NIV & New Age Movement by Al Lacey

Michelle, Would you provide a specific example (chapter & verse) please? </font>[/QUOTE]Michelle, are you still searching for an answer to this question?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Many 21rst century people understand and desire those things of the New Age, and I know from first hand experience, because I was once there. People have the tendency, now more than ever before, to have things done for them, make life easier and more fun and happy(feel good) and self centered.

So, what's wrong with being modern? The people of Jesus' time were quite well-advanced in "modern "things than were those of Moses' time.
--------------------------------------------------

It might do you well to try to understand what is written/said, rather than trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You are clearly not actively reading my posts, but only passively, missing the point. I cannot help you with this, for you seem to be making these statements and replies with an argumentative and unwilling to listen/understand attitude, rather than trying and willing to understand, as this is as I have percieved this.

I have said nothing about modernism and that it is wrong. It is the attitude and spiritual mindset of people in this modern era that I am talking about.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle wrote:

Could you succinctly & definitively tell us why this would be true only of the KJV, but not for the other English versions which preceded it or have come after it?

If you adhere to the belief that God has provided us with only the one valid translation in English, what makes you believe it to be the KJV; and not for example the Geneva Bible, or the NASB?

 

Michelle:You never answer any questions posed to you, but expect others to answer the questions you pose to them, and then claim that they haven't answered your question.

Please feel free to ask me any of your questions you feel I haven't answered.


I have answered you many times robycop, what other versions are valid. Any version prior to the KJV and including the KJV based upon the Recieved Text - (not necessarily the Shrivners text, for this was made after the KJV and is not full representation of what the previous translators had available to them and used) are God's words of truth.

Thank you!

Each one is different from any other. Are all of them still valid?


These have been the the word of God, as he has provided for the english speaking people for hundreds of years, and in all the true churches from the time of our Lord Jesus Christ until now. I do not doubt this one bit. Do you?

Yep! There's no proof that only this one set of mss was used in every genuine church all this time.

I do NOT consider any of the versions from 1881 until now that are based upon the critical greek text, the pure word of God, based on the fact that there is evidence of error, and omittions/alterations from the history, standing, available and preservation of God's holy words that has been believed, taught, memorized, lived and preached in the true churches for centuries.

There are differences within those mss which are more profound than the differences between mss. You cannot prove which ms is in error & which isn't.


The versions based on the critical greek text come from corrupt greek manuscripts, as is evidenced when one compares them to the word of God churches believed, and held to from the past unto this very day.

Not every church used your pet mss, plain and simple.


God does not change, nor does his word of truth change. The modern versions are strange and alien to the pure word of God from the past even unto this present and for all eternity.

No proof whatsoever.

Now are you going to answer my question to you, or evade it again? How is KJVO a myth?

Because it's a false, man-made doctrine, not containing a peep of truth, not a peep of supporting evidence, especially SCRIPTURAL evidence. This myth didn't exist until recent times although there were many English BVs around long before. Being an apocryphal, false man-made thing, from a book written by a known cult official, it qualifies as a myth.


What I have just posted here is fact, not myth

Without any proof, it remains a myth.

 

Michelle:It might do you well to try to understand what is written/said, rather than trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You are clearly not actively reading my posts, but only passively, missing the point. I cannot help you with this, for you seem to be making these statements and replies with an argumentative and unwilling to listen/understand attitude, rather than trying and willing to understand, as this is as I have percieved this.

All I've seen is that your whole line of posts in this thread comes from some wild imaginary "theory" that because the NIV uses some words/phrases used by NA people, that the NIV people are somehow in cahoots with the NAers to promote their stuff. There's not one blip of PROOF for such a theory. I doubt if any NAer could name one member of the NIV committee or that any member of that committee could name one NAer.

As I said, I know a HUMBUG when I hear one.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, are you still searching for an answer to this question?
--------------------------------------------------

I have found the answer. It is you who should be looking/searching. Check it for yourself and then pray and meditate about it. I know you will say that you have, but if you really and truly have as you will probably say, I would have to say that you haven't, otherwise you would then be able to see it and we wouldn't be discussing this right now. OH, how dare me, to say that I have understood the answer and you have not. I must be more spiritual than you I can hear you accuse me of. Not in the least. Some have been given understanding in some things, and others in other things. This is one thing I have been given understanding in, otherwise I would not be here sharing this with you. Whether you believe it or not, I don't come here wishing to argue. I only come here to share what the Lord has given to me in understanding of this issue, for your benefit, and for his glory. I don't come here for my own self, for if I did, then I would be most likely not even posting in these threads, and if I did, I would most likely be advocating the mv's, because that seems to be where others are praised or can pat themselves and others on the shoulder for "winning" the debate and "proving" themselves/others right. Very little praising of God and what he has done and does is not much utterred here on these threads by the mv's.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Blah, Blah, Blah, ad infinitum. You can't even give me one example of a verse in the NIV where you claim "the Christ" is somehow used in a new-age context. That's what I was requesting.

 

--------------------------------------------------
All I've seen is that your whole line of posts in this thread comes from some wild imaginary "theory" that because the NIV uses some words/phrases used by NA people, that the NIV people are somehow in cahoots with the NAers to promote their stuff. There's not one blip of PROOF for such a theory. I doubt if any NAer could name one member of the NIV committee or that any member of that committee could name one NAer.

