The 2011 NIV

The Jesus Bible?

 

And what, pray tell, is the "Jesus Bible?"

Is it a translation?

The Archangel

 

No it is her own interpretation no matter what the bible says.

 

This just strengthens my belief about the NIV, NLT and others being good to use. Although I, at this present time, am using the NKJV, I use others also, especially the NLT. In the past I have used the NIV and will use it in the future. I believe it started this movement toward a bible that the masses can understand, something that was sorely needed.

The fact that MacArthur is against them is a plus to me. He is one of the radio preachers that I will not listen to. Don't like his doctrine, his viewpoints nor his delivery.

 

You are correct that the NIV is very popular, but that is to be expected as the church falls away from the truth into error steeped in liberalism. The masses have a book that can tickle their ears just like the pastors they seek to speak to them.

 

Just was making a joke, albiet a poor one, as you were asking for what Bible that he liked, as it was obvious NIV was too him a "for liberals onl/"

 

Problem is that EVERY scholar thatwas on the Bible committee for translating the NIV agree that the Bible in oroginal documents were inerrant and inpired, so they would NOT be biased to "water down" the biblical text, just trying to make it both readable and undertanding for modern English readers!

You can disagree with their bible translation policies, but not with them trying to make a "liberal " Bible for today!

Think that both HCSB and NIV do a good job with their intent, to not make best version to bible study from, or to use for theological studies, but as a ggod mediation version, that is reasonable accurate and very readable with understanding!

 

Readable does not constitute accurate. The NIV is liberal for liberal people.

 

Which version do you use fal?

 

The one that has Gnostics as the readers for Apostle John in 1 John, that has sinless perfection for the saints, that has no confession required by us today,and denies that we have to deal with a sin nature today!

 

But of course, not you or your church. After all, you have it all figured out. Pity the rest of us. :tear:

 

I'd suggest that the Bible a person uses is worth more and better than the one he or she leaves on the shelf.

I have seen people saved under the preaching of virtually every translation. Surprisingly, the most rare however is the KJV. I've not seen many come to Christ under that text. Not that it doesn't happen. Just that most people these days simply do not understand it without a re-translation, which ends up being a paraphrase based on the knowledge level and interpretation of the pastor, which we all know can be all over the map -- or completely off the map...

Though I'm not the biggest fan, I've seen the most (by FAR) come to salvation under the preaching from the NIV.

 

What on earth does this mean?

You're just basically making it up as you go?

The Archangel

 

Think Fal addressed it to me, Jesusfan, as he and I have this running discussion on the nature of confession, sin natures, breaking fellowship etc...

I see them as being taught in the Bible, while he does not!

By the way, am a man, at least my wife thinks so!

 

And what, if anything, does this have to do with what translation of the Bible you use or prefer?

The Archangel

 

You speak foolishly.

Yeah,right. Ear-tickling? Take a peek at this from Luke 19:26-27 in the 2011 NIV for a sample of no ear tickling: "I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given,but as for the one who has nothing,even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them -- bring them here and kill them in front of me."

 

Nothing, was justclarifying what was meant by Fal post that you had referenced!

 

Think that IF we look at those who translated the NIV, and those who revised it since 1984...

Since ALL affirmed that the originals were inerrant, and that we have an infallible Bible for today...

Argue against their translation policy, but CANNOT say that it is for "liberals", as that is what the NRSV Bible is for today!

 

Agree with you that far better to read and use a Bible version that can be understood and applied!

Youngs lietral bible and the ASV 1901 might be "best" study versions technically, as being "most literal", but doubt very much most would greatly benefit by using just them, as too hard to follow!

 

The NRSV is a good, reliable translation. Not sure what you're getting at here.