What about the "new" NIV 2011

[Keachian]

The other thing I find is that KJVO is almost exclusively American Baptist, which doesn't make sense considering that Baptists as a denomination seceded from Anglicanism

 

[brandplucked]

Was that like a copy and paste opening brandplucked? I get weary trying to follow some of these ultralong multiple posts people post that at times appear to be uninterested in actually having a dialog and are intended merely to promote ones view with such a mass of supposed evidence that no one could possibly address more then a few lines without turning it into a lifelong commitment. How about make a few points and let someone respond.

and you might consider dropping some of the inflammatory attacks against those who disagree. What is the purpose of calling someone an unbeliever in your KJV only heresy? Destroying their faith! I suppose the Lord will be given you an attaboy for that one...Not.

Hi Joseph, A post showing how messed up the NIV 2011 is takes a bit more than a passing line or two. If you are not interested, then don't read it. As for "destroying their faith" is it already destroyed by their using a fake Vatican Version that NO ONE actually believes IS the complete and infallible Bible. The recent polls show that the majority of present day Christians no longer believe the Bible (any Bible) is the infallible words of God. Are you aware of this? I'll bet that not even YOU believe that any Bible in any language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God, so your "faith" is already destroyed and weakened, and I had nothing to do with it.

Even many non- KJB onlies have recognized the sad spiritual decline in recent years and how more and more Christians deny the infallibility of the Bible. If you don't believe me (and I don't expect you to) then read their own words here -

The Bible NOT inspired - Another King James Bible Believer


“If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man’s belief in the Bible.” Voltaire - ex French philosopher and former atheist.

 

[PaladinValer]

Um....no.

Baptists are Anabaptists meet Puritans/Separatists...they are not offshoots from Anglicanism.

The only two offshoots of Anglicanism are the Methodists and the Continuing Churchers.

 

[Keachian]

Um....no.

Baptists are Anabaptists meet Puritans/Separatists...they are not offshoots from Anglicanism.

The only two offshoots of Anglicanism are the Methodists and the Continuing Churchers.

My understanding was that puritanism started as a movement within the Church of England largely fleeing to the American colonies to escape persecution from the Church and state.

 

[PaladinValer]

My understanding was that puritanism started as a movement within the Church of England largely fleeing to the American colonies to escape persecution from the Church and state.

It was the Puritans who were persecuting the Church.

 

[WinBySurrender]

The ever changing, gender neutered “new” 2011 NIV has changed about 10% of the verses from the way they read in the 1984 NIV, and they often change or add to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts they previously followed.

The NIV is a thought-for-thought translation. It never really closely followed the Greek, as it is not, and never was, a literal word-for-word translation. Understandably, trying to make it gender neutral has succeeded only in further muddying the tenuous connection it has had to the original languages.

 

[OzSpen]

What is most disconcerting is the removal of the Trinity. There are 30 new versions that have been altered so as to not offend muslims. Wycliffe, SIL, and Frontiers publishers have agreed to remove such references.

This is not your mother's Bible, and while I never liked the NIV, this version is truly a PERversion!

This is a storm in a tea cup that has been generated by Horizons International, Colorado.

Wycliffe/SIL/Frontiers has withdrawn the supposed 'offending' Bibles and have hired external language consultants to examine this issue.

Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers are solid, evangelical organisations. I happen to know NT Greek and am involved in translation. To obtain a meaning from the original language and convey it in 21st century language so that the meaning is retained is very difficult.

The NIV and NLT are outstanding translations, as long as one understands the translation philosophy of dynamic equivalence - translating meaning-for-meaning.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It was the Puritans who were persecuting the Church.

Which history have you been reading lately?

Oz

 

[Humble Pie]

Well this will make you happy. I just purchased a KJV and I'm quite enjoying reading the word of God in the king's english

 

[PaladinValer]

Which history have you been reading lately?

Oz

Real history...English Civil War...martyrdom of St. Charles Start, end of Christmas celebration, Anglicanism having to go underground...tyrrany and hypocrisy of Dictator Cromwell...etc.

 

[PaladinValer]

Well this will make you happy. I just purchased a KJV and I'm quite enjoying reading the word of God in the king's english

Except no such English exists anymore except in literary form.

No one speaks or writes early modern English anymore; the spelling has been standardized, definitions of many words has radically changed, idioms and terms are often completely different, etc.

The "King's English" (actually the Queen's since Elizabeth II ascended to the thrown) is modern English; today's English.

If you want to read the KJV, here's my honest suggestion: pick up a facsimile of the 1st/2nd ed. 1611 KJV, learn early modern English, and see how radically different what your current KJV is compared to it and how changed your interpretations will be.

Unless you are honestly and truly proficient in early modern English, your best bet is a modern English translation.

 

[brandplucked]

Except no such English exists anymore except in literary form.

No one speaks or writes early modern English anymore; the spelling has been standardized, definitions of many words has radically changed, idioms and terms are often completely different, etc.

The "King's English" (actually the Queen's since Elizabeth II ascended to the thrown) is modern English; today's English.

If you want to read the KJV, here's my honest suggestion: pick up a facsimile of the 1st/2nd ed. 1611 KJV, learn early modern English, and see how radically different what your current KJV is compared to it and how changed your interpretations will be.

Unless you are honestly and truly proficient in early modern English, your best bet is a modern English translation.

