The New Internation Version (NIV) Bible completely removes the word "Godhead"

[miamited]

hi proverbs,

Are we not living in the same dimension or something. You said I was incorrectly addressing your post? Here's the copy of your OP page:

Oh, and look at the famous John 3:16 verse from the NIV Version:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life
​

NIV removed the word "begotten".

Apology accepted and may God richly bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Azadok2day]

Birds "fly". Rev. 22:19 is referring to John's prophesy in Revelation not the Bible.

Really you believe that , that it only refers to the book of revelation and that the bible is not the ok of life .

Go to Mathew 1:11 it says the Josis is the father of Jeconnias , but in reality Josias is his grandfather and his father was Jehoiakim . So is the bible wrong ? God forbid NEVER just mans interpretation of Gods word is ALWAYS THE PROBLEM.

Jehoiakim in Jerimiah 36:23 took the scroll that Jerimiah had written and cut it with a pen knife and burnt it in the fire , taking away or changing the word of God . So just like God promised in Revelation 22:19 , God removed Jehokims name from the book of life , the KJV bible .

Make no mistake the KJV bible is exactly the bible God wanted us to have and it is no mistake the bible just had its 400year anniversary in 2011. Forty is the number of probation in the bible and ten is the number of divine perfection .

I Satans by my original post that all the newer bibles are garbage that have been changed by Satans children to subtlety change Gods messages , not unlike what Satan did in the garden of Eden when speaking with eve.

 

[revrobor]

Go ahead and live in your delusion but scholars today have many more manuscripts than did the translators of the KJV and are able to give us more accurate translations in the language we speak today.

 

[OzSpen]

Oh, and look at the famous John 3:16 verse from the NIV Version:

NIV removed the word "begotten".

You stated:

In sharp contrast, modern Bibles are corrupt and; therefore, produce corrupt teachings. Just the fact that the NIV translators completely removed the critically important Word, “GODHEAD” from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 is reason enough to run away from the NIV as fast as you can

I found this quote on another website. Why don’t you give credit to the other website? I found it on more than one website thanks to Google.

The Greek of Acts 17:29 reads,

γένος οὖν ὑπάρχοντες τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ὀφείλομεν νομίζειν χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ ἢ λίθῳ, χαράγματι τέχνης καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου, τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον.

τὸ θεῖον is not the same as ὁ θεὸς. Please tell me the difference between these two nouns with their definite articles and where the NIV has incorrectly translated?

In John 3:16, what’s the meaning of τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ that makes the NIV translation so wrong?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Begotten doesn't mean "only born" or "one and only"

It is a past participle (so says dictionary.com at least) or beget which means something like reproduce, sort of giving birth idea.

The idea of Jesus being the only begotten of the Father, is that Jesus is the only one who is God reproduced as a man because that is what the term implies. That Jesus is God who is reproduced as a man, so fully God, and at the same time fully man.

I think it is one of the most beautiful words in the English language actually, but that is my own opinion.

Don't you understand the exegetical mistake you are making? You don't go to dictionary.com to exegete a Greek word. You go to a Greek lexicon. Why didn't you do this? Does this mean that you don't know how to exegete the Greek language?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Make no mistake the KJV bible is exactly the bible God wanted us to have and it is no mistake the bible just had its 400year anniversary in 2011. Forty is the number of probation in the bible and ten is the number of divine perfection .

Try telling that to Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Augustine of Hippo, William Tyndale and my Wycliffe missionary Bible translator friends in East Timor.

Oz

 

[Azadok2day]

Go ahead and live in your delusion but scholars today have many more manuscripts than did the translators of the KJV and are able to give us more accurate translations in the language we speak today.

The newer translations can not , I reiterate! can not be brought back to the original manuscripts with a Strongs concordance and if you think Gd the Father who knew the end from the beginning and knew exactly what to put in mans hands when the 1611 version was put forth, then you are of little faith . Most of these so called scholars today are tares doing their fathers work and he was a liar and murder from the beginning. They use the same deception satan used in the garden of eden ,slightly tweaking the word to lead away from that narrow path of salvation.

Cursed be the man who puts his faith in man for it is better to trust in the lord.

 

[OzSpen]

The newer translations can not , I reiterate! can not be brought back to the original manuscripts with a Strongs concordance and if you think Gd the Father who knew the end from the beginning and knew exactly what to put in mans hands when the 1611 version was put forth, then you are of little faith . Most of these so called scholars today are tares doing their fathers work and he was a liar and murder from the beginning. They use the same deception satan used in the garden of eden ,slightly tweaking the word to lead away from that narrow path of salvation.

Cursed be the man who puts his faith in man for it is better to trust in the lord.

Your presuppositions seem to be clouding your vision. These assumptions include:

1. Strong's Concordance can take you back to the original manuscripts. The original manuscripts are in Hebrew/Aramaic in the OT and Greek in the NT. Strong's Concordance is in English. It is a fact that nobody has access to the original MSS of the NT. They do not exist. Then, how can Strong's take you back to the original manuscripts? What you seem to mean is that Strong's Concordance provides an English translation that links to Greek NT words that you think are based on the Greek MSS behind the KJV NT.

2. Those who are of little faith are those who don't understand that God the Father only gave the KJV of 1611 as the exact translation. The facts are that the KJV of 1611 includes the Apocrypha. It is not the KJV that is used today. The one most freely available is a 1769 revision, but there have been other KJV revisions since 1611. Do you support the Apocrypha as being in a translation so that translators give us exactly what God the Father required?

The KJV 1611 New Testament was based on the Textus Receptus manuscripts gathered together (there were only a few of them) by Erasmus and none was earlier than the 10th century. Erasmus could not find the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation in any Greek MSS available to him, so what did he do? He translated those verses from the Latin into Greek. And do you know what? Not one Greek MSS of the Book of Revelation has been found since the 1600s that agrees exactly with Erasmus's translation. In fact, there are 17 variants in those 6 verses when compared with MSS that have been found that are earlier than those of Erasmus. By the way, what type of Christian was Erasmus?

3. Most scholars who are translating the Bible today are deceivers who are doing Satan's work and leading people away from the narrow path of salvation. I find this to be an accusation without substance since you have not named one of the scholars you accuse of doing Satan's work. These men were on the translation team of the New Living Translation (NLT): (1) For Matthew, Craig Blomberg of Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary [Denver Seminary]; (2) For Luke, Darrel Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary; (3) For the Book of Acts, D A (Don) Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; (4) For the books, Ephesians-Philemon, Moises Silva of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; (5) For Exodus, Daniel I. Block, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; (6) For Psalms 1-75. Mark D. Futato, Westminster Theological Seminary in California. Are you telling us that all of these men were doing the work of Satan by their translation of the NLT. Are you prepared to write to all of the translators of the NLT who are still alive and to tell them that they are doing the work of Satan by being on the NLT translation team?

Your KJV-only support lacks credence.

I recommend Daniel Wallace's article that exposes the KJV-only fallacies, "Why I do not think the King James Bible is the best translation available today".

Sincerely, Oz

 

[cow451]

The newer translations can not , I reiterate! can not be brought back to the original manuscripts with a Strongs concordance and if you think Gd the Father who knew the end from the beginning and knew exactly what to put in mans hands when the 1611 version was put forth, then you are of little faith . Most of these so called scholars today are tares doing their fathers work and he was a liar and murder from the beginning. They use the same deception satan used in the garden of eden ,slightly tweaking the word to lead away from that narrow path of salvation.

Cursed be the man who puts his faith in man for it is better to trust in the lord.

If God wanted the Bible to be written in Greek, He'd have made us Grecians! That's why missionaries are supposed to teach the heathen to speak English. Have you not read Genesis 11? God saw that He would have to cause different languages so the English language could become the number one language and Christians could finally have the whole Bible to themselves. Then they brought it to America to get away from the Pope and all that nonsense.

 

[IisJustMe]

If God wanted the Bible to be written in Greek, He'd have made us Grecians! That's why missionaries are supposed to teach the heathen to speak English. Have you not read Genesis 11? God saw that He would have to cause different languages so the English language could become the number one language and Christians could finally have the whole Bible to themselves. Then they brought it to America to get away from the Pope and all that nonsense.

Careful. I've sprained my tongue shoving it that far back in my cheek.

 

[OzSpen]

Careful. I've sprained my tongue shoving that far back in my cheek.

It caused me to almost bring up my porridge (oatmeal) from breakfast.

Oz

 

[lamikin]

Hi Proverb 2717,

Simcha Jacobvici that does the series "The Naked Archeologist" was in a town in Israel (I can't remember the name) where there is a shrine to some Jewish guy (I think it was a rabbi), where they go into his tomb and say prayers.

During that episode he said that Jews consider themselves to be sons of God so he didn't see what was so special about Jesus.

I would think that "only Begotten" expresses the truth about Jesus and it doesn't leave any question in a persons mind. I highly doubt that Jews would ever refer to themselves like that.

 

[Proverb2717]

Take Philippians 2:6 for example:

King James Version - Philippians 2:6

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Again, another verse to directly show the deity of Jesus Christ.

