You cannot trust the NIV!

Dear XD . You started off with a true statement and then went downhill after that . The older manuscripts are in the minority as you said . But since they are far older and therefore much closer to the time of the originals they have been given greater weight by scholars .

I have no doubt that the scribes were very meticulous in their transcriptions . But let's not give them an aura of perfection . Errors in transmission are a fact . It is too easy to make mistakes especially without breaks like punctuation in line after countless line . And sometimes there was such a thing as pietistic expansion where it "sounded better" to express some phrase in a holier manner .

As for older manuscripts being written by gnostics and others of ill repute-- I think your conspiracy theories are in overdrive .

So Westcott and Hort were not Christians in your view . Please furnish some documentation for your slander . I hope your source is not Ruckman , G.R. or others of similiar stripe . And did you know that the NIV was not based on the work of W&H ?

There is no manipulation of the Bible going on in the NIV . However , you are manipulative in your mischaracterizations .

 

The reference in Psalms is not to Jesus Christ, it is to "the righteous" a plural term requiring a plural pronoun.

The term "gender neutral" throws people into immediate accusations of feminism, or some other such influence. That's not the case. If the original language intended for the term that is translated "mankind" to refer to all human beings and not just males, which in the case cited, it does, then why not use the term "human kind" in English, which is more accurate?

The fact is, I originally bought the TNIV that I own because I heard the criticism, and thought that it might have meant references to God being gender neutral, or other such stuff. It mainly contains terms like the example I used, because the English language has officially adopted those terms. I'll certainly concede that some of the language changes are coming from a sense of political correctness, and frankly I never really was all that sold on the NIV, and don't use the TNIV either. In fact, when I got it out I had to dust it off. But I don't think the implication that it is a sop to feminism is a legitimate claim.

 

Which original language?
Why does NIV omit the verses from Greek texts?

 

It footnotes, not omits.

I'm not aware of a Greek text reflecting the most recent manuscript discoveries from which the NIV omits verses.

 

It doesn't omit them. It footnotes the verses that are not in some manuscripts, or are not in the majority. It also footnotes the different variations between manuscripts, something that has been dropped from most editions of the KJV. Basically what Jack has already said.

I will admit that the NIV is not my main bible of choice, but I can't stand to see what amounts to modern superstitions be spread about it (or any other bible translation). The NIV uses dynamic equivelence as its underlying translation philosophy instead of formal equivelence (meaning for meaning, instead of word for word).

I use the NKJV for the most part, but am thinking of moving more toward the NASB now that MacArthur has his study bible out in it. But I do refer the NIV to add clarity is some situations.

 

to me this "gender neutral" thing is nothing compared to all the other garbage in the NIV [inflammatory adjective deleted] of the Bible

 

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_44.asp

[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]V. WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.

:thumbsup:
[/FONT]

 

Wow, you also don't like the NIV? I'm surprised. I hadn't expected this. :)

 

No I dislike it very much.

One time in Sabbath School (Our equivalent of Sunday School) I told the teacher who was standing up there in front of everyone praising his NIV Bible to look up and read for us a Bible verse out of his NIV Bible so we could compare it with another version and he kept finding that the Bible verses werent even there. I knew the verses so I kept doing that and he kept finding that they werent even in his Bible. (just to make a point of course)

After I read Gail Riplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions" I think its called, I would never want to go by the NIV Bible ever again... seeing the comparison of verses in the different versions and whats been done to them. Especially knowing what I do about the New Age Movement and Spiritualism.


Claudia

 

I trust the NIV, and most all other prominently recognized publications. We own at least some of each one. and use them

 

Exactly. I cannot comprehend how christians can like the NIV and really believe this nonsense. It's true, when you want to believe in the NIV you have to believe these things here:

[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]V. WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.

Does this make sense? I don't think so. There were not also good people in the first centuries, there were also bad people (gnostics) which also produced a lot of literature.
Older does not mean better. I think there are also gnostic gospels which are nearly as old as the oldest manuscripts of the new testament, does this mean the gnostic gospels are correct? No.
[/FONT]

 

For me, I've never owned an NIV, I usually read out of the KJV an NKJV. I have e-Sword and I got a bunch of KJV's like the 1611 (which is almost a word for word copy of the Geneva Bible), also the Geneva and Bishops Bible. I don't like the NIV because I'm used to reading the KJV and it frustrates my reading.

Grace and Peace to you,
Dustin

 

Why don't you guys listen to some sermons about this? There are plenty of good sermons.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...ble+versions&AudioOnly=false&SortBy=downloads

 

I don't listen to on-line ANYTHING. I've sacrificed three computers
to MP3 mal-ware. I won't be sacrificing another.

Anywhere were somebody has transcripted these
sermons into letters & words. The word reading software tends
to be less maliticious than the audio & video. In fact, maybe God
is calling you, Brother Xdisciplex, to do some such transcripts?

As a matter of fact, I used the NIV for eight years and find it
totally trustworthy a Bible.
I quit using it because the nKJV = New King James Version
came out which uses the Textus Receputs texts more than
does the NIV.

Again: I beleive:
That God in His Devine Providence has preserved His
Written Word, the Holy Bible, in all get-real English versions.
This includes the NIV.

 

ALL of the translations are just that: translation. Each one depends to some extent upon the education and understanding of the translators. We own quite a few translations of the Bible. There are a number of differences in each one.

But, first of all, every one is faithful to the basic message of God -- that man has sinned and has a sin nature; that God loved/loves us for His own reasons and because of that has provided the answer for His own eternal justice in Himself as Jesus Christ; that those who believe in Christ are no longer judged by the law but are under grace; that Christ is the only way in which this can be accomplished -- 'good works' are futile in either obtaining or maintaining salvation; that the Holy Spirit will raise believers up to be the image of Christ Himself and that Christ will come again as Judge and King and that we will be with Him eternally. All the Bibles emphasize that He was born of a virgin, crucified, died, was put in the cave, and was resurrected by His own power and authority as God.

