You cannot trust the NIV!

You can't trust the NIV

I have just finished reading all eight pages of this thread and find the conversation interesting. I do not like the NIV nor do I trust it because it does change doctrine and in some cases confuses rather than clarifies. Let me give some examples:

The NIV changes "flesh" to "sinful nature" in Romans 7:25 and Romans 8:3. There is no warrant to do this. This is an interpretation (and an erroneous one, at that) not even a dynamic equivalency. In Romans 8:7 and 8:8 it changes "carnal" to "sinful nature." "Carnal" is the adjectival form of "flesh." This is a capitulation to the fallacy taught today that we have a "sin nature." What we have is a human nature which gives into sin. Sin resides in us and often controls our nature, tis true, but we do not have a sin nature.

The NIV erroneously exchanges "propitiation" for "atonement" (Romans 3:25) and "atoning sacrifice" (1 John 2:2). Why? Atonement and propitiation, while inter-connected, are not the same. Atonement is a covering and deals with the penal aspects of sin. Propitiation deals with the relational aspect of sin. The one takes away the penalty, the other restores the relationship.

These are just a few reasons I do not teach or preach from the NIV (although I own several and consult them — usually to see where it is significantly different from the KJV).

I also have problems with the KJV. For one thing, it is not a translation. It is a revision of the Geneva Bible. The same arguments used against Westcott and Hort can be used against King James. Would you trust a Bible that was ordered into existence because the king didn't like the Geneva Bible? Would you trust a Bible that was ordered into existence by a homosexual (despite Gipp's denial, there is historical evidence to support the contention that King James was bi-sexual)? Why do you trust a Bible that intentionally did not translate "baptize" as "immerse"? Fortunately, the translators were godly men who took their work seriously and produced a revision that has stood the test of time.

 

Not quite. Partly because your definition of propitiation is not correct and second because the atonement does both the covering of sin and the restoration of relationship.

Main Entry: pro·pi·ti·ate
Pronunciation: prO-'pi-shE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin propitiatus, past participle of propitiare, from propitius propitious
: to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : [SIZE=-1]APPEASE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]CONCILIATE[/SIZE]


Main Entry: pro·pi·ti·a·tion
Pronunciation: prO-"pi-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of propitiating
2 : something that propitiates; specifically : an atoning sacrifice

Because, contrary to popular bapticostal lore baptism does not mean immerse. Allow me to demonstrate.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature 3rd Edition by Gingrich, Arndt, Bauer, and Danker defines baptizo as to wash ceremonially for the purpose of purification, to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God.

 

Did you know that there were sinners working on every single translation of the Bible including the KJV?
If being sinless is the criteria for producing a version blessed by God then we would have no Bibles at all.
XD, if you don't like the NIV that's ok. It's not my favorite version either, but it's not a product of Satan. Don't let all this Bible version debate distract you from what's important. Pick a version and study it. I believe the devil is part of this whole version debate business. It divides the body of Christ and causes many many arguments among God's people. The devil is a thief and a liar. Nothing would please him more than destroying Christ's church through silly disputes.
The real enemy here is NOT Bible versions.
:godisgood:

 

Gee, if we are going to discount a translation because sinners worked on it, I guess we better chuck out all the translations then because they all had sinners working on them. xdx, that is an incredibly horrible reason to not use a translation.

You have been listening to likes of Ruckman and Jack Chick for way to long

 

Amy.G: //Did you know that there were sinners
working on every single translation of the Bible including the KJV?//

Did you know my copy of the KJV1611 Version
was delivered by the same Postal Service that
delivers occult porn?

The NIV is a reliable Version of the Bible
and is trustworthy on the same level as the
various and sundry KJVs.

