Proof that the NIV is unsound doctine

[A Realist]

"First we had King Elizabeth and now we have Queen James."

 

[FenderTL5]

Though the OP doesn’t explain why, Pooh somehow shows that the NIV is unsound doctrine.

The preacher was holding a NIV while quoting Pooh for illustration.
Had the preacher been holding a KJV and quoting Aesop, then all would be well.

 

[Quasiblogo]

I heard a pastor state once the NIV was only good up through a certain year (edition). Anyone know what he might have been referring to?

 

[paul1149]

The KJV wasn't well received when it first came out. And the reason is ironic. The public objected to the outdated English - the "thees" and "thous".

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

OP, I agree that the NIV is trash.


.

 

[JackRT]

It is amazing what you can get away with when you are a king.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I'm sorry but none of the claims that King James I was openly gay are even remotely true. Anybody that does even the remotest investigation of our world's history can figure this out.

That being said, the King James Bible is not the only Bible translation that's been accurate and still contains translational flaws like all of the translations do. To claim that it is a perfect translation of the Bible is just plain false. Not to mention, ALL English Translations literally give the same message as to how a person is saved (They all say grace by faith alone in Christ alone), The things Jesus said and taught when he was on Earth are exactly the same, how salvation works is taught exactly the same. There literally isn't a single difference between the 1611 KJV and all of the newer translations of the Bible.

Plus, if you ask me, the NIV and the so called newer translations are MORE accurate because they use even older manuscripts than the KJV.

True, there are verses "missing" from the NIV and newer translations but that's only because they were "missing" from the earlier manuscripts and that's because the translators wanted to be as accurate as possible. If a verse doesn't exist in the older manuscripts than that must mean that the "missing" verses were ADDED to the Bible later. Which do YOU want to follow? Verses that are older than the early 6th century or verses that from the like 14th century? I thought so.

I used to be part of the KJV only crowd myself. But, then I actually picked up a newer Bible and read them for myself and noticed that what was contained and taught in the 1611 KJV is contained and taught in the Newer translations as well.

When Paul was saying that people are going to teach he meant that cults and various other false religious denominations were going to show their ugly heads and eventually the antichrist and false prophet are going to rise up and use scripture to deceive even the elect. Christ also talks about this in Matthew 24:24.

 

[Monksailor]

I heard a pastor state once the NIV was only good up through a certain year (edition). Anyone know what he might have been referring to?

"The Translation Work Goes On
The translators’ work didn’t end when the NIV was published in 1978. The original mandate, given in 1965, was to continue the work of Bible translation, ensuring that the NIV always reflects the very best of biblical scholarship and contemporary English.

The Committee on Bible Translation still meets every year, reviewing the work in painstaking detail—because when translating God’s inspired Word, it’s all about getting the words right." pasted from: History - NIV Bible

It could be that any who are unwilling to accept the NIV Bible are quick to try find fault as we have seen many nicky picky detaily attempts and in light of the above there have been and will probably be revisions to improve it. Too bad the makers of the KJB were not dedicated so. But anyone fault-finding could try to claim that any changes were not improvements but rather evidence of the slightest error thereby apparently justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water. What is so incredible is that most make their comparisons to the KJV as if it were the original text.

 

[Monksailor]

"Holy Bible Versions and Types" FYI: Bible Versions and Types - Word for Word (Literal), Thought for Thought, and Paraphrase

 

[Noxot]

I prefer literal translations because I don't want to have to sift through other people's interpretations and perceptions of the word when I'm trying to read the word. I have always had a kind of aversion to the NIV but it is an aversion that was from years ago. Maybe I will like it now. Would be nice since I have a pocket niv.

 

[JackRT]

"The Translation Work Goes On
The translators’ work didn’t end when the NIV was published in 1978. The original mandate, given in 1965, was to continue the work of Bible translation, ensuring that the NIV always reflects the very best of biblical scholarship and contemporary English.

