Is it ok to use the NIV2011?

[preacherinblack]

Is it ok to use the NIV2011 and should we make a fuss over textual variants? what is byzantine priority?

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

What you're hearing is the usual KJV Only nonsense about text types and corruptions etc. Do I like the NIV 2011? Heck no. They do attempt the gender neutral thing and yes that is wrong. There are translations that are absolute garbage out there, stick with the NKJV, ESV, KJV, NIV (1980's version), and NASB if you want some solid versions.

 

[preacherinblack]

I like the NKJV

 

[1watchman]

My main Bible is the KJV -Old Scofield Edition for a sound study Bible, but I think the NKJV is acceptable for general readings and comparisons. There are too many errors and omissions in other versions to be reliable and helpful.

 

[Marcus Constantine]

What you're hearing is the usual KJV Only nonsense about text types and corruptions etc. Do I like the NIV 2011? Heck no. They do attempt the gender neutral thing and yes that is wrong. There are translations that are absolute garbage out there, stick with the NKJV, ESV, KJV, NIV (1980's version), and NASB if you want some solid versions.

I agree with Bel. I use a combination of versions depending on the setting and for my personal study I vary it too. I usually use some type of word for word translation (ESV, NASB, NKJV) if I'm doing a more academic study. If it's for more of a personal study I'll use the New Living Translation sometimes, which is a thought for thought translation, but is really great and points out textual variants (like any good translation should do). The difference between the "families" of texts is minor and affect no major doctrines.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

What you're hearing is the usual KJV Only nonsense about text types and corruptions etc. Do I like the NIV 2011? Heck no. They do attempt the gender neutral thing and yes that is wrong. There are translations that are absolute garbage out there, stick with the NKJV, ESV, KJV, NIV (1980's version), and NASB if you want some solid versions.

No you shouldn't use the original NIV. There was a problem with a pro-homosexual scholar being consulted when it was translated. A gay activist who herself was a lesbian. That is why if you look at 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 it will say homosexual offenders and not homosexuals. Some of the wolfish homosexual activists in the "churches" are trying to make people think the verses that clearly refer to homosexuality are only referring to homosexual prostitution or pederasty. (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26, ect. ect. there are moany more but you get the point)

The newer one from how I understand it fixed this particular problem however if it is gender neutral then that is a problem and you should avoid that one as well. I usually stick to the KJV myself when I want to read the Bible in English as it is the most accurate English version. I do not know Greek yet however I have studied it a little bit and plan on learning it well enough to rely on the Textus Receptus of which I already have a copy.

I suggest trying to learn Greek and Hebrew. The reasons are as follows....the watchtower and tract society's NWT, the heresies of the so called Christian Identity movement, some homosexual activists(usually those who consider themselves christian), and the Mormons who believe in the KJV but only "in so far as it is translated correctly" (If part of the Bible contradicts their "church's" teachings or the Book of Mormon they will say that part was mistranslated if they cannot explain it away)

I have a friend who is a Nazi and considers himself Christian and I used to be involved in that "christian identity" cult as well when I was 13-16, and I am wishing the autocorrect let me spell Christian with a lower case c right now. Oh wait I figured out a trick.

BTW I am not a King James Onlyist but if they are right about the NIV, which you say they are(gender neutral), then in this instance it would appear they are correct about a version being corrupted. Which would mean at least in this case it isn't non-sense.

 

[now faith]

Is it ok to use the NIV2011 and should we make a fuss over textual variants? what is byzantine priority?

I use the internet to produce bullet points of different translation.
I do not always agree with the theology of the presenter.

But I have been aware of problems of the N.I.V.,here is something I found on the subject
Hope it helps:

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.

What does the NIV have against Jesus?
Find out what else is missing!
Back to Bible versions information page

Books available from Chick on Bible versions.
©1984-2014 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Some portions of Chick Publications are copyrighted by others and reproduced by permission, as indicated by copyright notices on individual pages.

 

[now faith]

Is it ok to use the NIV2011 and should we make a fuss over textual variants? what is byzantine priority?

The best teaching on Bible versions I have found is:

Total onslaught,changing the word by Walter Vieth.

I realize he is moderate S.D.A,but that in no way changes the quality of this teaching.

It is a long present ion very in depth.

You can find it on you tube it is well worth the time.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Total onslaught,changing the word by Walter Vieth.

That Zoologist has some great teachings on creation and an amazing testimony. Did you even here his story...how he got saved?

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

No you shouldn't use the original NIV. There was a problem with a pro-homosexual scholar being consulted when it was translated. A gay activist who herself was a lesbian. That is why if you look at 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 it will say homosexual offenders and not homosexuals. Some of the wolfish homosexual activists in the "churches" are trying to make people think the verses that clearly refer to homosexuality are only referring to homosexual prostitution or pederasty. (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26, ect. ect. there are moany more but you get the point)

This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Virginia Mollencott was not a translator, but a stylist, and only that for five months. When she took stands contrary to Biblical standards, she was removed from the project.

I usually stick to the KJV myself when I want to read the Bible in English as it is the most accurate English version.

This is simply not correct.

I do not know Greek yet however I have studied it a little bit and plan on learning it well enough to rely on the Textus Receptus of which I already have a copy.

You do know that the TR is without the support of any other manuscript in numerous places right?

I have a friend who is a Nazi and considers himself Christian and I used to be involved in that "christian identity" cult as well when I was 13-16, and I am wishing the autocorrect let me spell Christian with a lower case c right now. Oh wait I figured out a trick.

Christian Identity has nothing to do with Bible translations.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Christian Identity has nothing to do with Bible translations.

Oh yes it dose!!!! Whenever you back one into a corner they use the Bible was mistranslated argument. They will say the Jews did it to.

There are also parts they will take and say...this was a mistranslation, where it says beast here or there it should really say black people, and so on.

One of the reasons I want to learn Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

This is simply not correct.

Yes it is

You do know that the TR is without the support of any other manuscript in numerous places right?

This is simply not correct. The TR is a compellation of many manuscripts which agree with each other.

Also Wescott and Hort were Occultists. I'm not going to rely on anything that uses their work.

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

Yes it is

Which one is the most correct since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769?


why does "robbers of churches." appear in Acts 19:37 when every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" ?

This is simply not correct. The TR is a compellation of many manuscripts which agree with each other.

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Bruce Metzger-[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times New Roman]So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness. (The Text of the New Testament, p. 106)


[/FONT]

Also Wescott and Hort were Occultists. I'm not going to rely on anything that uses their work.

Please show me evidence of this not from Gail Riplinger's long refuted New Age Bible Versions or wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Both men were conservative, Anglican churchmen who wrote extensively against the anti-theistic higher criticism coming from the European seminaries, particularly Germany.

[/FONT]

 

[now faith]

That Zoologist has some great teachings on creation and an amazing testimony. Did you even here his story...how he got saved?

Yes somewhat he was a Atheists.

 

[now faith]

Please show me evidence of this not from Gail Riplinger's long refuted New Age Bible Versions or wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Both men were conservative, Anglican churchmen who wrote extensively against the anti-theistic higher criticism coming from the European seminaries, particularly Germany.

[/FONT]

Not sure but read somewhere a Catholic Bishop managed somehow to add the term
Church to the K.J.
His intent was to maintain the Church as the high power over the body.
He died before he could witness his work.
This was done after the scholar's translation, but I.d.k.
Even the scholars relied on the Latin translation which steamed from the vulgate,
In the New Testament.

Let me know if this is a correct account.

 

[standingtall]

Please show me evidence of this not from Gail Riplinger's long refuted New Age Bible Versions or wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Both men were conservative, Anglican churchmen who wrote extensively against the anti-theistic higher criticism coming from the European seminaries, particularly Germany.

[/FONT]

Might as well not bother, BCB. Onlyists are stuck in a universe where Christ himself spoke King James English. It's not worth arguing with them because at the end of the day, they'll still be KJV-onlyists and you'll still be, well....exasperated but still correct.

 

[preacherinblack]

with me and all my research if i became a KJO i would have to defended it scholarly speaking like burgon did for his time period. b4 anyone asks yes i know from what i know he was not king james only but he defended the TR to an extant and the traditional text as a whole.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Yes somewhat he was a Atheists.

A great testimonyWalter J. Veith Testimony - YouTube
He received a wake up call when his home became demon possessed.