-20 as was claimed....that would be a great start to clearing up the issue...

 

[razzelflabben]

It wasn't a false claim, some modern versions do not have Mark 16:16. It's not constructive to straw man a person's arguments. I wasn't solely attacking the NIV. Secondly, no one is claiming the personal pronoun "He" is referring to someone other than the Lord Jesus Christ. The problem is an attack on His deity, "GOD" appeared in the flesh in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

As shown previously, I have yet to find any version of NIV that leaves out Mark 16:16, I'm not sure how to get a more modern version than 2011...I encourage you to find one on the web and show it as evidence.

Secondly, the claim is that the he pronoun attacks the deity of God. I studied the text and found no attack of the deity of God. In fact, just the opposite is true of the text, we can put forth the NIV version in context and study it together if you like.

Personally, I'm comfortable with both the KJV and the NIV, as well as some others, what I have a problem with is slander which is sinful, even if the slander is directed at a biblical version and not a specific person. And before anyone reports me for flaming, I am NOT directing that comment at you, you seem to be deceived by the arguments of others, I am talking about those who have explored the topic, looking at the NIV source and still proclaim things that are not true of the text. Like it or not, the NIV is proclaiming the gospel, it proclaims it loud and clear, deity of Christ, atoning blood, virgin birth and all, to attack someone or something that boldly proclaims the gospel is a sin against God. Everyone here, would be well adviced to check the evidence before joining in the throng of people slandering any one version.

Philippians 1...NIV 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Philippians 1..KJV 15Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

 

[NOTurTypical]

OUr son just got his for graduation, the copyright is 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011...seems odd that your claim would be that 2011 is not a modern version...what would you consider then to be a modern version?

See, this is my problem...I hear KJVers all the time make this type of claim, but every time I try to verify the claim, I come back wondering who is feeding these lies to them, because I can't find the evidence they claim anywhere. So I confront them, asking for the evidence they claim, and they everyone make this type argument, and fail to show real evidence. Mark 16:16-20 is in every NIV version I can get my hands on currently. Yet you claim that it isn't there, why? Can you please show me an NIV version somewhere on the web even that doesn't have it there? We won't even get into the pronoun use and such stuff as that, just show one NIV that does not include Mark 16:16-20 as was claimed....that would be a great start to clearing up the issue...

I think you're misunderstanding me. By saying "Modern Versions" that is a collective way to say ALL modern translations of the Bible, or another way is to say any translation from the Westcott and Hort Greek translation. I'm not accusing the NIV of missing Mark 16:16. Other modern versions are missing this verse. I think you're reading my comment as "modern versions of the NIV", but I'm making the statement as "modern versions of the Bible".

Hope that clarifies things for you.

Like it or not, the NIV is proclaiming the gospel, it proclaims it loud and clear, deity of Christ, atoning blood, virgin birth and all

Now hold on, the NIV surely does attack the deity of Jesus (In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 the words "worshipped Him" are removed), the "blood" atonement (Colossians 1:14), and His virgin birth. Heck, the NIV calls Joseph Jesus's "father" which he certainly is NOT! In the NIV you can't even read who killed Goliath. (Read 2 Samuel 20:19) Was it Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite, or David the son of Jesse??



Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"



http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

 

[razzelflabben]

I think you're misunderstanding me. By saying "Modern Versions" that is a collective way to say ALL modern translations of the Bible, or another way is to say any translation from the Westcott and Hort Greek translation. I'm not accusing the NIV of missing Mark 16:16. Other modern versions are missing this verse.

so, list the ones that fail, which translations specifically are you claiming when you attack the NIV? that way we can check out the claim against the evidence, apparently NIV does not fit this claim and therefore cannot be dismissed as an effective translation as you previously claimed and presented a site to support the claim, a site that was also falsified. Apparently the slander of NIV is unfounded and need retracted and repented of.