Not one of you fellas believes that any Bible in any language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. God has given us His perfect words and they happen to be in 17th century English. As far as how "different" the original 1611 was from what we see today, all that has changed is the printing font from Gothic type to modern English type. The English of 1611 is modern English. Just look it up. It is classified as modern English. If you want to use an inferior and fallible bible version, most likely a Vatican Version like the ESV, NIV, NASB, then go ahead. But don't pretend that it is the infallible words of God. They aren't and nobody seriously believes them to be so.

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

This is a storm in a tea cup that has been generated by Horizons International, Colorado.

Wycliffe/SIL/Frontiers has withdrawn the supposed 'offending' Bibles and have hired external language consultants to examine this issue.

Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers are solid, evangelical organisations. I happen to know NT Greek and am involved in translation. To obtain a meaning from the original language and convey it in 21st century language so that the meaning is retained is very difficult.

The NIV and NLT are outstanding translations, as long as one understands the translation philosophy of dynamic equivalence - translating meaning-for-meaning.

Sincerely, Oz

Hi Oz. Wycliffe and SIL promote the Vatican Versions. That is what they use for their translations. Sure, the gospel is still in them, but don't pretend that what they produce are the complete and infallible words of God. They are the ever changing Vatican versions and nothing more.

"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18:4

Want proof that they are Vatican Versions? Here you go -

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[brandplucked]

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (if you are a modern version promoter, you probably do have one). Open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They both admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself in not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

 

[Shane R]

The greater problem is not what translation people have, but that they do not read the Bible. The statistics that Pew Research publishes and that Steven Prothero compiled in 'Religious Literacy' are appalling. I used to be the local Bible Nazi, and I still try to steer folks to the best translations but I have realized that what I most need to encourage is regular, systematic reading. Most Americans have a faith based on nothing, but true faith is based on the work of the Holy Spirit through the word of God.

 

[Keachian]

The greater problem is not what translation people have, but that they do not read the Bible. The statistics that Pew Research publishes and that Steven Prothero compiled in 'Religious Literacy' are appalling. I used to be the local Bible Nazi, and I still try to steer folks to the best translations but I have realized that what I most need to encourage is regular, systematic reading. Most Americans have a faith based on nothing, but true faith is based on the work of the Holy Spirit through the word of God.

Amen

What good is it to have a Bible if it just sits on a shelf, I've even seen that some of my unbelieving friends have copies of the KJV sitting on their shelf, do they read and understand it? Most of the time, no.

 

[brandplucked]

Amen. I agree with you guys, at least in a large part. Here is a secular USA Today article that shows that Bible READERS perfer the King James Bible. The children of this world are wiser than the children of light.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-21-king-james-bible.htm

 

[PaladinValer]

Not one of you fellas believes that any Bible in any language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God.

God has given us His perfect words and they happen to be in 17th century English.

Then become an English Catholic (that is, an Anglican).

As far as how "different" the original 1611 was from what we see today, all that has changed is the printing font from Gothic type to modern English type.

PA! Nonsense:

1. Standardized spelling
2. Removal of alternate translations and footnotes
3. Removal of the translator's preface

The English of 1611 is modern English. Just look it up

I have. You are wrong.

It is classified as modern English.

Wrong. Classified early modern English.

If you want to use an inferior and fallible bible version, most likely a Vatican Version like the ESV, NIV, NASB, then go ahead. But don't pretend that it is the infallible words of God. They aren't and nobody seriously believes them to be so.

Will K

Bibliolatry is a sin. No thanks. I will worship the true and only Word of God, who is Jesus the Christ, not a dumb and difficult book translated from late, corrupt texts.

The KJV is my church's book, not yours'. Don't tell an Anglican about the KJV; we know more about it than any KJV-Onlyist will ever.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Not one of you fellas believes that any Bible in any language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. God has given us His perfect words and they happen to be in 17th century English. As far as how "different" the original 1611 was from what we see today, all that has changed is the printing font from Gothic type to modern English type. The English of 1611 is modern English. Just look it up. It is classified as modern English. If you want to use an inferior and fallible bible version, most likely a Vatican Version like the ESV, NIV, NASB, then go ahead. But don't pretend that it is the infallible words of God. They aren't and nobody seriously believes them to be so.

Will K

Are you serious?

 

[brandplucked]

Originally Posted by brandplucked

Not one of you fellas believes that any Bible in any language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. God has given us His perfect words and they happen to be in 17th century English. As far as how "different" the original 1611 was from what we see today, all that has changed is the printing font from Gothic type to modern English type. The English of 1611 is modern English. Just look it up. It is classified as modern English. If you want to use an inferior and fallible bible version, most likely a Vatican Version like the ESV, NIV, NASB, then go ahead. But don't pretend that it is the infallible words of God. They aren't and nobody seriously believes them to be so.

Will K
​

Are you serious?

Very serious. It is the truth. Which part of the three main points do you think I'm wrong about?

#1. The fact that you and all others who are not King James Bible believers do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language?

#2. That the text of the King James Bible has never changed except for the change from Gothic to Roman type and the correction of early minor printing errors and the updating of spelling?

Or #3. The fact that your modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB are all the new Catholic bibles?

You want proof of #3? Here it is in black and white from their own mouths right out of the Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek critical text introduction.

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (if you are a modern version promoter, you probably do have one). Open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They both admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself in not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney