BE-AWARE of NIV translation

[shipwrecksoul]

Boanerges,
I play this joke on people myself. Whats your point? Are you trying to come to terms academically as to your belief that the NIV, which is mutilated, is the divine word of God so you do not have to obey what the King James says that differs in many places to the NIV?
I hope in my conversation you dont think im applying my position as like to that of the letter of the Law but Im applying it, my conversation, by the Spirit for people to listen to the divine word of God.
Self wants to not listen to absolutes so as not to rock the boat as to ones obedience before holy God. This way they, NIV worshippers, preach sermons that only tickles the hearers so the people say woooww what a sermon that I grow NOT closer to God, and not allow conviction to change either me the sinner or bring growth to me the saved.

 

[jari]

I disagree, that's like saying it is possible to experience driving a car by just reading the operator's manual.

but u shouldnt compare God to car God hears ur prayer when u read his word.
its entirely different thing bro.

 

[Boanerges]

Boanerges,
I play this joke on people myself. Whats your point? Are you trying to come to terms academically as to your belief that the NIV, which is mutilated, is the divine word of God so you do not have to obey what the King James says that differs in many places to the NIV?
I hope in my conversation you dont think im applying my position as like to that of the letter of the Law but Im applying it, my conversation, by the Spirit for people to listen to the divine word of God.
Self wants to not listen to absolutes so as not to rock the boat as to ones obedience before holy God. This way they, NIV worshippers, preach sermons that only tickles the hearers so the people say woooww what a sermon that I grow NOT closer to God, and not allow conviction to change either me the sinner or bring growth to me the saved.

No joke intended my friend. If the King Jimmy was perfect it would not have had to be revised 10 different times.
It also would not have been appended to add in text from multiple other manuscripts to fill in the blanks.
Being a Berean by nature I study to show myself approved which is biblically approved.
There is no one living who can tell you if the older manuscripts are more or less accurate the the TR manuscript.

What I am saying is this, if it speaks to you I am blessed, I love the King Jimmy myself and it is a personal favorite. But other than your feelings and conjecture you cannot prove it to be more accurate than a later translation.
I do respect your right to disagree. May the Holy Spirit guide each of us.
Many blessings in Jesus Name,
your brother Larry.

 

[jiggyfly]

Originally Posted by Boanerges
What you really need is to spend time with the Holy Spirit, He teach and speak to you.



The Holy Spirit is God. So God is not the author of confusion. The NIV leaves out verses and changes verses. This is what confusion means point blank. Live with it. The NIV is a corrupt manuscript period.

And so does KJV, so whats your point?

 

[jiggyfly]

Yes it is possible with God as the author and motivator in ones life, so your knocking Jari in his relationship with God with academics and not by the Spirit showing you to relate to someone as the Spirit is showing Jari in his willingness in his response to Gods love!
So your dead wrong Jiggfly thats why God sends his Spirit for conviction, righteousness and judgment. Jari is listening to the Spirit lead him!

God is the teacher, not man, through showing us by the Holy Spirit!

Why, because Jari shares your same religious paradigm about KJV?

Yes God, HolySpirit is the teacher not the scriptures and certainly not the KJV bible.

 

[jiggyfly]

You said Jesus never told us which one to read right?
P
sa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

With this verse alone the NIV leaves out verses which were preserved from day one thus according to this Jesus did, He was God back then to you know, have HIS word all along so the NIV cant be it! Its missing large portions of scripture, it has gender neutral correlation now.
Jesus would say that the NIV is corrupt!

This is simply ludicrous, maybe you should seek out a talkkingjames forum.

 

[jiggyfly]

but u shouldnt compare God to car God hears ur prayer when u read his word.
its entirely different thing bro.

Your the one that made the ludicrous statement and elevated the scriptures above HolySpirit.

 

[Ophel]

God can convict anyone even when they are reading a medicine jar. But to slur or remove what God says dishonors the validity of who does it. In this case the NIV slurs the name of God by removing and twisting and changing what God has said.
Thus saith the Lord bro!
You either believe that or you are accustomed, like all of us at some times in our life, to want to abide by being cuddled by the NIV for self not to give the throne to Christ who can rule but not through the adulterated NIV!

It is quite an accusation to point a finger at people and declare that they have slurred the word of God.

No one has twisted or changed scriptures.

I am not cuddled by anything save the Holy Spirit. HE shows me what is true. I trust Him and no man's opinion, not even yours. Jesus Christ has the throne of my life, thank you. he is not telling me to be wary of anything, as he teaches me what is true. I don;t worry my pretty little head about anything nor do I post massive, wordy warnings to faceless, nameless people, causing great alarm. What does the word of God tell us about dissension? It is a sin, isn't it?

Jesus rules on the throne of many hearts quite well no matter what version His kids are reading. It is Holy Spirit who teaches all things.

1 Timothy 6:3-4
Some people may contradict our teaching, but these are the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. These teachings promote a godly life. Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions.


1 John 2:27
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

 

[shipwrecksoul]

No one has twisted or changed scriptures.
.

...........

 

[jiggyfly]

Yes the people who wrote the NIV put out by rupert murdoch zondervan press who publishes porn making millions off of it has twisted and changed the scriptures. You can even do a comparison, even using google, a 10 year old can do it!
Why would money from porn be connected with the NIV from the same business, I wonder!

Please post your source for this info.
Zondervan Press also prints KJV bibles. FYI Zondervan didn't translate the NIV they just printed it. Have you heard of the New York Bible Society.

Zondervan Press was bought out by HarperRowCollins Publishing.

 

[shipwrecksoul]

.............

 

[Boanerges]

More info from the Interactive bible website:



Indisputable, universally recognized errors in the KJV

Special thanks to Bill Reid for providing some source documentation in this section.

Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:

<table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="920"> <tbody><tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> KJV translates...

</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> Textus Receptus actually says...

</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Lucifer" Is 14:12
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Easter" Acts 12:4
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="34%"> "flagon" 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chron 16:3; SoS 2:5; Hosea 3:1
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="66%"> These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Inconsistency in translating identical words and phrases in the KJV

Special thanks to Bill Reid for providing some source documentation in this section.

<table border="1" cellspacing="1" width="929"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="MIDDLE"> Inconsistency in translating identical words and phrases in the KJV

</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6 Quotes Gen 15:6
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30 quotes Deut 32:35
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Heb 3:11; 4:3 quotes Ps 95:11
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> 1 Cor 3:17
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek words into: "defile" & "destroy"
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek phrases: "whole land" & "all the earth"
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Rev 4:4
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek words into: "seats" & "thrones"
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Mt 25:46
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek words into: "everlasting" & "eternal"
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Rom 4:3,4,5,6,9,10,11, 22,24
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek verbs: "counted", "reckon", "impute"
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="MIDDLE" width="40%"> Rom 7
</td> <td valign="MIDDLE" width="60%"> KJV translates identical Greek "epithumeo": "lust", "covet", "concupiscence"
</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Boanerges]

And more info from the Interactive Bible web site:
An appalling case of a spurious passage coming from the Latin Vulgate down to the King James Version by way of Erasmus is described by Bruce Metzger:

Among the criticisms levelled at Erasmus one of the most serious appeared to be...that his text lacked part of the final chapter of I John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth' (I John v. 7-8, King James version). Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found - or made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him. (The Text of the New Testament, 1st-2nd Edition, Oxford, p 101) Marginal note in 3rd edition: See also p. 291 n.2​

Footnote to the above comment by Metzger in the same book in a later edition:"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. De Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980), pp. 381-9 (The Text of the New Testament, 3rd Edition, Oxford, p 291 fn 2. Footnote Retraction)​

In the time since Erasmus, among all the Greek manuscripts that have been examined, only three more, all of late date, have been found which include the passage, and it apparently comes to these from the Vulgate, not from earlier Greek exemplars. These three include one sixteenth century manuscript, one manuscript which is said to be from either the fourteenth or sixteenth century, and one twelfth century manuscript which has the passage added in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. In spite of the obvious lack of authenticity this passage, which probably originated as an attempt to augment the case for trinitarianism, is today included in the King James Version as if it were part of the inspired word.
Clearly, some of the passages included in the Textus Receptus, and consequently in the King James Version, are woefully lacking in credentials. But as the Textus Receptus became stereotyped, even later editors who were more abundantly supplied with manuscripts, including some from the fourth or fifth century, dared not stray too far from the text of the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus. This was the case until the nineteenth century.
In all our discussion we have not touched upon allegations of much more fundamental shortcomings of the text behind the King James Version. These have to do, not so much with the inclusion of passages supported by virtually no Greek manuscripts, but rather with readings found throughout the Textus Receptus which are supported by many late manuscripts, but which are not found in most of the earliest manuscripts.
The King James Version in Perspective

While there are perhaps no more than a dozen passages where the Received Text has an interpolation supported by no known Greek manuscript, there is a vastly greater number of passages where the Received Text has variant readings that are supported by Greek manuscripts. Often the manuscripts supporting such readings are in the majority. However, these manuscripts are generally of much later date than those which are deemed by most scholars to have the authentic reading.

 

[shipwrecksoul]

.............

 

[jari]

Your the one that made the ludicrous statement and elevated the scriptures above HolySpirit.

scriptures did come from the holy spirit. i dont understand whats the problem finding new spiritual experiences through scripture?

 

[Boanerges]

When the NIV was being published by zondervan press in the other room down the hall to the right of this organization, being owned by rupert murdoch, another company owned by him also their were millions of porn magazines that were being printed generating millions of dollars to make the NIV readily available so it would be financially successful! Wow! Porn generated the money to make the NIV where it is today!

Friend, do you have any proof that porn was sold specifically to support the NIV translation? If so please post it as I would be interested in reading it, if not that is considered slander.
I am quite sure our beloved King James is published by many secular companies as well.

 

[Boanerges]

scriptures did come from the holy spirit. i dont understand whats the problem finding new spiritual experiences through scripture?

My brother, we all love the Bible. It would however be no better for us to read than an encyclopedia if the Holy Spirit was not giving revelation into it's meaning and application.
No one is dissing the Word as it is our daily spiritual bread and the truth by which we are renewed in our minds.

 

[jari]

Bro Boanerges , im not saying KJV is perfect but these so called errors u posted seem to be in entirely different league than the errors in NIV.

I dont think the way KJV translators had to make decision which english word to use was errous. you have to choose some english word and english doesnt have as cleaver words as greek/hebrew and they chosed ones which made it sensible , regarding the context.

 

[jari]

My brother, we all love the Bible. It would however be no better for us to read than an encyclopedia if the Holy Spirit was not giving revelation into it's meaning and application.
No one is dissing the Word as it is our daily spiritual bread and the truth by which we are renewed in our minds.

thx bro i absolutely agree with you and thats why i said , when you pray and read...

the convo was originally just between me and jiggfly and he seem to have different view of bible reading. please check the original posts if you wonder what we were talking about. He seem to be of different view about bibles usefulness.

 

[shipwrecksoul]

Friend, do you have any proof that porn was sold specifically to support the NIV translation? If so please post it as I would be interested in reading it, if not that is considered slander.
I am quite sure our beloved King James is published by many secular companies as well.

If I owned two companies
one company which did pornography making lots and lots of money
And
I owned another company that did printing of NIV bibles
You tell me how would it be ethical to say my decisions in either of the two have nothing to do with each other!
The decisions to make, through advertisement and influence and promotions, more money out of the NIV more financially sound would come off of the profits you received from the porno magazines.
So the NIV bible was pushed on America for financial gain which came off of the backs of abused woman!