Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by neal4christ, Jun 26, 2003.
What is/are the acceptable use(s) for the NIV?
Legitimate question, Neal. Thanks for asking. Think it will be good to see the results after a few days.
I am not a big fan of the NIV and do not use it from the pulpit personally. But that is a choice of mine.
(I translate all passages on which I'm preaching from the original - believe that to be part of the duty of every pastor who wants to faithfully proclaim the Word of God, not a translation bias)
the NIV being such a general purpose translation for native speakers, it was hard to not choose any of the earlier choices; so i ticked None of These
perhaps there shd be an All of the Above?
The NIV is 'pretty' and sounds nice in devotionals. So does the Living Bible but I would never use either for study. However, our Lifeway SBC Sunday School material has the NIV printed side by side with the KJV each week. I use NKJV for everything but still have my old KJB's because of the sermon notes.
Well asked, Neal!
I predict the poll will come out with mixed results. The NIV may not be a word-for-word translation, but it is an excellent dynamic equivalent (thought-for-thought) translation which is why it has such wide acceptance in the evangelical community.
I personally do not use the NIV because I prefer the formal equivalent translations such as the NKJV, NASB, ESB
My pastor uses the NIV exclusively for teaching, preaching, etc. He refers to his Greek NT often for sermon preparation.
You could have checked each of the earlier choices and selected them all.
Hmm, acceptable uses for the NIV....I would have to say a coaster, placemat, table prop?
Don't get me wrong, people can still get saved from reading a bible, but lets get real. The NIV and 'books' of the like certainly shouldn't be considered the Word of God.
As far as I'm concerened, the only infallible English Bible is the KJV 1611.
I consider the niv the Word of God ofcourse each person has his own choice but we will not call another's choice perversion
[ June 27, 2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
Why do you hate the Word of God so much?? You blaspheme it and talk bad about it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
With all due respect, "your concern" is of no concern to the rest of us. We are concerned with what God said. That is why we reject your position: God didn't say it.
[ June 27, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
Mr. Simoens, so you're a TOV* 1611 person, eh? God only spoke to William Tysndale and is too weak to speak to other translators?
(Tynsdale Only Version 1611).
I believe we cannot put limits on our God! What about those who cannot read English?
Asked in respect
I did not see him post anything bad about the KJB;ashamed of what?
I dont! there are plenty of foreign language Bibles that come from the MT/TR that are completly trustworthy.No biggie
I did not see him post anything bad about the KJB;ashamed of what? </font>[/QUOTE]Ashamed of attackign the word of God, just like I already said.
He didn't attack the KJB .
I ask a sincere question not having ANYTHING to do with the KJV, and look what happens. Please note, the KJV was not attacked at all. It was the NIV that was and then this thread was turned into yet another KJVO thread. Can't we leave that dead horse alone? Go start another thread, please, if you want to sing the praises of the KJV and put down every other version.
He didn't attack the KJB . </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say he did and you know it. I said he attacked the word of God, calling it a perversion and saying it should be used as a table prop, or a coaster. This is the third time I have had to point this out to you. It should have been obvious the first time. You are not that dense. You know the truth. Let's get past these false accusations and inflammatory comments about God's word.
He didn't attack the KJB . </font>[/QUOTE]No, he attacked God's Word.
Pastor Larry, it appears in this thread and in several others that it is you who are often the instigator of accusations and inflammatory comments. MrSimoens gave his viewpoint and left room for others to disagree. Why can't you allow the same freedom?
Wrong again. I didn't attack God's Word. I attacked the Publishers of the NIV. THEY are the ones that removed verses, THEY are the ones that changed meanings, NOT me, and NOT you.
Hmm, let's see what you said:
You didn't mention Zondervan or IBS. You said the NIV was just a book (That's called blasphemy. And only the liberals believe the Bible is just a book.) and said the Bible was only good for a placemat, table prop, etc.
So on top of blasphemy, we now have lying. Someone step in here before this person gets worse.
You seriously need to read the BB posting rules and the BVT guidelines on the front page. Your kind gets banned real quick because they don't play by the rules of the Board.
I am sorry you feel that way. I did not instigate anything. I did not attack the word of God, call it perverted, say that it should be used as a coaster or a table prop. My concern is for biblical doctrine and when people add to it or subtract from it, those of us who love God and his word must stand up and correct this false teaching.
Mr Simeon does not have to like the NIV. Many people do not. But to blaspheme the word of God is unacceptable, no matter what the motivation is. He did not leave room for others to disagree. He used strong and inaccurate language. If he wanted to leave room for disagreement, he should have said "I prefer the KJV" and left it at that. As it is, he impugned everyone who uses the NIV and I find that offensive because it is an affront on God's word.