The Committee on Bible Translation still meets every year, reviewing the work in painstaking detail—because when translating God’s inspired Word, it’s all about getting the words right." pasted from: History - NIV Bible

It could be that any who are unwilling to accept the NIV Bible are quick to try find fault as we have seen many nicky picky detaily attempts and in light of the above there have been and will probably be revisions to improve it. Too bad the makers of the KJB were not dedicated so. But anyone fault-finding could try to claim that any changes were not improvements but rather evidence of the slightest error thereby apparently justifying throwing the baby out with the bath water. What is so incredible is that most make their comparisons to the KJV as if it were the original text.

In the preface to the original KJV of 1611 the authors admit that they are only human but that they did the best they could according to their abilities.

 

[Monksailor]

I heard a pastor state once the NIV was only good up through a certain year (edition). Anyone know what he might have been referring to?

Well, I just discovered a few minutes ago that in 2005 and 2011 someone claims that they made it non-gender specific. If this so, personally I would not advise anyone getting those versions or any thereafter. Apparently, that link I gave by the NIV wasn't wholly true. I do believe that the original texts WERE gender specific but I cannot read Hebrew or Greek I just trust all of the many versions I have read which ARE gender-specific. It is a terrible shame. I personally think that that change had NOTHING to do with accuracy but rather politics and marketing a product. What a shame. Shame on you current revisionists of the NIV. Shame on you!

 

[martymonster]

09/08/2019 sunday worship and the preachers sermon is Are you ready.

After scripture reading from the niv the preacher went up on stage holding an niv bible while i was holding fast my 1769 kjv bible.
I had already pointed out the unsound verses of the niv to the eldership and deacons many times and had seen more than a few preachers that used niv bibles that were turned unto speaking fables.
2 tim 4:3-4
2 Timothy 4:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Posting a link to the video were an preacher is turned to the fable whinnie the poo at 11:15 in the video.
I pray that all churches use the recieved text bibles to edify the body of Christ

This cut and past video is from service 09-08-2019 and at 11:15 edifing the body of Christ with winnie the poo...

Are you Ready is the name of the sermon.

Most ministers speak fables, regardless of what bible translation they use. I'm yet to hear one speak the truth.

 

[topher694]

Most ministers speak fables, regardless of what bible translation they use. I'm yet to hear one speak the truth.

How many ministers we talking about here?

 

[martymonster]

Ones I've witnessed in person, and then the ones I've heard on recording and TV. A lot!

 

[topher694]

Ones I've witnessed in person, and then the ones I've heard on recording and TV. A lot!

So, every minister you have heard has a problem with the truth. Odd. It appears to me the common variable here is not them.

 

[JackRT]

Most ministers speak fables, regardless of what bible translation they use. I'm yet to hear one speak the truth.

During the late 1940's and well into the 1950's Charles Templeton was one of the leading evangelists in North America. He was a contemporary and close friend of Billy Graham and even travelled and roomed with him on joint crusades. Some, at the time, regarded him as a greater evangelist than Graham himself. In 1957, just following his greatest crusade ever, and after a long period of soul searching, he turned his back on his ministry and walked away from it. He said to himself, in effect, “how can I stand here and preach passionately to these people when I know that I am not preaching the truth.”

 

[savedthroughgrace]

Just threw out all my NIVs. I'm convinced.

 

[savedthroughgrace]

Just threw out all my NIVs. I'm convinced.

Also, I use ESV and CSB mostly, I think the NIV has its flaws but unsound doctrine? No. So many people tend to worship the KJV as if it's the book that somehow saves us.

 

[martymonster]

During the late 1940's and well into the 1950's Charles Templeton was one of the leading evangelists in North America. He was a contemporary and close friend of Billy Graham and even travelled and roomed with him on joint crusades. Some, at the time, regarded him as a greater evangelist than Graham himself. In 1957, just following his greatest crusade ever, and after a long period of soul searching, he turned his back on his ministry and walked away from it. He said to himself, in effect, “how can I stand here and preach passionately to these people when I know that I am not preaching the truth.”

Do you know what he was preaching?