What about the "new" NIV 2011

brandplucked · Apr 1, 2012

It's not true at all that No Doctrines have been changed. There are several of them that the modern Vatican Versions have messed up.

NoDoctrineChanged - Another King James Bible Believer

Keachian · Apr 1, 2012

brandplucked said:
It's not true at all that No Doctrines have been changed. There are several of them that the modern Vatican Versions have messed up.

NoDoctrineChanged - Another King James Bible Believer

First one is "did Jesus lie?" John 7:8 we see Jesus saying he is not going up to the festival but then going in v10 the way it is phrased to me it looks like either:
Jesus changed his mind
Jesus moved to go by the Holy Spirit
Jesus lied

The text doesn't actually go into detail as to why he said one thing and did another, the issue to me is a red herring.

Begotten in John 3:16, this was inserted by Jerome when translating into Latin, so tell me again who's got the "Catholic" translation?

blegh, straining gnats, it's so small and insignificant little things.

Also of note he makes several appeals to the greek even though he's said that there is no greek.

To show just how much this guy is straining at a gnat we'll use John 12:31 where Satan is referred to having some form of authority over the world and being cast out at judgment, he emphasizes that "ruler" is not "prince" my question to him, is Satan the ruler of darkness or the prince of darkness?

I'd still like to have an answer of whether it would be better for a Christian to be reading the Bible or for them to be following after their own hearts?

brandplucked · Apr 1, 2012

And the Vatican errors in Revelation 19:8 and the doctrinal error in 2 Peter 3:12? As for your question, it is better to read even a corrupt bible like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV where you can get some truth than to follow your own heart. Better to eat out of the trash can behind a restaurant than to eat nothing at all.

Revelation 19:8 fine linen is the righteousness of saints or "righteous acts"
Rev. 19:8 fine linen - Another King James Bible Believer

hasting unto the day of God, or "speed up" the day of God?

2Peter3:12hastingunto - Another King James Bible Believer

The KJB is always right.
Will K

Keachian · Apr 1, 2012

Calling the Bible a trash can behind a restaurant is apparently all right? I'm done here, your delusions are so apparent and twist reality, degrading scripture more than the so called non-bible believers.

brandplucked · Apr 2, 2012

progmonk said:
Calling the Bible a trash can behind a restaurant is apparently all right? I'm done here, your delusions are so apparent and twist reality, degrading scripture more than the so called non-bible believers.

I call the perversions of God's words trash. That is what they are. Fewer and fewer Christians believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible (any bible in any language) every day. Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB are the new Vatican Versions and that is a fact. They all often reject the Hebrew readings; add hundreds of words to the Hebrew texts (ESV especially and the NIV to a lesser extent). They keep on changing both their O.T. texts and their N.T. texts from one edition to the next and NOBODY believes or defends any of them as being the infallible words of God. There is still much truth in them, but it is so mixed with omissions and errors that it is difficult to get much spiritual nourishment out of them. So, Yes, I call them scrapes of food mixed with trash. I'm not the one degrading Scripture. It is the harlot of Babylon and these fake Vatican Versions.

I seriously doubt you will even read it for yourself because your mind is already made up, but if anyone cares to actually SEE for themselves what your NIV, ESV, NASBs have done with numerous Hebrew readings and how they match the modern Catholic versions, here is the proof. This study is my own and took many hours to do. It is filled with concrete example after example of how they are perverting the true words of God. It is all here in black and white and anybody can see this for themselves.

NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer

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

Will Kinney

brandplucked · Apr 7, 2012

Hi brother Paul. You make some very good points. I thank God for every true Bible believer out there.

Notes from the Internet - King James Bible Discussion

FINALLY we get down to what the Bible Agnostics REALLY believe. Every once in awhile one of them comes out with what is the essence of their belief system regarding the Bible and the real reason they continually attack one Book in particular, the King James Holy Bible.

One of our resident bible agnostics and unbelievers in the Infallibility of the Bible (a real Book you can hold in your hands and read) by the name of Bobby Valentine posts what most of these guys really believe but are unwilling to come right out and state.

Bobby Valentine 8:52pm Apr 6
"God's infallible word was given in Hebrew and Greek. There is no such thing as an infallible translation. Not in English, Not in German, not in any language"

There you have it, folks. A little bit of honesty about what he REALLY believes and why he has NO infallible Bible in any language NOW. Bobby V and folks like him who tell us "God's infallible word was given in Hebrew and Greek. There is no such thing as an infallible translation. Not in English, Not in German, not in any language", have never seen "God's infallible words" a day in their lives. There ARE NO originals, and he know this, yet his "bold confession" is that God's infallible words WERE given, past tense verb, not ARE given.

Bobby V has no infallible Hebrew and Greek text he believes either, and he also knows this to be true. So what does he recommend? He himself has told us that the Catholics are coming out with some really good bibles like the St. Joseph New American bible. And guess what. This modern day Catholic bible uses the SAME eclectic critical text (Nestle-Aland, UBS) for the New Testament that his other Vatican Versions use (the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET) and also rejects many of the inspired Hebrew readings in the same places as his also recommended ESV, NIV etc. What a shocker! ;-) BUT, Bobby V even tells us that not even his recommended Vatican Versions ARE the infallible words of God because in his mind "There is no such thing as an infallible translation."

See Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are the new Vatican Versions -
Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

So, who or what is Bobby V's final authority? Well, you can bet on one thing for sure; it is NOT "the Bible". It's gonna be either his own mind and understanding subject to change at any moment, or the Pope or some other lying bible agnostic like James White. Men like James White speak out of both sides of their mouth. They will SAY they believe The Bible IS the infallible words of God, but when asked where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible they PROFESS to believe in, they get just a tad uncomfortable and immediately try to change the subject, usually by dragging out their laundry list of alleged errors in our beloved King James Holy Bible - the ONLY Bible believed by thousands of redeemed children of God to be the complete, inspired and 100% historically true and doctrinally pure words of God in the English language.

There is no middle ground in this issue of God's final written authority - the Holy Bible. Either you are a bible agnostic and an unbeliever in the Infallibility of the Bible like Bobby V, James White and a multitude of other modern day professing Christians, or you are a King James Bible believer with the true, infallible and preserved words of God you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe every word. You are either a bible agnostic or a Bible believer. Which side are you on?

Will Kinney

hedrick · Apr 7, 2012

I would point out that what the preface to UBS 4 says is that the Vatican agreed to use the UBS text for translations made under its supervision. That is not a confession that they changed the text, just that they're happy with it. I realize that alone makes you suspicious, but remember the Vatican also is happy with the Trinity, the Incarnation, and many other things that I assume you also accept.

brandplucked · Apr 7, 2012

hedrick said:
I would point out that what the preface to UBS 4 says is that the Vatican agreed to use the UBS text for translations made under its supervision. That is not a confession that they changed the text, just that they're happy with it. I realize that alone makes you suspicious, but remember the Vatican also is happy with the Trinity, the Incarnation, and many other things that I assume you also accept.

Hi hedrick. Sorry, but you are entirely wrong here. One of the 5 main editors of the Critical text was Cardinal Carlo Martini and there are several big name Catholics who are the leaders of the entire UBS critical text committee. Anything based on the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts (which continue to change from one edition to the next) is in fact a Vatican Version.

Simply go back are read the article.
Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

Here is just part of what you may have missed -

The hundreds of textual differences between the Traditional Text Reformation bibles and the modern UBS Catholic/Evangelical bible versions is that there is a concerted effort between the Catholics and modern apostate Christianity to create "a new bible" that will be accepted by both camps. It doesn't matter to them whether it is the complete, inspired and inerrant Bible or not. Neither the Evangelicals nor the Catholics believe such a thing exists! Their continuing mantra is that "ONLY the originals WERE inspired" and nobody knows for sure what the originals said, so we no longer have an inerrant bible anyway. Apparently what is important to them is that both their "bibles" agree, even though not one of them believes it IS the inerrant words of God nor our final authority. If the Bible is not the inerrant words of God, then the Bible is not our final authority and we will then need to look elsewhere. And where might that final authority be found? the "scholars"? (Evangelicals' modern day "priestcraft"), "the Pope"? or the next world religious leader (the Anti-Christ)? But you can bet it sure won't be their "bible".

Guess why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It's because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the New Age Catholic Cardinal Carlos Martini, who believed god was in all men and in all religions. Just open a copy of the UBS New Testament Greek and turn to the first page. There you will see a list of the 5 chief editors who put this abomination together. The 4th name on the list, right before the inerrancy denying Bruce Metzger, is Carlo M. Martini. In his book "In the Thick of His Ministry" Cardinal Martini writes: The deification which is the aim of all religious life takes place. During a recent trip to India I was struck by the yearning for the divine that pervades the whole of Hindu culture. It gives rise to extraordinary religious forms and extremely meaningful prayers. I wondered: What is authentic in this longing to fuse with the divine dominating the spirituality of hundreds of millions of human beings, so that they bear hardship, privation, exhausting pilgrimages, in search of this ecstasy?" (In The Thick Of His Ministry, Carlo M. Martini, page 42.) Cardinal Martini served on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies' 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions. These are the "bibles" most modern Christians are using today when they pick up the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET or modern Catholic "bibles".

And this -

In 1965, Pope Paul VI authorized the publication of a new Latin Vulgate, with the Latin text conformed to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 201). In 1987 a formal agreement was made between the Roman Catholic Church and the United Bible Societies that the critical Greek New Testament will be used for all future translations, both Catholic and Protestant (Guidelines for International Cooperation in Translating the Bible, Rome, 1987, p. 5). Most of the translations produced by the United Bible Societies are interconfessional, meaning they have Roman Catholic participation and backing.

PROPHECYKID · Apr 9, 2012

brandplucked said:
Hi hedrick. Sorry, but you are entirely wrong here. One of the 5 main editors of the Critical text was Cardinal Carlo Martini and there are several big name Catholics who are the leaders of the entire UBS critical text committee. Anything based on the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts (which continue to change from one edition to the next) is in fact a Vatican Version.

Simply go back are read the article.
Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

Here is just part of what you may have missed -

The hundreds of textual differences between the Traditional Text Reformation bibles and the modern UBS Catholic/Evangelical bible versions is that there is a concerted effort between the Catholics and modern apostate Christianity to create "a new bible" that will be accepted by both camps. It doesn't matter to them whether it is the complete, inspired and inerrant Bible or not. Neither the Evangelicals nor the Catholics believe such a thing exists! Their continuing mantra is that "ONLY the originals WERE inspired" and nobody knows for sure what the originals said, so we no longer have an inerrant bible anyway. Apparently what is important to them is that both their "bibles" agree, even though not one of them believes it IS the inerrant words of God nor our final authority. If the Bible is not the inerrant words of God, then the Bible is not our final authority and we will then need to look elsewhere. And where might that final authority be found? the "scholars"? (Evangelicals' modern day "priestcraft"), "the Pope"? or the next world religious leader (the Anti-Christ)? But you can bet it sure won't be their "bible".

Guess why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It's because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the New Age Catholic Cardinal Carlos Martini, who believed god was in all men and in all religions. Just open a copy of the UBS New Testament Greek and turn to the first page. There you will see a list of the 5 chief editors who put this abomination together. The 4th name on the list, right before the inerrancy denying Bruce Metzger, is Carlo M. Martini. In his book "In the Thick of His Ministry" Cardinal Martini writes: The deification which is the aim of all religious life takes place. During a recent trip to India I was struck by the yearning for the divine that pervades the whole of Hindu culture. It gives rise to extraordinary religious forms and extremely meaningful prayers. I wondered: What is authentic in this longing to fuse with the divine dominating the spirituality of hundreds of millions of human beings, so that they bear hardship, privation, exhausting pilgrimages, in search of this ecstasy?" (In The Thick Of His Ministry, Carlo M. Martini, page 42.) Cardinal Martini served on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies' 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions. These are the "bibles" most modern Christians are using today when they pick up the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET or modern Catholic "bibles".

And this -

In 1965, Pope Paul VI authorized the publication of a new Latin Vulgate, with the Latin text conformed to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 201). In 1987 a formal agreement was made between the Roman Catholic Church and the United Bible Societies that the critical Greek New Testament will be used for all future translations, both Catholic and Protestant (Guidelines for International Cooperation in Translating the Bible, Rome, 1987, p. 5). Most of the translations produced by the United Bible Societies are interconfessional, meaning they have Roman Catholic participation and backing.

You tried allot with these guys but believe me, if they are stubborn in their beliefs, there is nothing you or I can do. Hopefully people who are more open to truth and willing to investigate these matters would believe us.

brandplucked · Apr 9, 2012

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

All of grace, believing The Book and Accepted in the Beloved.

Will K

childofdust · Apr 9, 2012

There is really nothing of substance that brandpucked has said or offered. And I would advise people here to disregard him completely. He is more interested in his a priori, tendentiously driven Agenda than he is in truth. I have no doubts that the new and old NIV have problems...but not nearly as many as brandplucked has. The ones who put together the NIV are scholars. brandplucked is NOT. That's why he's here on a forum trying to persuade people that he's right about the KJVbecause in the real world, no college would hire him to teach Greek. Because in the real world, he would never sell a book through a reputable scholastic source or publish an article in a peer-reviewed Journal of higher learning. Because in the real world, unlike someone such as myself who has almost no time to spend on-line because I am busy actually learning the skills and concepts I need to understand what the bible says and why, brandplucked has all the time in the world to spend here writting tiresomely long posts--because he hasn't learned what I am learning, isn't learning what I'm learning, and has all the time in the world to spew nonsense and to call Textual Criticism scientifically invalid while himself giving NO scientific criteria for his own statements. Go with the NIV before you go with a charlatan like brandplucked.

Unix · Apr 10, 2012

Never go with the NIV! You have said that You know hebrew well childofdust, but You haven't made up Your mind about which NT version to use. So how do You judge for the NT Greek?

Once when somebody wrote that any so called "major" version is fine, I wrote a long reply:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7600870-post59290532

ANY version, amongst them 2011 NIV, is NOT fine.

It's not serious to recommend NIV, it's one of the WORST versions.

childofdust said:
Go with the NIV before you go with a charlatan like brandplucked.

But so is of course the KJV also

Keachian · Apr 10, 2012

Unix, from looking through your list and though I agree for the most part about the Bibles you do use, you dismiss several Bibles solely on disagreeing with the theology of the translation committees

Unix · Apr 10, 2012

What theology would that be? Do You mean if I dismiss 2001 and 2007 ESV and 1995 NASU? Is it a surprise if I dismiss conservative and reformed Bibles?

I'm a bit interested in Calvinistic theology, but I don't want that IN A BIBLE (such as is the case with the ESV).

I don't know which Bibles You meant.

And I have some Fundamentalistic views, but that is not supported by conservative Bibles.

progmonk said:
you dismiss several Bibles solely on disagreeing with the theology of the translation committees

unfinishedclay · Apr 10, 2012

Thank you for posting this! I plan to print your posts out about this and send to loved ones who use NIV. It is very important to get the word out about this. The Word discusses in read (Jesus' Word) the danger of adding to and taking from His Word!

Thy WORD is TRUTH · Apr 10, 2012

Only in todays day and age would it be controversial among Christians to believe in inerrancy of scripture.

Keachian · Apr 10, 2012

Unix said:
What theology would that be? Do You mean if I dismiss 2001 and 2007 ESV and 1995 NASU? Is it a surprise if I dismiss conservative and reformed Bibles?

I'm a bit interested in Calvinistic theology, but I don't want that IN A BIBLE (such as is the case with the ESV).

I don't know which Bibles You meant.

And I have some Fundamentalistic views, but that is not supported by conservative Bibles.

Probably this lot mostly and I'll give reasons, but I should probably note that I follow the augustinian ideal for studying translated scripture, that is read many different versions:
* ESV - No calvinist theology present, except in the Reformation Study edition, which I probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, but then I probably wouldn't go for a study bible anyway, my next one is going to be a Geneva facsimile, then probably a copy of BEST
* NRSV - Scholarly literal translation, the fact that it's "promoted" by China is a null concept.
* NIV - I admit that I probably have a soft spot for this one as it was my first bible
* CJB (David Stern's translation of the whole Bible 1998) - I find this one to be a bit of an interesting interesting Bible, it's useful for a very different view on scripture.
* NJB - I'd be interested in why you think this version is heretical, I have found it to be quite useful and for a season I used it as my primary.

brandplucked · Apr 10, 2012

Hi ironic. This bible agnostic who does not know where to find a complete, inspired and 100% true words of God Bible thinks highly of the Reformation bibles (all of which were based on the Hebrew texts and the same general Textus Receptus followed by the King James Bible and all Reformation bibles in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish) and yet he recommends the ESV, which is a Vatican Version of the bible put out by a joint collaboration between the Vatican and Inerrancy denying "evangelicals" to produce an "interconfessional" text for the N.T. and all of which reject numerous Hebrew readings and ADD hundreds of words from the so called Greek Septuagint, just like the modern Catholic Versions. Don't believe me? Well, check out the evidence for yourself.

Here is the truth about the vaunted ESV Vatican Version

See for yourself how it lines up with the ever changing modern Catholic versions. You CANNOT logically deny the truth of this

The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer

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

Will Kinney

Keachian · Apr 10, 2012

brandplucked said:
Hi ironic. This bible agnostic who does not know where to find a complete, inspired and 100% true words of God Bible thinks highly of the Reformation bibles (all of which were based on the Hebrew texts and the same general Textus Receptus followed by the King James Bible and all Reformation bibles in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish) and yet he recommends the ESV, which is a Vatican Version of the bible put out by a joint collaboration between the Vatican and Inerrancy denying "evangelicals" to produce an "interconfessional" text for the N.T. and all of which reject numerous Hebrew readings and ADD hundreds of words from the so called Greek Septuagint, just like the modern Catholic Versions. Don't believe me? Well, check out the evidence for yourself.

Here is the truth about the vaunted ESV Vatican Version

See for yourself how it lines up with the ever changing modern Catholic versions. You CANNOT logically deny the truth of this

The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer

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

Will Kinney

To others reading this. please note that our Catholic friend thinks the ESV has heavy evangelical and calvinist leanings, ie not Vatican influenced, in fact, to further prove this point the translation oversight committee:
Translation Oversight Committee « ESV Bible
The review scholars:
Translation Review Scholars « ESV Bible

out of that 62 something people, there's probably about 5 or so Catholics...

Unix · Apr 10, 2012

I haven't argued for no Vatican influence, anyway, but 5 out of 62 is nothing, they obviously had no other influence than perhaps Isaiah 7:14 (although there are many protestans who agree with the catholics on tha one). There is NO Catholic vocabulary present whatsoever, Lk Infancy Narrative isn't translated like the Catholics do. Protestant Bibles are so EXTREME in those regards.

And to Your knowledge the Calvinistic and evangelical bias in it IS heavy.

So You're trying to say that it's eclectic or one of the least biased versions? That's very wrong. Even the NRSV and RSV-2 are LESS biased (to compare with the ones the ESV is said to "come from"). The ESV is a deliberate attempt to just bias further, that is more than obvious, otherwise they would have revised in a/some completely different direction.

progmonk said:
To others reading this. please note that our Catholic friend thinks the ESV has heavy evangelical and calvinist leanings, ie not Vatican influenced, [...] out of that 62 something people, there's probably about 5 or so Catholics...

Of course the NJB is heretical, compared to ANY Church. That's more than obvious. Why should I bother with examples? Through-and-through. MORE translation errors than in the Jerusalem Bible. The only positive thing there might be about it, is the language style which is decent. But I wouldn't buy a Bible just because of style, hence the CEB is also (for a number of reasons such as translation errors and bias) completely uninteresting.

Mainstream - that nullifies the efforts of the scholars. Note that I'm not even mainstream Catholic. The formal equivalency combined with the gender-neutral language is ridiculous. Most and foremost the formal equivalency. I could stand the gender-neutralness of it. A whole lot of effort wasted.

progmonk said:
* NRSV - Scholarly literal translation, the fact that it's "promoted" by China is a null concept.

What about the "new" NIV 2011

Member

On Sabbatical

Member

On Sabbatical

Member

Member

Senior Veteran

Member

Veteran

Member

Newbie

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

On Sabbatical

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Member

Bible Believing Born Again Christian

On Sabbatical

Member

On Sabbatical

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency