Try Answering These From Your NIV

[throughfiierytrial]

The reason the NIV left out 'begotten' was because it used corrupted flaw text tampered with by Gnostics. If the NIV was willing to tamper with something as important as the deity of Christ, is possible they were loose with other things? Yes it is.

Before I go further, let me post that I am not a "KJV onlyist" for I use other versions but mostly KJV. So my issue here is primarily with the NIV and not so much about any texts it was based upon but its blatant attempt to change God's doctrine.

Why was the subjunctive mood in John 3:16 changed to indicative mood?
Why was David's words perverted having him say he was born a sinner when he was not Psa 51?
Why was the Greek word sarx translated "sinful nature" when man does not have a sinful nature?
Why was Romans 10:9,10 made to read belief only saves when the bible does not teach such?
(These are a few examples of doctrinal tampering found in the NIV)

Whether the author's of the NIV used one text or another, these changes to God's word were put there on purpose because of a biased theology. The bible does not teach these thing so they took the liberty to force these man made doctrines into their (per)version. Hence we have a Non Inspired Version.

I agree with you that no version is 100% perfect, but the KJV is far more correct in its rendering of the above verses I cited when the NIV is just plain wrong.

Are you certain you are not falling prey to KJ=onlyist point of view and so not looking into the real issues with a balanced approach? If corruption was intended as you accuse the translators certainly would not have footnoted the older text. I did my own research years ago and am unable to find my sources anymore to address the Gnostics accusation. In my view NIV 1984 is excellent and it is a miracle that so many denominations came together to do the translation...an act of God.

 

[Phil 1:21]

 

[TheSeabass]

Are you certain you are not falling prey to KJ=onlyist point of view and so not looking into the real issues with a balanced approach? If corruption was intended as you accuse the translators certainly would not have footnoted the older text. I did my own research years ago and am unable to find my sources anymore to address the Gnostics accusation. In my view NIV 1984 is excellent and it is a miracle that so many denominations came together to do the translation...an act of God.

No, for I do not strickly use a KJV and like I said it is not perfect, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

My issue here is with the NIV. Can you justify any of the changes the NIV made to the contexts I cited regardless of what text the NIV was based upon? Again, the KJV is not perfect but it does not blatantly change God's word with the verses/passages I cited.


As far as flawed sources used by the NIV, here is a link that cites sources showing the flaws (first four of paragraphs):
The New International Version

 

[TheSeabass]

My take is no translation is perfect but some are PURPOSEFULLY flawed to promote a false teaching(s). I can understand why some flaws occurred, but not the ones put there on purpose to mislead people and to promote a particular authors beliefs.....as the NIV does. The NIV does a good job in translating some passages, but its doctrinal flaws far outweigh any good.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You must be a KJV onlyist. Am I right?
I love the NIV84 short answer.
How do you feel about unauthorized additions to the Bible...even though well-intentioned?
Read Romans 13:2 in KJV...ever had a speeding ticket? if so you are damned rather than judged as rightly put in the NIV
Read I Corinthians 11:29 in KJ then read the following passages esp. 32-32; it is obvious that judgement is meant and not damnation in verse 29...by their own renderings. These are very serious issues...they raise doubts and hopelessness in a person rather than to instruct, correct and give life and hope.

Condemnation, DAMNATION, judgment, what's the difference? In their case?

Any speeding ticket is damnation (ESPECIALLY IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY LICENCE), in my case.

I think the conclusion given, (that there is something serious about the differences pointed to, and they could have negative consequences), does not follow and is pretty ridiculous.
It's a "straw man," trumped up charge.
Just different words for pretty much the same thing.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

My take is no translation is perfect but some are PURPOSEFULLY flawed to promote a false teaching(s). I can understand why some flaws occurred, but not the ones put there on purpose to mislead people and to promote a particular authors beliefs.....as the NIV does. The NIV does a good job in translating some passages, but its doctrinal flaws far outweigh any good.

I agree.

To be totally dismissive, the NIV is crap.

 

[Phil 1:21]

My take is no translation is perfect but some are PURPOSEFULLY flawed to promote a false teaching(s). I can understand why some flaws occurred, but not the ones put there on purpose to mislead people and to promote a particular authors beliefs.....as the NIV does. The NIV does a good job in translating some passages, but its doctrinal flaws far outweigh any good.

You opinion does not constitute fact, but thanks for sharing.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Condemnation, DAMNATION, judgment, what's the difference? In their case?

Any speeding ticket is damnation (ESPECIALLY IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY LICENCE), in my case.

I think the conclusion given, (that there is something serious about the differences pointed to, and they could have negative consequences), does not follow and is pretty ridiculous.
It's a "straw man," trumped up charge.
Just different words for pretty much the same thing.

have it your way...we all have a choice...this was I thought a discussion forum on the topic of Bibles.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I agree.

To be totally dismissive, the NIV is crap.

Your very words here lead one to dismiss your opinion as too shallow.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

No, for I do not strickly use a KJV and like I said it is not perfect, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

My issue here is with the NIV. Can you justify any of the changes the NIV made to the contexts I cited regardless of what text the NIV was based upon? Again, the KJV is not perfect but it does not blatantly change God's word with the verses/passages I cited.


As far as flawed sources used by the NIV, here is a link that cites sources showing the flaws (first four of paragraphs):
The New International Version

Your link is not a reliable enough source for me to use since the author is not knowledgeable enough on the topic by his own admission. I read pieces written by participants in the translation on why and how it was done remarks from all sides...pro and con.
Your argument against NIV 84 is not clear to me. One is not to add or subtract from the Bible. Additions to prove one's doctrine seem good and right to some, but that is deep sin...many additions were found in the Majority Text. These are changes made by men with an agenda.
I grew up 1st-8th grade on the KJV memorizing passages and such from it...find myself reciting them according to the KJ now and then to this day. When NIV came out most churches as well as my own switched to it rather than KJV. I researched it well and when fully convinced it was sound I hesitantly made the change. I love the renderings of the text. The Holy Spirit leads us to all Truth when we read the Word as you know and we do not need additions to find that Truth.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

have it your way...we all have a choice...this was I thought a discussion forum on the topic of Bibles.

Seems the OP focuses on the NIV, with contrast with the King James.
You in a response suggest some sort of discrepancies in the KJ; I only responded to what you claimed.

Certainly on topic if you were!

 

[Kiwi Christian]

" word-for-word translation"

A word-for-word translation of WHICH manuscripts though?

 

[Kiwi Christian]

God bless

 

[Kiwi Christian]

God bless

 

[TheSeabass]

You opinion does not constitute fact, but thanks for sharing.

It is fact.

Why was the subjunctive mood in John 3:16 changed to indicative mood?
Why was David's words perverted having him say he was born a sinner when he was not Psa 51?
Why was the Greek word sarx translated "sinful nature" when man does not have a sinful nature?
Why was Romans 10:9,10 made to read belief only saves when the bible does not teach such?
(These are a few examples of doctrinal tampering found in the NIV)

Why did the NIV change bible doctrine. None of the above changes, as far as I know, were due to texts the NIV but bias of the NIV authors.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It is fact.

Why was the subjunctive mood in John 3:16 changed to indicative mood?
Why was David's words perverted having him say he was born a sinner when he was not Psa 51?
Why was the Greek word sarx translated "sinful nature" when man does not have a sinful nature?
Why was Romans 10:9,10 made to read belief only saves when the bible does not teach such?
(These are a few examples of doctrinal tampering found in the NIV)

Why did the NIV change bible doctrine. None of the above changes, as far as I know, were due to texts the NIV but bias of the NIV authors.

Your premise is predicated on your opinion that the KJV is the infallible, perfect word of God.

 

[TheSeabass]

Your link is not a reliable enough source for me to use since the author is not knowledgeable enough on the topic by his own admission. I read pieces written by participants in the translation on why and how it was done remarks from all sides...pro and con.
Your argument against NIV 84 is not clear to me. One is not to add or subtract from the Bible. Additions to prove one's doctrine seem good and right to some, but that is deep sin...many additions were found in the Majority Text. These are changes made by men with an agenda.
I grew up 1st-8th grade on the KJV memorizing passages and such from it...find myself reciting them according to the KJ now and then to this day. When NIV came out most churches as well as my own switched to it rather than KJV. I researched it well and when fully convinced it was sound I hesitantly made the change. I love the renderings of the text. The Holy Spirit leads us to all Truth when we read the Word as you know and we do not need additions to find that Truth.

The link I provided gave footnotes at the bottom by scholars on the subject.

The NIV will not lead one to God's truth but to the theological biases put there by its authors.

Why was the subjunctive mood in John 3:16 changed to indicative mood?
Why was David's words perverted having him say he was born a sinner when he was not Psa 51?
Why was the Greek word sarx translated "sinful nature" when man does not have a sinful nature?
Why was Romans 10:9,10 made to read belief only saves when the bible does not teach such?
(These are a few examples of doctrinal tampering found in the NIV)


The above are doctrinal changes the NIV tried to make to God's word. Again, the KJV is not perfect but one can find God's truth in it which is far more that can ever be said for the NIV.

 

[TheSeabass]

Your premise is predicated on your opinion that the KJV is the infallible, perfect word of God.

No, I NEVER said the KJV is infallible or perfect. It has it weakness and strengths but it is far better than the NIV, which is not even a bible, but an attempt to replace God's truth with made made theologies.

 

[Phil 1:21]

No, I NEVER said the KJV is infallible or perfect. It has it weakness and strengths but it is far better than the NIV, which is not even a bible, but an attempt to replace God's truth with made made theologies.

Which brings us back to your opinion not constituting fact. Thanks again.

 

[Albion]

All about tradition... people love their tradition. Actually when the KJV first came out it was itself a reviled and despised translation. Irony much?!

I think it's more the case that the AV is more correct than any of the modern language translations, even if it's not perfect in every respect (since there is no translation which is).