You cannot trust the NIV!

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Dec 15, 2006.

  1. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is unbelievable. I listened to a sermon about the whole new bible issue.
    The pastor read from a newspaper. Since the christians don't get it the world has to address these things. He read an article from 1997 about the NIV company planing to put out a gender neutral NIV version! The adults rejected this version and then they said they were not going to release it, instead they will release a gender neutral NIV version for kids! :BangHead::BangHead:

    Can you believe this? If they cannot poison the adults they will simply go for the kids. This really settles the whole issue for me. The NIV sucks big time! These people are not interested in the bible they only want to push their agenda.
    If anyone is interested in this sermon I can upload it.
     
  2. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    NIV omitted many verses, then many words in thousands of verses, distorted many words. But I don't say that one cannot be saved by reading NIV.
     
  3. Jack Matthews

    Jack Matthews
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, the TNIV, which does contain gender-neutral language in some places, was released. A lot of Christians screeched about it because they pushed the idea that using "gender neutral" language means never referring to God or the Holy Spirit as "he". That's really not the case. It's really more of a matter of using gender-neutral terms in places where it is consistent with the text in the original language. Translations tend to use more pronouns to render the text in a smoother syntax to avoid redundancy in English. Since no translation of the scripture is word-for-word, but thought-for-thought, the meaning of the text is not changed, at least, not in any place I've seen.

    The ESV uses the same practice in its translation, but without the fanfare, no one notices. The KJV translators did exactly the same thing in their use of formal English terms in places where they thought it was warranted. It is more of what is acceptable with regard to the use of the language itself, than any kind of agenda.

    The NIV did not "omit" verses. The verse reference and chapter numbers were added to facilitate references after the printing press was invented. The NIV translators have the advantage of working with manuscripts that are earlier, and more reliable than those used by the KJV translators. If a sentence or statement appears in a later manuscript, but not in an earlier one, that is an indication that the statement was not part of what the original author wrote, but was added by a redactor or translator later on, either for clarification or interpretation. The NIV translators do not "omit" these sentences or words, but rather than insert them into the text, they footnote them.

    The Christians in the first through third centuries of the church, when the text of the New Testament was being developed, did not have the same concept of authority of scripture as we do, and when they made copies of circulated letters and books that eventually became the New Testament, they sometimes inserted clarifications or notes. That's why there are variances between the earlier manuscripts and later ones, and why the earlier manuscripts are more reliable. It is also why more modern translations in English are more accurate than the KJV.
     
    #3 Jack Matthews, Dec 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2006
  4. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's already been done, and is called the TNIV. It's not as bad as everyone would have you believe, either. Many translations have changed some of the gender words, too, taking nothing away from the message or tarnishing it whatsoever.
     
  5. J. Jump

    J. Jump
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well you can see evidence of why this is such a popular tactic just having been a part of the BB. There are far more adults that have their minds already made up as opposed to ones that are influencable.

    Kids are much more impressionable and are easier targets.
     
  6. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Below are a few examples of verses where the TNIV and/or the NIRV have gone gender-neutral, and how it can, as in Psalm 34:20, significantly change the entire meaning of a verse.

    Genesis 5:2
    NIV: He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man".

    NIRV: He created them as male and female. He blessed them. And he called them "man" when they were created.

    TNIV: He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "human beings."

    Psalm 1:1
    NIV: Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.

    NIRV: Blessed is the one who obeys the law of the Lord. He doesn't follow the advice of evil people. He doesn't make a habit of doing what sinners do. He doesn't join those who make fun of the Lord and his law.

    TNIV: Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, ​

    Psalm 8:4

    NIV: what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

    NIRV: What is a human being that you think about him? What is a son of man that you take care of him?

    TNIV: what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? ​

    Psalm 34:20

    NIV: he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.

    NIRV: The Lord watches over all of his bones. Not one of them will be broken.

