Murdoch's NIV

[JerryNumbers]

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 1:3-4 (KJV)

How can one contend for the faith as it was delivered if they are not holding the whole truth in their hands?

Here is some helps.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/KJV/niv.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/williams_d1.html

[Kubel]

Romans 10:17 - So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I hold to Sola Scriptura, the fundamental belief that all doctrine must come from the Bible to be taken as part of my faith. And because onlyism is not found in the Bible, I cannot accept it as part of my faith. If I want to believe it, there must be belief by sight, not by faith. I just don't see any proof to support onylism, just as I don't see sufficient proof to condemn all modern versions.

I just don't understand why we must attack other Christians simply because they don't read our translation of the Bible.

:puzzled:

[John81]

I don't understand how those who preach and live in similar manner to KJB Christians other than the fact they use the NIV can be considered either non-Christians or weak Christians or lesser Christians.

I know some of these men personally and unless they pulled out their NIV or decided to quote from the NIV you couldn't tell them apart from an ardent KJB Fundamentalist.

Their lives, their preaching, teaching, and examples are solidly biblical. There is no discernable difference between them and those whose sermons appear in the Sword of the Lord (for example), other than their use of the NIV rather than the KJB.

These are not Rick Warren types who preach contrary to Scripture or who use the NIV or another version in order to try and make it say what they want it to say.

I still don't like the NIV but I can't deny what I have seen and heard nor can I deny the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.

[Jerry]

I just don't understand why we must attack other Christians simply because they don't read our translation of the Bible.

Another smokescreen. The problem is not because they don't read the same Bible as I read. :roll The problem is the one they do read has corruptions, omissions, additions, contradictions. That's the problem.

Regardless of whether someone is a whatever-version-onlyer, does the one they read from, study from, etc. have errors, contradictions, additions or subtractions (ie. like missing whole verses)? That is the issue.

Read as many sound TR-based translations as you want, in whatever languages you want, and I wouldn't have any problem with it. Read a corrupt version - one or a thousand of them - and I would have a problem with it. You can't stand for the truth if you don't have it - or have it all.

[John81]

You can't stand for the truth if you don't have it - or have it all.

See, this is where I have some problems. I know some solid Christian men who use the NIV and stand for the truth as well and as consistently as anyone here. As I've stated previously, other than them using the NIV, there is no difference between them and Fundamental KJB users.

[Kubel]

Another smokescreen. The problem is not because they don't read the same Bible as I read. :roll The problem is the one they do read has corruptions, omissions, additions, contradictions. That's the problem.

I'm not convinced that there is any corruption (except in the obvious examples such as the NWT). And neither are the readers. The only people who seem to believe there is corruption are those that are biased by their view of onlyism. If one believe that God preserved his word in the KJV, anything different from that KJV will be a corruption, omission, addition, contradiction, etc... because one bases ones criticism toward a particular translation on the KJV and the KJV alone.

Again, it is wrong to attack someone or to claim they don't have the truth just because their translation is not the KJV. You can call it a smokescreen, but that's what it all boils down to. Anything different than the KJV is corrupt according to those in the KJVO camp. And according to your own posts, Jerry, you believe it's ok to attack them because of that. I'm saying that's wrong.

[Colin Stolzer]

Quick Question in the middle of this.

What bible would you recommend for someone who doesn't read english?

German?
Spanish?
French?
Dutch?
Chech?
Arabic?
Japanese?

C

[Jerry]

To be blunt: what do they do when they come to verses or sections in their Bible that are marked "Not in the originals, etc."? How can they stand solidly for the truth when their Bible questions itself? When I read the NASV only for four years, these were the kinds of things that I started to notice - and I had to make some decisions. Those decisions led me to compare Bible versions - and then eventually start researching on that issue. Someone who ignores the issue is not standing solidly on the truth.

God cannot lead one person to be KJVonly and then another to be antiKJV or pro-MVs. Either one way is right or they are both wrong - but there is no way they can BOTH be right. So which is it?

I became NASV only because various people told me it was the most accurate, etc. Then when I saw problems with it, irreconcilable passages, etc. I prayed for wisdom - and God led me AWAY from the NASV. Not towards it. Yet, I am supposed to believe that God is guiding others to the MVs? Either they are not sincerely praying about the issue and seeking God's wisdom - or they don't care.

One name or title the Holy Spirit has is the Spirit of Truth - He is not going to lead any of His children into error or deception. Either they are not truly following His leading, perhaps are not saved, OR sin and compromise is in the way and they are misreading His guidance.

[matie-k]

Good posting, John81!

[JerryNumbers]

Now if your going to gage your walk according to what others do, you walking down a very dangerous road.

The KJ Bible is translated into nearly ever language. That answers that question.

Other Jerry, why do we have old timers defending the NIV on this board?

[Kubel]

Someone who ignores the issue is not standing solidly on the truth.

I think perhaps people aren't ignoring the issue, they have just come to different conclusions than you have.

You ask: How can one stand on the truth when things are "missing". I ask: Missing from what? The translations don't leave out stuff because they are removing from the word of God, they are removing (or in most cases, moving it to the footnotes) because they feel there is sufficient evidence to prove it was never in there to begin with. Look at the Apocrypha. Later editions of the KJV (and practically all "protestant" translations) do not include the Apocryphal books because there is sufficient evidence that it is not the word of God. The Catholics on the other hand believe the books to be canonical, and they believe all protestant Bibles are removing from the word of God. See, what some people call removing or ignoring the truth is what other people call seeking the truth and removing the error. Both sides believe they are right. One side believes they are removing from the word of God. The other believes it is removing what was never in the word of God.

I think the real issue is: Can we get along with each other, maintain doctrinal unity and purity, and have good Christian fellowship having different translations? I say, certainly yes. I think the biggest separational problem is with the people who say "you are either with us or against us" when it comes to the translation issue. I don't believe that extra-scriptural doctrine, like onlyism, (whether one claims to have been given this revelation or not) should be a deciding factor in whether one can fellowship with another. And in my opinion, I likewise don't think extra-scriptural doctrine should be a deciding factor in whether or not someone is in pursuit of or not standing solidly on the truth if they believe or don't believe it (unless that extra-scriptural doctrine is contrary to scripture).

[Pastor Matt]

You ask: How can one stand on the truth when things are "missing". I ask: Missing from what? The translations don't leave out stuff because they are removing from the word of God, they are removing (or in most cases, moving it to the footnotes) because they feel there is sufficient evidence to prove it was never in there to begin with. Look at the Apocrypha. Later editions of the KJV (and practically all "protestant" translations) do not include the Apocryphal books because there is sufficient evidence that it is not the word of God. The Catholics on the other hand believe the books to be canonical, and they believe all protestant Bibles are removing from the word of God.

That statement is kind of misleading, the translators of the KJV1611 never looked at the Apocrypha as canonical. The Apocrypha was never considered by the translators to be the Word of God (thus placed between the Old and New Testament). So, if it was never considered by translators to be the Word of God, how can it be removed because it is not believed to be the Word of God? Removing parts of God's Word that were considered canonical by the translators is another story, that is where some other versions fall short.

It is kind of like saying, Oh, no....... Scofield Reference Bible removed the maps........

[suitman]

See, this is where I have some problems. I know some solid Christian men who use the NIV and stand for the truth as well and as consistently as anyone here. As I've stated previously, other than them using the NIV, there is no difference between them and Fundamental KJB users.

Its because people who use the NIV are not "NIV only" people( if they were then they need to look at it alot more) The belive that the original texts are the inspired word of god. And so when building the fundamental doctrines they use the hebrew and greek not the NIV. Now if you hold the KJB to be perfect and inspired it means you don't have to learn a second language(... mind you I don't read fluent ye olde english myself :frog )But in the end it is inspired text that both groups pull their fundamental doctrine on.

Ps. great posts so far kubel and I agree with you but bro matt was right about that quote being a bit misleading.

[Pastor Matt]

Its because people who use the NIV are not "NIV only" people( if they were then they need to look at it alot more) The belive that the original texts are the inspired word of god. And so when building the fundamental doctrines they use the hebrew and greek not the NIV. Now if you hold the KJB to be perfect and inspired it means you don't have to learn a second language(... mind you I don't read fluent ye olde english myself :frog )But in the end it is inspired text that both groups pull their fundamental doctrine on.

Back up my friend, which Hebrew and Greeks texts are we talking about? Many differences took place (NIV and KJV) because the 2 different Greek texts alone differ 5300 times. The NIV was translated on corrupt foundation.

Now if you hold the KJB to be perfect and inspired it means you don't have to learn a second language

That seems like an ignorant statement, I don't believe (and 99.9% of KJV folks here) in double inspiration. We believe that the KJV is preserved perfectly for only the English speaking people. God can also preserve it in other languages as He pleases.

[suitman]

Back up my friend, which Hebrew and Greeks texts are we talking about? Many differences took place (NIV and KJV) because the 2 different Greek texts alone differ 5300 times. The NIV was translated on corrupt foundation.

That seems like an ignorant statement' date=' I don't believe (and 99.9% of KJV folks here) in double inspiration. We believe that the KJV is preserved perfectly for only the English speaking people. God can also preserve it in other languages as He pleases.[/quote']

The AV texts are generally held as the inspired ones. the only people I know who think otherwise are KJV haters.
plus can I just state . I hate the NIV I think its a shoddy job at translation and the texts its translated from are not perfect. I also think that the KJV is the best english bible out there its just that I disagree with the onlyism and the condemnation that people get from IFBS when they are not KJVO.

And that statement was not out of ignorance and I am sorry you read it that way

my point is that if you beleive like I do in that once a manuscript in another language is translated it is no longer 100% perfect and you are right. then you need to learn greek and hebrew to read a perfect and inspired text.

If you believe that the KJV has been perfectly translated and is inspired then you do not have to worry about learning the second language to read a perfect and inspired text.