Amy.G: //The real enemy here is NOT Bible versions.//

Amen, Sister Amy.G - you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

Right on! The real enemy is the people who misuse the Bible.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I tend somewhow to trust about any translation a lot more than I tend to trust most of the commentary that follows the same, both from supporters and detractors. Even translations that I consider highly suspect (How's that for an understatement?) in certain areas (such as the NWT, in John 1:1, for one of the most egregious examples) often are fairly good in many other areas and verses. Unless I am questioning each and every motive for about any translation, hence assuming every one has some ax to grind on each and every word, an accurate translation of, say, John 2:2 is still an accurate rendering, regardless of John 1:1, which may have been rendered to fit.
That said, whether or not the NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, MLB, ESV, or AOV (Any other version, for the readers, here) is a particularly accurate version at any verse is another question entirely. But any attempt to 'sneakingly slander' the thousands of various individuals that have 'translated' Scriptures for well over two millenia is at best misguided, vicious and unwarranted, for attacking their credibility, sincerety and honor sub-silento, IMO.
I simply do not find the same reverence and awe for the texts themselves, that most of the translators claim, either in the advocates for a particular version (who often seem to think that particular version is the the greatest thing since sliced bread) or the detractors of said version (who seem to see it as straight out of the pit of hell). Why is there so much resistance with the attitudes of the translators themselves, unless we are talking about an attitude and approach such as that of Marcion?

Ed

 

Bible Revisions

Let me pose this question to everyone.

When is too much change, too much? The suprising thing for me is that someone would be quick to defend the newer versions and yet go to great lengths to find fault with the older versions.

In this period of time we live in, it is very popular to find fault with the Bible. There seems to be this urgency to find whatever so-called evidence can be found to shed light on a new revelation discrediting the Bible. And it's not just limited to the Bible.....it's extended to rewriting history as well whether that be specific individuals or historical events that took place. Society has degraded to such an extent that it has to bring down anything that is honorable and decent to it's level.

So I ask again, just exactly how much of the Bible has to be "watered down" before you would take issue with it?

J.

 

I really don't care what sins they have committed as long as the translation accurately reflects the Greek and Hebrew. Of course, I have to ask, is there any proof of this agenda? Or merely the insinuations of a few individuals who have an ulterior motive.

BTW the Mormons are KJVonly. If I were to follow your mudslinging logic, I would avoid the KJV because gasp the Mormoms teach that it is the only true translation.

I suggest you read One Bible Only? by Beachum and Bauder, it is an excellent look at the KJV only controversy.

 

Xdisciplex: //Do you want a bible which was edited or put together by sodomites?//

No.
And there is no translation put together by
sodomites..

There was a style CONSULTANT used for
advise on English Style who was later found to
be a Lesbian. But it was the Hebrew/English
Translators who made the decision on what
went into the final translation.

Hello, it is JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION
to go from what happened there to a
statement like "the NIV was put togehter by
sodomites". Please don't be a new ager and
make that leap of faith

 

Don't go gettin' all nasty on me, XD. No I don't want a homosexual Bible, but you're missing my point. You won't find any translator that never sinned. I would say even the apostles who penned the originals committed a sin or two. You are are assuming a lot about this suposed lesbian and getting your information from people who are very biased against modern versions. If you don't like the NIV, don't read it, but don't condemn those who do. And don't believe everything you read about those horrible MV's.

 

Bibles cannot be homosexual. They are inanimate objects.

 

xdx...The Bible (the NIV and KJV) warns us about bearing false witness.

Check your sources well before spreading half-truths, or untruths.

 

John

I cant remember I no longer have the book. It was called "New Age Bibles" by GA Ripliner.

There were 17 different Bible verses compared with the King James that were removed... I looked them up myself at the time in both Bibles. There were also many that had been changed and since I had been actually studying the New Age Spiritualism Movement at the time, I couldnt believe what these changed verses said. I looked all those up as well in my NIV and compared with my KJV.

So no matter what anyone here says about innacruate information, these verses were all changed or removed.


Claudia

 

In response to Claudia...

Let's all be aware that "chapters and verses" are more recent constructs to aid us in finding and using Scripture. So it would really be more correct to say that there are words/phrases in the KJV that are not in the NIV.

Of course, there are also words/phrases in the NIV that are not in the KJV so that proves nothing.

God has preserved His word in all faithful translations of scripture. The KJV is a translation...just as the NIV, and others. (let's leave out the red herring of the NWT, which corrupts a fundamental doctrine).

If "older is better" let us return to the oldest English translation...which is not the KJV.

Or better yet, let's just let the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth in His word. For me, that is several KJV versions, plus NIV, NASV, ESV, HCSV, and the occasional NLT.

 

John,

well I just went to google and typed in a search and here they are:

Matt 12:47
Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 21:44
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9-20
Luke 17:36
Luke 22:43
Luke 22:44
Luke 23:17
Luke 24:12
Luke 24:40
John 5:4
John 7:53 - 8:11
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Rom. 16:24
2 Cor. 13:14
James 1:8

I no longer have an NIV Bible here with me and so I cant write a comparison here for you...