--------------------------------------------------

It only shows the spirituality and the disregard and disrespect of our Holy God and God's words of truth that is evident from the scholars, and translators and mv editors of the modern versions, and their not understanding of God that have and can affect the spiritual health of God's people and to decieve them, as you yourself are decieved regarding this issue. It is NOT my imagination. IT is evident in the terminology that the translators and editors CHOSE/CHOOSE that correlate to the New Age terminology in a very gnostic way. WHich is subtle deception. They are either doing it purposefully, which I do not doubt some might, but unknowingly also, because they are not right spiritually. It is the blind leading the blind and they both will fall in the ditch. Those who love God and his word should be sending out a warning call to others of this. For those who had not love of the truth, God shall send them strong delusion that they believe the lie. Satan is also working to establish his short kingdom and to which he desires to be exhalted as God and will be worshipped as God, to which God has been so gracious to reveal to us in his word of truth. Many today are leaving thier first love, and one of those ways is compromising with error, rather than standing for and sharing the truth. Our God is not "the ONE" nor is He just "the Christ", but he is my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven who indwells me with the Holy Spirit of truth who is also the Word of God and He is a very personal God. If one misrepresents the word of God, they are misrepresenting our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I agree to misrepresent the word of God, such as the NKJV, is to misrepresent Christ.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Blah, Blah, Blah, ad infinitum. You can't even give me one example of a verse in the NIV where you claim "the Christ" is somehow used in a new-age context. That's what I was requesting.
--------------------------------------------------

And as I said to you: Look it up for yourself, and see/search for yourself, and then pray honestly and earnestly about it. If you truly desire to know, you will and you will see - the Lord will show you. Be a good berean, and see if what I am saying is true. Ask the Lord for discernment in this area, and he will show you.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I do not favour use of the NIV at all - would never use it myself, but I wish michelle would just give us the verse to enlighten us.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Each one is different from any other. Are all of them still valid?

--------------------------------------------------

Each one of them is not different from the other in matters pertaining to this issue. They all most definately are different from the modern versions of today, from 1881 to this present day. WE have covered this many times before, and you continue to compare flowers to &lt;version aspersion deleted&gt; and alluding that these are the same comparisons, to which they are not - not even close, just the same as a beautiful flower could compare equally to a &lt;snip&gt;.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ July 22, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Michelle, If actual instances of "the Christ", used in a new-age context, exist in the NIV- why won't you just provide them? If you can provide these examples, why not just direct me to them, so that I can see them for myself?

If I were to walk into the Library of Congress, and I requested one of the Research Librarians to direct me to some specific information- would I expect to simply be told that I needed to go find it myself? I certainly would hope not.

Once again, I'm asking you to provide me with a specific example of a chapter & verse in the NIV (or any other MV for that matter) in which the phrase "the Christ" is used in a new-age context.

If you are not able to, why not just quit simply avoiding the issue, and admit that you can't?

I'll construe your lack of providing anything less than a specific example (chapter & verse) to be your admission that such examples don't exist.

 

--------------------------------------------------
I do not favour use of the NIV at all - would never use it myself, but I wish michelle would just give us the verse to enlighten us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And since there are many a pro NIV users here, why not ask them to provide the verses for you as comparison, since they have these versions readily available. Since he was the one to show in the KJB the verses, let him also provide side by side those verses and more of the NIV? HE brought it out, let him finish it. If you truly desire to know, look it up for yourself. I am not yours or anyone elses researcher. If I felt you truly desired to know, I would go through all the work, but it is quite apparent on these boards, no one does. So why waste my time? You all don't listen to those who have done the research.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

First of all, it disturbs me that you refer to perfectly acceptable translations of God's Word as "dung".

Secondly, as anyone who has gardening experience can attest to, "dung" can serve quite well to nourish growing flowers. Many beautiful flowers flourish when fertilized with dung. So what's your point?

 

O.K. Michelle, if you don't wish to do the research yourself- why not just point us to the pre-existing research you mention? How much time can that take?

 

In other words - you can't do it.

 

--------------------------------------------------
First of all, it disturbs me that you refer to perfectly acceptable translations of God's Word as "dung".

Secondly, as anyone who has gardening experience can attest to, "dung" can serve quite well to nourish growing flowers. Many beautiful flowers flourish when fertilized with dung. So what's your point?
--------------------------------------------------

And in the same respect, it bothers me that you would equally compare dung to the Holy and pure words of God. Who says that those versions are acceptable, and by what standards and reasons do you say they are? Is God pleased and accepted these versions? How can you know?

Yes, you are right, dung does serve a purpose for the health of the flower. However, the dung is NOT THE FLOWER. &lt;version aspersion snipped&gt; Like it or not, this is the truth.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ July 22, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

--------------------------------------------------
In other words - you can't do it.
--------------------------------------------------

NO, I said what I meant. Did you read it? Do you understand written words? Or are you like many others here, who like to assume and put words in others' mouths?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle wrote:

No, I was referring only to a relational aspect of the substance you originally referred to & flowers. I simply pointed out a flaw in your analogy.

You were the only one who compared that substance to any version of God's Word.