Why the NIV cannot be the word of God, even thought it contains portions of God's word.

[tall73]

Here are the doctrines in those verses:

Prayer and fasting
Salvation
Eternal damnation
Forgiveness
Fulfillment of Scripture
Rapture
God's power
Grace
Trinity

If you don't believe that these are doctrinal issues, perhaps you should study biblical doctrine.

I think both parties agree that those are doctrinal issues. And clearly if verses are not present then that removes DATA regarding various doctrines. However, the other poster is saying other texts in the NIV as a whole still uphold those doctrines.

So perhaps the folks criticizing the NIV could say it removes important data or witnesses to certain doctrines.

Either way the reason they did it is that the underlying manuscripts they are using do not have those verses. Now I suppose if you still want to maintain an agenda argument you could simply say that their claims about using what they thought were the best manuscripts were just a smokescreen. You could say they wanted to use those manuscripts because they left out things they personally would rather leave out as well. However, they didn't just say "let's take out any verse that goes against our opinion". The verses they left out were because of the manuscripts they used, which existed long before they were born. So the real debate is about which "stream" of manuscripts is best.

 

[tall73]

Now it is alleged that folks were just removing things that divided or that they didn't like. Certainly since some are alleging theological changes based on a pro-homosexual agenda they should have gotten around to removing these verses:


26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

But of course they did not remove those. Because they are not just removing verses that bother them, but instead they are removing those that are not present in the manuscripts they feel are the best.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The creators of the NIV did in fact remove verses, passages, and words which bothered them in order to soften the divisive nature of God's truth in contrast to lies. They stated this clearly as their main purpose in the Preface when they explained why they made the perversion of God's word.
In your excuse making for the NIV, you forgot to explain why he NIV omits omits the last sentence of Mark 6:11 which mentions the day of judgment against Sodom and Gomorrha, probably at the behest of the strong lesbian/homosexual influence easily documented in the creators of the NIV, softening what the Bible says against homosexuality.
You are trying to make a blanket excuse for the NIV to ignore all of the doctrinal changes which were done as stated in the Preface to remove sectarian barriers. Your blanket excuse does not even cover the tiny little thing you are trying to claim is excused before you declare the same excuse covers any objection against the NIV. You are either not looking at the facts or for some reason you are purposely obscuring those facts, and I guess that reason would be to promote education as honorable in dynamic equivalency with the word of God. I'm sorry to say God has no dynamic equivalent.

 

[John Robie]

The creators of the NIV did in fact remove verses, passages, and words which bothered them in order to soften the divisive nature of God's truth in contrast to lies. They stated this clearly as their main purpose in the Preface when they explained why they made the perversion of God's word.
In your excuse making for the NIV, you forgot to explain why he NIV omits omits the last sentence of Mark 6:11 which mentions the day of judgment against Sodom and Gomorrha, probably at the behest of the strong lesbian/homosexual influence easily documented in the creators of the NIV, softening what the Bible says against homosexuality.
You are trying to make a blanket excuse for the NIV to ignore all of the doctrinal changes which were done as stated in the Preface to remove sectarian barriers. Your blanket excuse does not even cover the tiny little thing you are trying to claim is excused before you declare the same excuse covers any objection against the NIV. You are either not looking at the facts or for some reason you are purposely obscuring those facts, and I guess that reason would be to promote education as honorable in dynamic equivalency with the word of God. I'm sorry to say God has no dynamic equivalent.

You have not shown that there are doctrines missing from the NIV.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

At LEAST, two known homosexuals influenced the wordings in the NIV to soften the Bibles strong words of condemnation against all homosexuality.

The following quote was ascribed to Dr. Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee:


"There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today."

Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, a literary critic for the NIV translation is an open lesbian. The Episcopal magazine, Witness, in June 1991, on pp. 20-23 quoted her as saying “My homosexuality has always been a part of me...”. I guess that means her excuse for doing what the Bible calls abomination is that she believes she was born that way and cannot control her behavior in sexual actions.

Dr. Woudstra, also a known homosexual who was chairman of the Old Testament committee for the NIV, believed there was nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we know it today. He made sure that sodomites in the Old Testament were changed to male prostitutes, so the excuse for their sodomy was that they needed the money.

To say the NIV in reality had no intention of easing the word of God against homosexuality is nothing but ignoring the facts.

Ungodly people want to change God's word to accommodate their ungodliness. Peter warned against them when he said in 2nd Peter 3:15-17...."... our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you...in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

 

[tall73]

The creators of the NIV did in fact remove verses, passages, and words which bothered them in order to soften the divisive nature of God's truth in contrast to lies. They stated this clearly as their main purpose in the Preface when they explained why they made the perversion of God's word.

Fourth time you have referenced this. We are still waiting for the quote.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Now it is alleged that folks were just removing things that divided or that they didn't like. Certainly since some are alleging theological changes based on a pro-homosexual agenda they should have gotten around to removing these verses:


26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

But of course they did not remove those. Because they are not just removing verses that bother them, but instead they are removing those that are not present in the manuscripts they feel are the best.

Why remove it when changing it with devilish subtlety is more effective? To say something is detestable means it may be detestable to you but not to me. To say something is an abomination means I cannot be anything but an abomination if you feel it's detestable or not.
They were obvious enough in weakening God's word against homosexuality. They could not be too obvious. Making subtle changes is much more devious and equally if not more effective in corrupting God's word.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Fourth time you have referenced this. We are still waiting for the quote.

How many times did I say you are ignoring facts? Is this the fourth time I stated that? If you won't look at the facts already posted, if you will dismiss all, that's your problem and not mine. Are you reading the posts at all? Go back and read all the posts in the thread, it's really not long yet, and see if you can find the answers you say are not there. If you can't find them by what is there, you certainly will say they cannot be found no matter how much information is given to you.

 

[tall73]

In your excuse making for the NIV, you forgot to explain why he NIV omits omits the last sentence of Mark 6:11 which mentions the day of judgment against Sodom and Gomorrha, probably at the behest of the strong lesbian/homosexual influence easily documented in the creators of the NIV, softening what the Bible says against homosexuality.

No Joe, it again was much simpler than that. The manuscripts they used do not have that part of the verse.

Again it comes down to manuscripts used. Otherwise they would have just removed all the references to homosexuality and been done with it.

 

[tall73]

You are trying to make a blanket excuse for the NIV to ignore all of the doctrinal changes which were done as stated in the Preface to remove sectarian barriers. Your blanket excuse does not even cover the tiny little thing you are trying to claim is excused before you declare the same excuse covers any objection against the NIV.

The "blanket" excuse is not an excuse at all. It is showing why verses are omitted when compared with the KJV, because they used different manuscripts which do not have them.

And if they wanted to remove all references to homosexual condemnation they could have. The did not.

 

[High Fidelity]

The creators of the NIV did in fact remove verses, passages, and words which bothered them in order to soften the divisive nature of God's truth in contrast to lies. They stated this clearly as their main purpose in the Preface when they explained why they made the perversion of God's word.
In your excuse making for the NIV, you forgot to explain why he NIV omits omits the last sentence of Mark 6:11 which mentions the day of judgment against Sodom and Gomorrha, probably at the behest of the strong lesbian/homosexual influence easily documented in the creators of the NIV, softening what the Bible says against homosexuality.
You are trying to make a blanket excuse for the NIV to ignore all of the doctrinal changes which were done as stated in the Preface to remove sectarian barriers. Your blanket excuse does not even cover the tiny little thing you are trying to claim is excused before you declare the same excuse covers any objection against the NIV. You are either not looking at the facts or for some reason you are purposely obscuring those facts, and I guess that reason would be to promote education as honorable in dynamic equivalency with the word of God. I'm sorry to say God has no dynamic equivalent.

The end of Mark 6:11 is different in what's considered to be the most accurate, literal word-for-word translation today as well.

The fact the KJV got it wrong doesn't mean the newer, more accurate versions are wrong.

It just means that while the translators did the best they could with what they hard to work with, their work was ultimately usurped by accuracy in the coming years and translations, the NIV being one of them(In that specific instance, I still think thought-for-thought is a disservice to a person's understanding of the Word).

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Fourth time you have referenced this. We are still waiting for the quote.

The Preface to the NIV is the quote. Read it for yourself, then talk about it. You can find it easily enough.

 

[High Fidelity]

No Joe, it again was much simpler than that. The manuscripts they used do not have that part of the verse.

Again it comes down to manuscripts used. Otherwise they would have just removed all the references to homosexuality and been done with it.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

 

[Boidae]

Why remove it when changing it with devilish subtlety is more effective? To say something is detestable means it may be detestable to you but not to me. To say something is an abomination means I cannot be anything but an abomination if you feel it's detestable or not.
They were obvious enough in weakening God's word against homosexuality. They could not be too obvious. Making subtle changes is much more devious and equally if not more effective in corrupting God's word.

Abomination can also mean a detestable act.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abomination

noun
1.
anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2.
intense aversion or loathing; detestation:
He regarded lying with abomination.
3.
a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.:
Spitting in public is an abomination.

When I read detestable act I don't read as anything but wrong for anyone. It isn't up for question.

 

[High Fidelity]

The Preface to the NIV is the quote. Read it for yourself, then talk about it. You can find it easily enough.

Can you quote it word for word please? I can check in my own NIV then

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The end of Mark 6:11 is different in what's considered to be the most accurate, literal word-for-word translation today as well.

The fact the KJV got it wrong doesn't mean the newer, more accurate versions are wrong.

It just means that while the translators did the best they could with what they hard to work with, their work was ultimately usurped by accuracy in the coming years and translations, the NIV being one of them(In that specific instance, I still think thought-for-thought is a disservice to a person's understanding of the Word).

Why do you think the NIV removes the word "fornication", as well as "effeminate"? Could it be that they were afraid the book would not sell if the clear language of the King James Bible against all sexual expression outside of marriage was used? The NIV is the Bible of choice for fornicators and homosexuals...generally. I am aware that many homosexuals and fornicators use other versions, but the Preface of the NIV clearly states it main intention as being to remove sectarian barriers. The sexual permissiveness in many churches today is saddening, and the removal from the NIV of God's strong words against all lustful sexual expression in word, deed, or thought outside of marriage is downright evil.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Can you quote it word for word please? I can check in my own NIV then

Check your own NIP if you have the Preface (the P is for Perversion) and then prove me wrong. You can't do it because what I have said about the Preface is close enough to verbatim quote. Why don't you post the verbatim quote since you have an NIV. I don't have an NIV, it sickens me to see one.

 

[tall73]

He made sure that sodomites in the Old Testament were changed to male prostitutes, so the excuse for their sodomy was that they needed the money.

That is because the word itself refers to someone who is serving in a religious capacity, in this case, committing homosexual acts as part of fertility worship. It is not just that they needed "money" but that their perverse actions were part of their idol worship.

qâdêsh
kaw-dashe'
From H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry

This is continuing the thought of their idolatrous actions.

1Ki 14:23 For they also built for themselves high places and pillars and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree,
1Ki 14:24 and there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.

 

[High Fidelity]

Why do you think the NIV removes the word "fornication", as well as "effeminate"? Could it be that they were afraid the book would not sell if the clear language of the King James Bible against all sexual expression outside of marriage was used? The NIV is the Bible of choice for fornicators and homosexuals...generally. I am aware that many homosexuals and fornicators use other versions, but the Preface of the NIV clearly states it main intention as being to remove sectarian barriers. The sexual permissiveness in many churches today is saddening, and the removal from the NIV of God's strong words against all lustful sexual expression in word, deed, or thought outside of marriage is downright evil.

Probably because it wasn't accurate.

Given the KJV is over 400 years old, it isn't surprising that more accurate manuscripts found or better translations made

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I want to thank everybody for keeping the focus of this thread on the NIV. My intention is that some with objective discernment will see the importance of the issue and how it distracts from the gospel of God in Jesus Christ through whom we can be absolutely sure today and forever that are sins are forgiven, paid for in full by God's own blood in Jesus Christ.