NIV Modernism.

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Steven m., May 9, 2003.

  1. Steven m.

    Steven m.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CONTENT of the N.I.V. displays its Modernism

    Modernism, as ever, sought to deny and undermine the fundamentals of the Christian faith. One would therefore expect that a translation based upon the principle of Modernism would have modernistic tendencies. In the case of the N.I.V. there are instances where fundamental truths are denied.

    Deity of Christ undermined.
    I Timothy 3:16
    Romans 14:10,12
    (a) The deity of Christ is undermined
    At the heart of the Gospel lies the fundamental truth that God the Son became man. I Tim. 3:16 - "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh […]". This wonderful statement is not found in the N.I.V. In this version the text reads: "[…] he appeared in a body […]". There are many who would point to the fact that we know that the word 'he' refers to Jesus, and we know that Jesus was God. Yes, 'he' is Jesus, and 'he' Jesus did have a body; but it does not say that 'he' is God. When you come face to face which those who deny the deity of Christ, you cannot substantiate your belief from this verse if you use this modern translation. Neither can you uphold the deity of Christ from the translation of Romans 14:10,12 - "[…] for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ […]. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Here in the Authorised Version Christ is affirmed to be God, but the N.I.V. changes the word 'Christ' to 'God' . With a very subtle stroke of the pen the deity of Christ is removed from the Scriptures.

    Incarnation of Christ undermined.
    Luke 2:33
    (b) The Incarnation of Christ is undermined
    Luke 2:33 - "And Joseph and his mother marvelled […]". The N.I.V. states: "[…] the child's father and his mother marvelled […]". Joseph, while he was the adopted father of Jesus, and chosen by God for that honourable role, was not the father of Jesus. Jesus had no earthly father. His conception was supernatural. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. To portray Joseph as the father of Jesus lends support to the false view of many modernists that the incarnation was a myth. It lends support to the view that Christ was not born of a virgin but the child of Mary and Joseph conceived out of wedlock.

    Atonement of Christ undermined. Colossians 1:4
    (c) The Atonement of Christ is undermined Colossians 1:4 - " In whom we have redemption through his blood even for the forgiveness of sins. " Redemption is declared to be through the blood of Jesus. It is only through the blood of Christ that redemption has been accomplished. Modernism has always had an abhorrence to the blood of Christ. The N.I.V. once again reveals its modernism in the translation of this vital text. The verse reads: "[…] in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins ". The blood is omitted from the text. The atoning blood of Christ is erased from this translation of Scripture.

    These are but a few of the many errors found in the N.I.V. There are numerous others, but these suffice to show the underlying modernism of this translation.

    3. The CONFUSION caused by the N.I.V. displays its Modernism
    In addition to the omissions of words and phrases, whole passages are omitted. A note such as "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" stands where the omitted text ought to have stood. The same occurs in John 7:53 - 8:11.

    The incident regarding the impotent man recorded in John 5:1-9 reveals another interesting omission. In verse 7, the N.I.V. records the words the words of the man as: "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred." What does he mean by the words "when the water is stirred"? The N.I.V. does not give us the answer, for it omits verse 4: "An angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water." This is no isolated instance. There are numerous Scriptures that are deleted from this version , and many others have been tampered with.

    The result is confusion - confusion because the N.I.V., by its errors, omissions and notes, casts doubt upon the veracity of the Word of God. This was Satan's ploy from the beginning when he cast doubt upon the Word of God in the Garden of Eden. It was Satan's ploy in the temptation of Christ when he misquoted the Scriptures in his attempts to corrupt Christ. It was Satan's ploy in the last century when Modernism and Liberalism, backed by the higher critics, sought to cast doubt upon the truths revealed in the Scriptures.

    How can we as Evangelicals uphold the truths that we hold so dear from 'Bibles' which deny, undermine and cast doubt upon those very same truths? How can we preach with authority and certainty when the very foundation upon which we seek to build cannot support us? Let us cast aside these faulty tools and take hold of the tried and trusted translation of the Scriptures. Let us return to the old path and stand foursquare upon the Authorised Version of the Bible.
     
  2. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Uhhh...no thanks. I would rather preach Jesus and Him crucified then the King James Version. Next time you might want to explain why the KJV translators didn't translated baptism properly thus creating "loopholes" for those not wanting to practice biblical immersion.
     
  3. uhdum

    uhdum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing you have said is new; all of these arguments have been made many, many times at this board. Therefore, expect some opposition... please do not assume your post will immediately cause us all to "see the light." I will allow others more qualified on the subject to speak regarding your faults with the NIV. Anyway, Doctrines are not "denied" if the wording is different in a new version. Without dealing with the texts you use to challenge the NIV (others more qualified will handle that, I'm sure), each of those doctrines you mentioned are found and supported soundly in other texts in the NIV (which you failed to mention).

    The "old path"? But you only want to return to 1611? Or, should I say, 1769 or thereabouts (the current edition of the KJV being revised then). If the KJV is the only "tried and trusted" translation of the Scriptures, then what of the Bible of the Pilgrims? Or Luther? What of the Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, and other ancient translations? If I am a Spanish-speaking person, or a Japanese-speaking person, does that mean my Bible is inferior since it is not the "tried and trusted" English KJV?
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Haven't these verses already been discussed to the point where that violin needs new strings?

    Is it really wise for KJVO's to point out errors in other bibles without pointing out errors in the KJV?
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Cut and paste lessons are bothersome. Brother, why not take one issue and deal with it from the original, then look at how all the various English translations of God's Word handle it.

    Think that would be more productive. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...