    TNIV: he protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken. ​

    (Source: http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/index.php)
     
  7. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is old news. The "adult" version is the TNIV. It is labeled as such and is not very popular. The gender neutral issue IMHO is a loose approach to translating, so I don't like it, but it is certainly not what everyone made it out to be. If anything the uproar over it helped its credibility when people went searching for the He/She references to God and didn't find them.

    The "children's" version is the NIrV which is used more in publication for prison Bibles than children's Bibles.

    If I'm not mistaken the NIrV was out before the TNIV, so I don't think it was a matter ofnot getting the adults so they focused on the kids.

    I am somewhat concerned about a pastor preaching from a Newspaper, but a 1997 newspaper? If I were him, I would have some issues with my local paper's subscription department....they're running a tad late.
     
  8. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    its not a matter of NIV omitting things, its a matter of older versions having added things that werent in the base manuscript
     
  9. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly right. People automatically want to compare versions to the KJV. That is the wrong comparison. The versions must be compared with the original languages.
     
  10. Jack Matthews

    Jack Matthews
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are comparing English translations here. Look at original languages, which both have gender neutral terminology for the human race, and pronouns for references where both men and women are included in the reference. This proves nothing, except that the use of gender neutral language does not change the meaning of the text.Clearly.
     
  11. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is Psalm 34:20 referring to "His" bones as in the bones of Jesus Christ or is it referring to "their" bones as in...well...uh...<shrug>?
     
  12. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the point here is what does the original language say?
     
  13. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're not discussing errors in the original languages, we are discussing effeminate translators who love to cater to the politically correct feminist crowd.

    This was the point you made earlier:

    Do you stand by the above or do you now see that it is clear that the use of gender neutral language, in some instances, clearly changes the meaning of the text?
     
  14. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is not true at all. That is Jack Mathews that you are quoting and putting my name on. I hope its an error on your part.

    I am not a fan of the TNIV, but I do realize that we cannot compare a translation to english translations or even our beliefs in order to justify or discredit them. Instead, we need to look at the original languages. That is the only point I have made. I have not said anything regarding the TNIV and wether or not it changes meanings. Frankly, I haven't had the time to go and do all the word study in order to see.
     
  15. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh that's pitiful. My apologies...'tis like my second mistake this week. :eek:
     
  16. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I sure hope you didnt mean to say that
     
  17. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's all about political correctness and feminism.

    http://www.jcu.edu.au/office/Policy/pubgen.htm

     
  18. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, no! Next thing you know, women will want the vote!
     
  19. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find the gender neutral controversy one of the goofiest arguments. I think it is rediculous from both sides. How silly it is, and how warped it is, that an argument would be made about sexism and inequality among gender language, leading some to change Scripture. Equally, how moronic some on the other side can be to teach as if the male gender is dominant and superior to females. As if God were actually a male, and the husband a dictator. Anyone who would read some of the gender specific language and take it the way they do, being offended by its language, need to learn how to read the Bible.
     
    #19 dan e., Dec 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2006
  20. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those "Older" manuscripts are the minority and after all who tells us that they were not written by gnostics or other enemies of the cross? What will you do if they find a new gospel which is older than everything we have which says Jesus was not crucified? What do you do then? Will you also believe this older manuscript simply because it's older?
    I think it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that all these important key verses and key words which are simply erased in the NIV were not really in the bible but were added by somebody. Why should they have done this? Real christians wouldn't do this and manipulate the bible. Those people which copied the bible were totally pedantic and copied everything 1:1 without adding own comments.
    I think it is much more plausible that somebody simply doesn't like certain things which the bible says and because of this key verses are simply censored and the bible is turned into a new age bible which is suitable for all religions.
    Why should somebody want to trust a text from people which were not even christians? Westcott and Hort weren't christians. What interest do they have in bringing out a correct bible? This is ridiculous. This is like going to a witch for spiritual advice.
     

Share This Page

Loading...