Apparently I'm not saved

[Biker Angel]

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 pastor sounds like he has a religious spirit/demon hanging around his church. It's best to keep looking for another church b/c that church sounds haunted.

 

[NOTurTypical]

That pastor sounds like he has a religious spirit/demon hanging around his church. It's best to keep looking for another church b/c that church sounds haunted.

LOL, agreed. I'd ask that pastor why Romans 10:9 and John 3:16 make no mention of correct Bible versions.

 

[Bro.T]

Something to think about Brothers and Sisters


With all the different Bible translations we have floating around, it seems a hard task to choose the most accurate one. You might even question the fact of there being an accurate account of the Bible, aside from the original Hebrew Scrolls. Much of this confusion has come about because many modern day religious translators have attempted to interpret the Bible, instead of merely translating it. Therefore, when they translate the Bible they add, change or delete certain words to make it confirm to their religious doctrine. God was aware that this would happen and had John write, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19).

​

When King James had the Bible translated he appointed 54 scholars to do the work instead of religious people. This made it possible for him to change the form, from Hebrew and Greek to English, without changing the meaning. In other words he made the Bible say the exact same thing, only in another language. This in itself was a fulfillment of prophecy, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:11). The Lord knew that his people would not always remain in their own land, speaking Hebrew, so he had Isaiah to prophesy that he would have his word put into other languages. Now I ask you, is this too hard for God to do?

​

God has always worked through men, especially kings, to fulfill his word. During the days of Ezra he worked through Cyrus, King of Persia, to fulfill his word. "Now in the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it in writing..." (Ezra 1:1). The Lord worked through Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to such a great extent that he even called Nebuchadnezzar his servant although he was not a true servant of God. (See Jeremiah 27:6). Therefore, it should not be hard to believe that God would use King James (another Gentile King) to fulfill his word. If God is God who can stop his purpose. Remember, contrary to popular belief, God rules in the Kingdom of men.

​

Nevertheless, under the disguise of making the Bible easier to read and understand many religious groups have come up with error filled revisions of the Bible. Because of the lack of space, I will only point out one of these so-called modern translations. On page 30 of the April 5, 1987 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times the heading read, "Catholics given revised version of New Testament." The article began, "The Nation's Roman Catholic bishops released today an updated New Testament translation that features some gender-neutral language and modern English usages that make it easier to read aloud in worship services." This is one of many examples that I could give of a religious group changing the Word of God to fit its dogma.

The Catholics like other religious groups might have meant well in their attempt to rewrite the scripture but remember what John said in Revelation about adding and taking away from the word. King James did not have this problem because he chose scholars who did not care about changing the meaning but only changing the tongue. If the word was man in Hebrew they simply made it man in English. They did not assume that a gender-neutral word would be better as the Catholics have done.

Therefore, God did want the Bible translated but not reworded. You do not have to learn to speak Hebrew to learn the Word of God. In the future God will give the earth a pure language. "...For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent" (Zephaniah 3:8-9). Nevertheless, until then you can learn the Word of God in whatever language you speak, if you seek it. Paul confirmed this in 1Corinthians 14:21 saying, In the law it is written with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak, unto this people... Only beware of endless translations. There is even a New King James version which is not accurate. There might come a time when the King James version written in 1611 becomes obsolete, and that will bring about the spiritual famine that the prophet Amos wrote about "...and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the North even to the East, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it" Amos 8:12. This to must be fulfilled.

 

[razzelflabben]

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),

Matthew 8:2 KJV And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. NIV A man with leprosy[a] came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Now before we go any further, please note that kneeling is a sign, an action of worship, so it is not removing worship, only presenting it as an act not a word, but let's look deeper...we go to the Thayer Lexicom in Strong's (KJV) exhaustive concordance and see how the word should be translated...1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
1) to the Jewish high priests
2) to God
3) to Christ
4) to heavenly beings
5) to demons

Notice the highlight... Notice that kneeling is not only an appropriate word translation (according to Strong's KJV resources but is more descriptive of the type of worship offered. IOW's a better translation of the "feeling and actions" of the man.

Let's try again...Matthew 9:18 NIV 18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”

KJV 18While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

and strongs lexicon, which is how we primarily know the intended meaning of the Hebrew or Greek translationally....what do you know, the same translational issue and if we look carefully, none of the definitions provided say worship is an appropriate definition choice. IOW's this evidence you provide shows the NIV to be superior by the the strong's KJV standard.

Oh well, let's move on instead of continuing to show the same KJV flaw time and time again, your next claim....remember, your claim is that the NIV questions the deity of Christ, in the examples you give, we see exactly the opposite to be true, thus slander of a translation that proclaims the deity of Christ.

does not the "blood" atonement (Colossians 1:14),

the blood atonement in Colossians 1:14...kjv...14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

niv...14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Now we know the early manuscripts did not have verse divisions, so let's check context and see if blood is in the complete sentence, not just an out of context fragment....13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Notice the context is Jesus of whom there is no question of His blood sacrifice as seen in vs. 20 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Notice the highlighted word...IOW's the best we can say here is that the KJV gives more detail in vs. 14...now I have no problem with the claim and have made it myself many times, that some versions are better expressed on some verses than others, and this seems to be one of those times, but it is a far cry from your claim that the NIV does not accept the blood atonement, vs. 20 is about that very thing, the blood atonement...

and His virgin birth.

so far you slandered the NIV 2 out of 2 times...shall we shoot for 3...virgin birth..Matthew 1:22-24...both say virgin and for sake of space, we'll leave it at 3 for 3 with that one passage alone...

Heck, the NIV calls Joseph Jesus's "father" which he certainly is NOT!

be careful here, God adopted me, that makes Him my Father even though He is not my father...In other words, Joseph was Jesus father and God was His Father....none the less...the NIV gospels are full of references to God being Jesus Father, in fact, there are so many references, there is no room for them all here.

In the NIV you can't even read who killed Goliath.

I really don't know what you are referring to here, when I read the story I read in the NIV that God did through David...when I read it in the KJV, I read that God did through David...

(Read 2 Samuel 20:19)

KJV 19I am one of them that are peaceable and faithful in Israel: thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother in Israel: why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the LORD?

NIV..19 We are the peaceful and faithful in Israel. You are trying to destroy a city that is a mother in Israel. Why do you want to swallow up the LORD’s inheritance?”

Was it Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite, or David the son of Jesse??

in II Samuel 20:19 neither the NIV or the KJV specifies....

look, this is really pretty petty and pathetic, you make a claim you can't evidence and I spend my time showing you the sin of slander instead of sharing the good news of the gospel...that is really the problem with those who slander translations because they prefer one over the other...attention is drawn onto the problems, rather than onto the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is clear, when we look at the scriptures (both) that both are proclaiming the gospel, the complete gospel, the deity, blood atonement, virgin birth gospel...to proclaim otherwise is slander and sinful. So, let's cut to the chase, end the argument once and for all, and get back to the gospel that sets people free.

Put forth your best argument, your most conclusive evidence that the NIV dismisses the deity, blood atonement, virgin birth, if the evidence holds up, I will repent and join your crusade against the NIV, if not, you will face your own judgment from God as to why you slandered a translation that proclaims the same gospel, and points people to the same Christ.

 

[2thePoint]

Sorry, Tanzel, I read the first paragraph and lost count of all the inaccuracies.

But instead of going over this ground again for the umpteenth time, I'll just say that if anyone ever asks me and honestly wants to know my opinion on this topic, I'll be happy to give it. I will no longer take part in these divisions based upon baseless slander of translations, translators, and self-righteousness. I'm strongly considering leaving this board for good because it's a morass of bickering and I'm just tired of it all. Too much legalism, too little grace.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry, Tanzel, I read the first paragraph and lost count of all the inaccuracies.

But instead of going over this ground again for the umpteenth time, I'll just say that if anyone ever asks me and honestly wants to know my opinion on this topic, I'll be happy to give it. I will no longer take part in these divisions based upon baseless slander of translations, translators, and self-righteousness. I'm strongly considering leaving this board for good because it's a morass of bickering and I'm just tired of it all. Too much legalism, too little grace.

I assume from this post, you agree that the KJV is not the only viable translation available to us today?

 

[2thePoint]

I assume from this post, you agree that the KJV is not the only viable translation available to us today?

You assume correctly! It has most of the shortcomings its worshipers attribute to everything else, adds a few more of its own, and seems to be the only version that makes its worshipers forget everything it says about how to treat fellow believers-- as well as how to recognize them. There are few controversies that have done as much damage to our witness or further divided the Body of Christ.

 

[razzelflabben]

You assume correctly! It has most of the shortcomings its worshipers attribute to everything else, adds a few more of its own, and seems to be the only version that makes its worshipers forget everything it says about how to treat fellow believers-- as well as how to recognize them. There are few controversies that have done as much damage to our witness or further divided the Body of Christ.

so can I ask you a question based on the OP question? How would the God of the bible, address the OPer, after the issue described....? What would HIs response be, not to the pastor that spoke wrongly, but to the one who was spoken too?

 

[Steve Petersen]

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? Does it even have the last 12 verses of Mark? 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".

