You cannot trust the NIV!

Once again, folks, please be aware of two things:

1. The NIV translators had access to some much earlier mss than did the KJV translators. Thus, when they found that there were verses in the KJV which could not be found in the earlier mss, these verses were omitted or put into text notes.

2. Most of the 'missing' verses are in text notes.

 

Gail Riplinger is a slanderer.

• Even David Cloud, quite the fundamentalist himself (who opposes MV's), says she invented quotes by him and falsely stated his opinions (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm)
• Riplinger makes outlandish claims. She claims the underlying text for the NIV was altered by a spiritualist who conducted seances. She offers no documentation for such.
• She makes silly accusations of MV's. One of her "accusations" is that the NIV is wrong to translate "Holy Ghost" as "Holy Spirit." Huh???
• Riplinger claims that Wescott did not believe in the devil. Wescott's own letters absolutely refute this claim, when he refers to Satan multiple times.
• Riplinger insists we should follow the KJ readings, even when no manuscripts support it: example: "book of life" in Rev. 22:19--every manuscript reads "tree of life."
• Riplinger uses faulty logic: 1. A modern version uses a phrase; 2. A "new ager" uses the same phrase; thus, 3: The MV is new age. (maybe she should consider that the "new ager" simply misused or misquoted God's word? Naaah...)

There's much more, but that's enough for now:
SOURCE1
SOURCE2
SOURCE3
SOURCE4

 

It's not gone, it's in the foot notes. Does your NIV have footnotes? If it does, what does it say for verse 56?


Also, while I enjoy a good number of your "daily questions" when you get on a soap box and scream that a version is good or bad, and yet, you have so many simple question that could be understood by reading any version, it worries me some.

I think you need to pay less attention to TV ministers and Radio/Internet ministers and study the word more.

Jamie

 

xdx, I've watched you go all over the map over the last few months doctrinally. I've seen you argue for and against all kinds of stuff. And frankly, it's disappointing to see you fall for such a position as this--asserting that God cannot communicate beyond 17th-century english.

You are going to be unable to do this...but I'll ask anyway: show me one cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith that is corrupted through the NIV. Remember...if I as a translator am going to "do away" with a doctrine" I don't like...I'm gonna systematically eliminate it from Scripture...not just one phrase. (Kind of like those that say "the NIV tries to eliminate 'the blood' when it actually strongly re-inforces the doctrine).

By the way, since your post insinuates that the NIV was translated by non-Christians, I've reported your post. Keep your tactics out of the gutter on this debate, please.

You're going to be unable to give me one basic Christian doctrine affected by the NIV. No one else has.

 

Helen,

I asked a these questions on another thread. (No answers yet)

Why do we assume older mss are more reliable than later copies?
Is it possible that the older mss exist because of lack of use?
Is it possible that the "more reliable" mss are the ones that needed to be copied because they were often wore out from excessive use?

 

No matter who you think Gail Riplinger is, the fact remains that the verses are gone. And if you compare certain verses in the Bible it doesnt matter who pointed them out to you.

come on now...

 

John,

You're welcome

Claudia

 

Claudia, what makes you think those verses were not PUT IN by the translators and not in the originals???

Blammo, it is simply a matter of research to try to go for the earliest extant mss available. The Dead Sea Scrolls were of great help in this. There were two groups of them, actually. My husband knows which were found in which caves (and he is napping right now), but the oldest ones confirmed the accuracy of the Alexandrian LXX, for instance, and corresponded strongly to the Samaritan Text. The later ones were clearly Masoretic in origin. So we can see the changes which were made back then.

So while there is no guarantee that the most ancient mss are the most reliable, the fact remains that there would be far less chance of those being changed than the translations which had been retranslated and recopied and text notes possibly added (as in the case in 1 John, which we know about) later.

 

So slander, lies, and bad logic are OK, as long as you agree with the premise?

Nope.

As was mentioned:

1. read the footnotes of scripture. You'll see the explanation.
2. No fundamental doctrine is changed. xdx will be unable to answer that challenge.
3. The KJV differs from the Geneva Bible...which was an earlier translation. Shouldn't we go back to the Geneva translation?
4. The reasons "Verses" (a man-made construct to ease navigating God's word) are missing is because some manuscripts didn't contain them. The translators made a choice. Do you think every manuscript is identical? That's the chore of translation. And to re-iterate: no core doctrine changes.
5. If proponents of your view assert their views through unethical means (there are many fine folks who believe the KJV is the only English valid version--but Riplinger is not one of those fine folks), shouldn't that concern you?
6. As has been said many, many times, there is no scripture that backs up the assertion that God preserved His word for us ONLY in the 1611 KJV (or later KJV's).

You prefer the KJV? Great! I'm all for it. You think it's the best English translation? Great as well. But further than that (onlyism) is a logical and theological error.

 

What I said is this:

"the fact remains that the verses are gone. And if you compare certain verses in the Bible it doesnt matter who pointed them out to you."

 

Matthew 18:11: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

thats an important Bible verse.

 

Please do not accuse me of lying, this was in a book. There is a list of Bible verses it says are missing. You can accuse them of lying if you want to but not me. Thank you.


wow I cant hardly believe just how antagonistic people are on this thread, it really makes me wonder... I guess I should stay out of this... someone accuses me of lying and another person reports someone elses post, etc.. wow LOL

 

Claudia, if you are going to use a book as authoritative and that book is shown to be deceptive, don't you think you had better change what authority you are following?

The fact is that despite everything that you have been shown and told, you evidently have not looked up these accusations for yourself and refuse to believe those of us who have.

 

I give up. geez all I know is a long time ago when I read that book I looked up the verses and I sure didnt see them in the NIV.

and the ones that were changed.... I recognized some of the stuff as going along with the New Age Spiritualism stuff I had been looking into.

Its really that simple and I dont appreciate anyone accusing me of anything. and I am not going to say anymore about this because people are way too accusatory for my liking.

thank you.

 

Niv Bible

:type:

Well, I'll just keep reading my Thompson chain, KJV. :godisgood:

:jesus:

Have a great day!!!

Tam