N I V - Acts 10:47

Not open for further replies.
The N I V bible is one of the poorest bibles that one can read ! And is
full of "private interpretation" !

To prove my point, I am going to use this verse in Acts 10:47

In the N I V, it states that - can any man stop them from being baptized
with water baptism.

The word "baptize" means -- "to cleanse"

There are two types of "cleansing" in the Word of God

#1 - Water

#2 = Fire

In Matthew 3:11 - John the baptist speaking > "I indeed baptize (cleanse)
you with "water ", but he that cometh after me is
mightier than I , whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he "shall" baptize
(cleanse) you with the Holy Spirit , and with "fire "

Acts 1:5 - Jesus Christ speaking > "For John truly baptized (cleansed) with
"water", but ye shall be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days hence"

The "fire " spoken about by John the baptist, is after
the day of pentecost had fully come , and -- "there appeared unto them
cloven tongues like as "fire ", and it sat upon them"

These three verses prove that the N I V did not translate Acts 10:47 , but
added their own "private interpretation " instead.

The scriptures are of " no (any) private interpretation "
> II Peter 1:20

In Matthew 3:14 - John says he is in need to be baptized (cleansed) of him.

In Matthew 3:15 tells us the "reason" why Jesus Christ was baptized
(cleansed with water) - "to fulfill all righteousness". And in order for
Jesus Christ to accoplish this, he had to fulfill the Law. The Law itself
was righteous > Romans 9:31 which Israel followed after , but never

Romans 3:21 - "But now the righteousness of God without the Law is

I Timothy 1:9 - "for the Law is not made for a righteous man"

So "water" baptism (cleansing) , being of the Law, was not for a righteous
man, which we are - IN Christ. Now the righteousness of God , is without
the Law, and is manifested IN Christ. Through the baptism (cleansing) of
the HOly Spirit ,and "fire"

No longer "water", but now "fire.

These verses prove that the N I V used "private interpretation" in Acts
10:47 ! ! Their responsibility was to "translate" -- "Not" - "interpret"
the Word ! !

Love IN Christ - HErvey
This argument has been going on ever since the NIV came out. You also got the die heart old king james version people that believe any other version is incorrect and greatly flawed.
I myself have seen alot of people get handed a NIV version of the bible and they have accepted Christ as their Savior. Remember its the Holy Spirit that opens us up to the truth and if a person is seeking the truth God is faithful and He will guide them into the truth. I do however believe that you and others that share your beliefs about the NIV should not use it because thats a conviction for you but it might not apply to another.

God Bless
Upvote 0


2 Tim. 2:24-26
Jan 9, 2002
Northern California
Visit site
Why do you always take words out of context to prove your presuppositions about the text?

907 baptizo { bap-tid’-zo}

from a derivative of 911; TDNT - 1:529,92; verb

AV - baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!
Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
Upvote 0
Hi Apologist:

You said > "Why do you always take words out of context to prove your presuppositions about the text ?

I don't ! That is your assumption !

Acts 10:47 says - "can any man forbid (thoroughly restrain) water, that these should not be baptized (baptizo - which means - "to cleanse" - everthing else , or anyone else , who addes to this meaning --> "cleansing - cleansed - or to cleanse", is nothing more than one's private interpretation of the meaning of the word "baptizo") , which have received the Holy Spirit ( and fire) as well as we ? "

Peter was talking about "when" they received the baptism, of which they "were baptized" - "with" - on the day of pentecost -- Holy Spirit and fire --- "Not Water" ! !

On the day of pentecost, they "were" -- "cleansed" - with fire !

In Matthew 3:11 - "he shall bapitze "baptizo" you with Holy Spirit and fire.

Here is where you theory about this word "baptizo" falls apart pertaining to "water". Right in this verse it says "fire" -- not water , and it uses the greek word "baptizo" in talking about being baptized with the Holy Spirit and "fire" !

Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote 0


Regular Member
Jan 13, 2002
Visit site
Dear Chuck,

I also think that the New International Version is better for pleasure reading than for study.

In my opinion, the most accurate translation is the American Standard Version. That’s the American Standard Version, NOT the New American Standard Version, which, in the interest of becoming easier to read, became less accurate than the original version … in my opinion.

In my view, the King James Version and the New American Standard Version pretty much tie for second place with respect to accuracy, one version being more accurate in some verses and the other version being more accurate in other verses.

The test passages for me in determining the most accurate translation are Ephesians 1:11-14 and Revelation 20:4. It’s in these two passages that I’ve noticed the greatest likelihood of a translation to deviate from the Greek. In my opinion, the King James Version fails in its rendering of the former passage, whereas the New American Standard Version fails in its rendering of the latter passage. In contrast, the American Standard Version does a pretty good job (I think) in its renderings of both passages.

However, I study with the King James Version simply because my hardcover concordance is mated to that version. I also use that version for study simply out of habit, even though I think the American Standard Version is ultimately more accurate.

Upvote 0
Hi Jim,
I do pretty much what you stated I read the NIV alot but when it comes to studying I use the NKJV. I have also found when I get to places that I find hard to understand or when approched with an idea that goes againest one I have believed I do go back to the original greek or hebrew, although since I am no scholar on either languages I do have to rely on the scholars that make the translation/definitions of the words.
But ultimatly we all as christian are taught by the Holy Spirit, so like I stated before for those who are seeking Him and want His wisdom it will not matter what translation is used the Holy Spirit will guide and lead us to the truth.
Also as a side note, one very good way the Holy Spirit will teach is when we, like now, come together with one another and talk about these things we learn and grow with one another. So something that the Lord might have made very clear to you, you can now pass it on to me and vis versa. :)

God Bless
Upvote 0
Hi Chuck:

I use the KJV mostly, but will from time to time check out what other translations say. I do not rely on any one translation for accuracy. Accuracy comes from not allowing any verse or verses to contradict anything else that has been established within the Word of God. An example of this would be, when we look at that, which changes not, throughout the "whole" Word of God.

God is a God which changes not.

When we do see change, we must see the change in the light of the whole Word of God.

Example: Hebrews 7:12 - "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law"

This verse declares that there must be a "change" of the Law. But what we learn from the Whole Word of God, is that a "change" of the Law does not mean that the Law of Moses is now abolished. A "change" means a "greater" Law that encompasses the old Law.

The two great commandments are the two commandments by which hang all the law and the prophets. Follow what I am saying ?

Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote 0
Not open for further replies.