Now, take a look at the New Internation Version:

New Internation Version - Philippians 2:6

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

Wow, that is a pretty giant difference from the King James Version! Almost as to remove the deity of Jesus Christ

 

[OzSpen]

Take Philippians 2:6 for example:

King James Version - Philippians 2:6

Again, another verse to directly show the deity of Jesus Christ.

Now, take a look at the New Internation Version:

New Internation Version - Philippians 2:6

Wow, that is a pretty giant difference from the King James Version! Almost as to remove the deity of Jesus Christ

The NIV is the better translation, based on the meaning of the Greek text.

Oz

 

[lamikin]

The NIV is the better translation, based on the meaning of the Greek text.

Oz

Which Greek?

Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Scrivener's, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle's-Aland, (If so which edition between 1 and 26?, which printing of the 26th?), UBS-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 4?) or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators.

 

[cow451]

Which Greek?

Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Scrivener's, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle's-Aland, (If so which edition between 1 and 26?, which printing of the 26th?), UBS-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 4?) or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators.

Mr. Newbody trying to act all smartie-pants. Well, I got no use for big, fancy words.

 

[OzSpen]

Which Greek?

Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Scrivener's, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle's-Aland, (If so which edition between 1 and 26?, which printing of the 26th?), UBS-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 4?) or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators.

The Nestle Greek text. However, it could also be the Aland et al United Bible Societies Greek text. In my KJV-NIV Interlinear Greek text, it uses the 21st edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece.

Oz

 

[lamikin]

Mr. Newbody trying to act all smartie-pants. Well, I got no use for big, fancy words.

Please don't be jealous

 

[IisJustMe]

Which Greek?

Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Scrivener's, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle's-Aland, (If so which edition between 1 and 26?, which printing of the 26th?), UBS-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 4?) or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators.

The most reliable and trusted is the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Novum Testamentum Graece[/FONT],26th Edition as compiled and edited by Eberhard Nestle. It is the text primarily, but not exclusively, used by the Lockman Foundation in translating both the NASB and La Biblia. All of the compilations you named are considered by any good Bible translator, and not just the few the KJV translators used -- because those were the only ones they had.

 

[HantsUK]

Take Philippians 2:6 for example:

King James Version - Philippians 2:6



Again, another verse to directly show the deity of Jesus Christ.

Now, take a look at the New Internation Version:

New Internation Version - Philippians 2:6

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

Wow, that is a pretty giant difference from the King James Version! Almost as to remove the deity of Jesus Christ

Yes, almost removed any mention of the deity of Jesus in this passage. Almost removed the start of the sentence: 'being in very nature God'. To me, that still seems a strong claim to Christ's deity. And the NIV almost removed v9-11 with 'at the name of Jesus every knee should bow' and 'every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord'. Only God is worthy of worship.

I would struggle to read this passage in the NIV and come to any conclusion other than Jesus is God.

It's a good job we do not have to relie on one single version for all our theology. Important doctrines and themes are repeated time and again throughout the Bible. For example, we have 4 gospels that record Jesus' life. Interestingly, Mark omits to tell us that Jesus was born of a virgin. Does that serious omission mean that the Gospel of Mark denies the virgin birth?

Finding particular verses in newer translations that leave out a word or two compared with the Authorised Version is a bit like finding a road sign that used to say "WARNING - SLOW DOWN", but after becoming faded due to the weather over many years, it was replaced by a new sign. But this new sign now only has "WARNING". Wow - two missing words! Sign now fails to tell us to "SLOW DOWN". Someone is deliberately changing road signs to try and cause an accident. Really? WARNING doesn't have an implied "SLOW DOWN" (or, proceed with caution)? But, fortunately, it's not the only sign. There's a speed limit sign next to it. And several other signs before and after saying "SLOW DOWN".

God gave us the entire Bible. Not individual verses to be read in isolation.

Here is another verse where the New version leaves out words:

Matthew 2:18

In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

My Bible has a helpful footnote that references the original. But, have you actually checked it? No? The original is different!

Jeremiah 31:15:

Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

Matthew omits that it is God who is speaking. This is a serious omission! Rachel is merely 'weeping' instead of 'bitter weeping'. You must agree that the word order in Matthew's New Version does not flow nearly as well as for the Old Version. But to try and hide the reduced word count, Matthew adds some new words: 'great mourning'. These verses claim to be the same verse - but they are different. Only one of them can actually be 'the words of God'. Now it becomes clear why why Matthew left out 'Thus saith the LORD'.

Oh, in case you hadn't realised, both come from the Authorised Version (KJV).