The NIV is a very good translation, by the way, often making clear passages which changes in our own use of the English language through time have made a little unclear in the older translations, such as the King James. However there are also places where the King James, and other older translations, because they didn't understand what was meant, simply translated the words as they were and thus stayed more faithful to the true intent.

However NONE of our Old Testaments from the King James (and earlier) on, are in sync with the New Testaments, and that is because they all depend on the Masoretic translation done about 100 AD. The Masoretic translators did a number of things to their own satisfaction rather than stay faithful to the older texts. For instance, they systematically dropped the cipher for 100 from a number of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. When those years are added, the earth is more than 8000 years old, which puts biblical ages in line with such things as Egyptian chronologies.

The Masoretic also changed a number of the prophetic statements about the coming Messiah, evidently to try to disprove that Jesus was the Messiah (there was another contender at the time...). That is why so many of Matthew's and others' statements quoting the Old Testament do not appear word for word, and sometimes not at all, in our Old Testaments.

It is interesting that when we go back as far as we can, we hit the Alexandrian Septuagint, translated about 250-300 years before Christ. This matches the New Testament quotes exactly. There are some very interesting differences in that ancient text (it was translated by Hebrew scholars from paleo-Hebrew to classical Greek). For instance, the Alexandrian LXX (Septuagint) indicates that Cain was deeply repentant for his act of slaying Abel and that God's mark on him was a mark of forgiveness so that he would not be slain in retribution by his relatives (all the people alive at the time would have been rather close relatives!). Thus the 'mark of Cain', far from being a bad thing might very well have been a good thing!

That is just one of the many things we have found when cross-checking various translations. The translations to stay away from definitely are the NEW 'NIV' which, as mentioned above, mangles meanings with sexually neutral pronouns, the New World Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the like. But the standard NIV is actually quite good in most areas, and certainly is in doctrine.

Where it differs significantly from some of the older translations is an indication of the fact that the NIV translators actually had access to older manuscripts than did the translators of the King James. Thus there are some differences. But none of the differences affect basic doctrine or the reality of the Person of Christ.

They almost always have to do with bits of science and history.

In short, it is not hard to show where the old King James is 'wrong' in some areas and it is not hard to show where the NIV is 'wrong' in some areas, and since none of us have access to the ancient scrolls, wherever they may be, fighting about it is an exercise in futility. Paul knew what he was talking about when he stated so bluntly that he chose only to know Jesus and Him slain (and risen again).

 

Just a simple question. (Don't get mad)

Is it possible that the older manuscripts are not "more reliable" as the scholars suggest? (older, more reliable?) Is it possible that the most reliable manuscripts were worn out from excessive use? Is it possible that the older manuscripts are still partially intact from lack of use? Maybe the more reliable manuscripts were the ones that were worth copying. Just a thought.

 

Excellent confession of the faith! God is working in you!
Often "the older is the better " has been the excuse of the people who stand on Modern Versions against KJV, but I once proved that P66 which dates back 125-200 AD is far earlier than Vatican Text(350AD) but testifies TR-KJV is correct.

Read this:
http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html


You can notice NIV is relying on 3 manuscripts among 920 manuscripts for Gospel John.
Among 920 manuscripts 917 manuscripts support King James Version, while only 3 manuscripts ( B, Aleph, p75) support NIV.
Now NIV excuse that oldest texts support NIV. However, in this verse of John7:39, p66 support KJV and P66 is the oldest text among the texts for Gospel John. Are they still correct?
This is not the only case, hundreds and thousands of verses prove NIV is incorrect!


Actually I have a file which is 440KB on this. If you can read Greek, please let me know, I will send it to you.

 

Yeah, I've been told I can't trust the NIV....

....still do though :D

Over few years I've used it for reading, also now and then writing kids Sunday school lessons, young peoples Bible studies, & sermons. I used the full set last time I did sermon, NIV, checked some words in KJV and everything else I have in e-sword....even Peterson's The Message :eek: :)
Guess I'm :tonofbricks:now huh?

 

As for "the older the better", if the majority texts were the copies of the oldest texts, then it makes sense. But the majority of the texts had the ancestor copies and their origin was different from that of the existing oldest copies.
In other words, from the Autograph, the copies diverged already and they had the totally different background.

Moreover, we must remember that Aleph ( Sinaiticus) was about to go to the garbage as it was a copy which monks wrote for exercise and was about to be burnt for kindling the fire, and that B ( Vatican text) was preserved by Roman Catholic which persecuted the Bible Translation and prohibited the people from reading Bible since 1229 AD.

These 2 texts(B, Aleph) were the bases for Westcort- Hort Greek Text.
The oldest doesn't guarantee the less corruption of the manuscripts. Who preserved them is also important.

 

Do you have some more details on this? Which verse has omitted the cipher?
Does NIV maintain such omissions?

Would you show me the prophetic statements changed by Masoretic Texts? 2 evidences may be OK

Could you explain the differences between LXX and NT in the following verses?

Mt 1:23, Luke 4:19, Hebrews 10:5

I will post details in the separate post.

Are you saying that NIV translators had the access to older manuscripts while KJV translators had no access to them? (Actually Aleph was not found in 17c. But do you know Aleph ( Sinaiticus) is almost of no value because it contains too many errors and it is too much different from Vaticanus also.

Do you believe that the Words of God need to be preserved under the providence of God?
Which science clarify this issue? Do you know the Bible history and how Roman Catholic persecuted the Bible translators?

Would you show us a few verses where NIV is doctrinally correct while KJV is wrong?