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.

You got all that out of a John Chic tract. I read it.

 

[paul1149]

Sorry, Tanzel, I read the first paragraph and lost count of all the inaccuracies.

But instead of going over this ground again for the umpteenth time, I'll just say that if anyone ever asks me and honestly wants to know my opinion on this topic, I'll be happy to give it. I will no longer take part in these divisions based upon baseless slander of translations, translators, and self-righteousness. I'm strongly considering leaving this board for good because it's a morass of bickering and I'm just tired of it all. Too much legalism, too little grace.

Not much to say, but that my heart is also heavy seeing the Body in the grip of legalism and literalism and disputations. It's even worse when it occurs in the New Christian forum, where you know the arrows will often find their mark.

Lord, open our eyes, and teach us how to make a difference. Set Your church free.

 

[2thePoint]

so can I ask you a question based on the OP question? How would the God of the bible, address the OPer, after the issue described....? What would HIs response be, not to the pastor that spoke wrongly, but to the one who was spoken too?

I think God would first assure the OP that what he told the preacher was reasonable and irenic, given the outrage he was responding to. Then God might have mentioned that when Jesus was here, he never said a thing about the LXX being not God's exact words (though of course he had plenty to say about the rabbis' "traditions of men"), but focused on the application of the meaning: love God, love people, be kind to those who cannot repay you, etc. Finally, God might encourage him to seek out others who put Him first and not forget the essentials.

 

[2thePoint]

Not much to say, but that my heart is also heavy seeing the Body in the grip of legalism and literalism and disputations. It's even worse when it occurs in the New Christian forum, where you know the arrows will often find their mark.

Lord, open our eyes, and teach us how to make a difference. Set Your church free.

Amen.

Here we are, in a world that's continually rioting, defaulting, falling apart, and all the Christians seem to do is essentially argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We're a pathetic bunch.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think God would first assure the OP that what he told the preacher was reasonable and irenic, given the outrage he was responding to. Then God might have mentioned that when Jesus was here, he never said a thing about the LXX being not God's exact words (though of course he had plenty to say about the rabbis' "traditions of men"), but focused on the application of the meaning: love God, love people, be kind to those who cannot repay you, etc. Finally, God might encourage him to seek out others who put Him first and not forget the essentials.

I think He might also would have shown him His nail pierced hands, showing His authority over all, and then asked, "Do you love me? Do you trust me? Put your life in my hand, and there, know the depths of my love for you."

Which would have been more than enough to melt me...hard heart and all

 

[razzelflabben]

Not much to say, but that my heart is also heavy seeing the Body in the grip of legalism and literalism and disputations. It's even worse when it occurs in the New Christian forum, where you know the arrows will often find their mark.

Lord, open our eyes, and teach us how to make a difference. Set Your church free.

There is much I would like to say on this topic, but for the moment the only thing I will say, is that all healing, all revival, all Holy Spirit consuming fire, begins with self. The first thing we always need to do is examine self, grow self, repent of self, yield self, and when we seek God first, above all others without ourselves, all these things will follow....Just a thought for what it's worth.

 

[scrofford]

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.

I read a couple other things you posted here too. That pastor has a real twisted view of God and the Bible. Don't listen to him. He actually is wrong when it comes to the KJV. The most accurate so far that is translated into the English language is the NASB (New American Standard Bible) or the ESV (English Standard Version), but it really doesn't matter. God uses all versions to speak to people.

I really hope you don't go back to that church. It sounds like a place of bondage and lies.

 

[scrofford]

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.

I don't know if I agree with you with a senior editor of the NIV is lesbian. The NIV is a little more watered down translation, but it doesn't attack the deity of Jesus or His blood atonement or the virgin birth for that matter.

It's not my first choice of translations, but if you are going off of that one website that you linked to in your post, you shouldn't just go by what one person or organization says.

I happen to love the ESV and use it along with the NASB. But to say the NIV is all that you said is not true. If it's not your preference, that's fine, but we need to be careful what we read and believe.

One last thing, I really don't think changing the word "sodomite" has much to do with our salvation. Just my two cents.

 

[NOTurTypical]

look, this is really pretty petty and pathetic, you make a claim you can't evidence and I spend my time showing you the sin of slander instead of sharing the good news of the gospel...that is really the problem with those who slander translations because they prefer one over the other...attention is drawn onto the problems, rather than onto the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is clear, when we look at the scriptures (both) that both are proclaiming the gospel, the complete gospel, the deity, blood atonement, virgin birth gospel...to proclaim otherwise is slander and sinful. So, let's cut to the chase, end the argument once and for all, and get back to the gospel that sets people free.

Put forth your best argument, your most conclusive evidence that the NIV dismisses the deity, blood atonement, virgin birth, if the evidence holds up, I will repent and join your crusade against the NIV, if not, you will face your own judgment from God as to why you slandered a translation that proclaims the same gospel, and points people to the same Christ.

Dude, calm down. If you had previously read I'm not a "KJB Onlyist", I love the ESV quite a bit and probably quote from it more than the KJB. There is a huge difference between "knelt" and "worshiped". People for centuries past have knelt before a king or queen and have not worshiped them, so why the need to remove the fact that Christ should be worshiped? What's the point? It's not like "worshiped" is an archaic word that no one understands in today's day and age. Secondly, I made a simple typing mistake, it's 2 Samuel 21:19, not 20:19. I apologize, it was simple error on my part. So when you read 2 Samuel 21:19 in the NIV who does it say killed Goliath??Lastly, I merely did a quick Google search for the first thing that popped up about the errors in the NIV, I included it, that's it. Here is another I have bookmarked that is much more in dept:

A Comparison Between the KJV and NIV Bibles

And how can I slander a Bible version? The NIV isn't a person. And furthermore the NIV is probably a great translation from the Textus Sinaiticus and Textus Vaticanus manuscripts it was translated from, probably a wonderfully accurate translation. The point I've been trying to make is that the KJB is translated from the Textus Receptus, not the TV or TS. It's an entirely different manuscript.

You also are not acknowledging that I said previously that the pastor in the OP is wrong for judging the OP like that. And you're not acknowledging that I said that it's God who saves people and he can use any translation of the Bible. So please stop falsely accusing me, I believe you're getting emotional because you have an affinity for the NIV. I used to love it too until I read about all the verses and parts of sentences that have been removed.

No need for the meanness. God Bless.

 

[NOTurTypical]

It's not my first choice of translations, but if you are going off of that one website that you linked to in your post, you shouldn't just go by what one person or organization says.

I just did a simple search and linked the first that came up. I've included a more in dept one in the post above that highlights the differences between the two manuscripts.

I happen to love the ESV and use it along with the NASB. But to say the NIV is all that you said is not true. If it's not your preference, that's fine, but we need to be careful what we read and believe.

I used to own and use the NIV, when i first read about the differences and omissions from god's word years ago I looked up every verse to make sure, I was quite dismayed because I loved my NIV and I always thought the KJB was too tough a read. But now I'm used to the textual nuances and read the KJB just fine. But I also love the ESV and I probably quote from it more often than the KJB nowadays.

One last thing, I really don't think changing the word "sodomite" has much to do with our salvation. Just my two cents.

But I didn't say it had anything to do with our salvation, neither does what Bible version we use. If you looked at my original thoughts in this thread I said "Nowhere in Romans 10:9 does it make mention of Bible versions we need to be saved."

 

[razzelflabben]

Dude, calm down.

dude, I am calm, I am simply asking you to stop slandering a translation that teaches the same gospel as the other translations you like...nothing more, nothing less.

If you had previously read I'm not a "KJB Onlyist", I love the ESV quite a bit and probably quote from it more than the KJB. There is a huge difference between "knelt" and "worshiped". People for centuries past have knelt before a king or queen and have not worshiped them, so why the need to remove the fact that Christ should be worshiped?

?????? first, let's look at your claim, this way, many people throughout history have worshiped things but never bowed before them, accepting their authority as absolute over their lives, need I point out money, food, sport heros, etc. as evidence that we worship things without ever having a reverence for them?

Second, let's explore your claim a bit further here, according to the definition, an accurate translation would be to bow with reverence. IOW's it is more than an worship, more than a forced bow, it is a bow that acknowledges and accepts the ultimate and authoritative deity of the Christ, something you claimed was not in the NIV.

IOW's the very best case you can make here is that both the NIV and KJV do not offer a clear defined meaning of the intent of the passage. Both fail or succeed equally depending on what you want to justify as your beliefs. That's the best we can do. I would suggest to you that on this particular issue, given context the NIV does a better job of expressing intented meaning. To bow with reverence, in fact, there is nothing about worship specified in the definition at all, so it seems odd that you would take the one word not specified and insist it was the only viable translation, sounds like prejudice to me.

What's the point? It's not like "worshiped" is an archaic word that no one understands in today's day and age.

well, I might disagree with you on the fact that people don't know what it means. It seems from my experience few people today really understand what worship means, but the real problem is that you are insisting that a word not applied to the definition given by the Strong's KJV Lexicon is the only acceptable definition. Like me saying oeiwsnhfld means to sit down and enjoy a meal and you say the only viable definition is to sit...where I define it to enjoy a meal. I'm sorry but that just doesn't fly.

Secondly, I made a simple typing mistake, it's 2 Samuel 21:19, not 20:19. I apologize, it was simple error on my part. So when you read 2 Samuel 21:19 in the NIV who does it say killed Goliath??Lastly, I merely did a quick Google search for the first thing that popped up about the errors in the NIV, I included it, that's it. Here is another I have bookmarked that is much more in dept:
A Comparison Between the KJV and NIV Bibles

so, is this the best evidence you can offer to put an end to the debate? I did, if you remember ask you to present your 1 best argument for review, the one thing that has no other viable conclusion so that we can move on to the things of Christ rather than being stuck on the things of man. I'll be happy to look at it if it is, but so far, all you have offered is false accusations and I have too much to do to waste my time on the things of man not on the things of God. Put forth the 1 evidence that concludes the matter rather than a host of false accusations to draw our attention off the things of God. When you have determined what that one thing is, let me know.

In the meantime, as theme music plays, waiting for your 1 evidence, let's talk about the things of God. What do you think God would have said to the OPer in response to what he was told?

And how can I slander a Bible version? The NIV isn't a person. And furthermore the NIV is probably a great translation from the Textus Sinaiticus and Textus Vaticanus manuscripts it was translated from, probably a wonderfully accurate translation. The point I've been trying to make is that the KJB is translated from the Textus Receptus, not the TV or TS. It's an entirely different manuscript.

that may be the point you have been trying to make but the claim you made was that the NIV dismisses the deity, the blood atonement, and the virgin birth, if these are false claims, as you have been shown they are, then you are slandering a translation that points people to the real Christ, which is sinful as per the passage previously posted. I will point out this sin to you for two reasons, 1. I don't want to be responsible for people missing Christ because they were led astray by false accusations and 2. as a brother, I am called to love you and that love requires that I try to gently restore you when you sin. Therefore, I am attempting to love you the way Christ commands me to love you.

You also are not acknowledging that I said previously that the pastor in the OP is wrong for judging the OP like that.

Do I have to acknowledge everything said on the thread? Wouldn't that get very cumbersome? We agree on that, there is your acknowledgement. Now back to the problem of slander...of leading others away from the truth that is spoken in the NIV version of the bible. I'm not suggesting that the NIV is the only version that one should use, nor that there are other versions that are better for deep study, what I am saying is that when we make claims that the NIV does not promote the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and defend that with false accusations, we run the risk of leading people away from Christ rather than to Him by removing one more avenue for them to find Him.

And you're not acknowledging that I said that it's God who saves people and he can use any translation of the Bible.

so again, you need acknowledgment for things we agree on, this seems to be a pride issue, I pray that is not the case. Yep, again we agree, but the problem is, a satan book, a history book isn't likely to lead someone to Christ because it won't contain the gospel....though you have made the claim of the NIV, you have failed to evidence it. Someone listening to you without doing the leg work, might ignore the gospel in the NIV assuming the real gospel wasn't there, and therefore never hear the good News of the risen Savior.

So please stop falsely accusing me,

what false accusation did I levie? I ask you to show evidence of your claim that the NIV dismissed the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the virgin birth. You did not offer such evidence, only claims of such. There is no false accusation toward you in that. You either present evidence that supports your claims or you don't...in fact, I acknoweledge that you presented what you think is evidence, but the evidence failed to support your claims. Therefore you need to either try again with evidence that supports your claims, or retract your claims against the NIV. Your choice.

I believe you're getting emotional because you have an affinity for the NIV.

you would be wrong on both accounts, I am neither emotional about the topic of translation nor do I have an affinity for the NIV...what I have is a passion for the living God and the presenting of His gospel wherever it might come from. I have a passion to not remove that gospel from anyone out of prejudice or preferrence.

I used to love it too until I read about all the verses and parts of sentences that have been removed.

but see that is the problem and what I have been suspecting all along. Your claims are based not on studying the text for what it says, but rather on your being convinced by others that it might say something different. Study it for yourself before you pass judgment that is all I'm asking. It is not Godly to pass judgment without study, not is it Godly to make false accusations because you " read about all the verses and parts of sentences that have been removed."

No need for the meanness. God Bless.

no meanness, just truth.

 

[whatfor]

I only have a NIV but have ordered a KJ3 , I have found no problems with the NIV but have been told it is not as accurate, also the NIV is printed by the same company that prints the satanic bible if the info online is correct.

For comparisons I use E-SWORD , it makes it a lot easier to compare.