Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The "wines" Of The Bible - The Blessed & The Cursed


Recommended Posts

  • Members

That document is 137 pages. I don't use the NIV. However, looking at the first few pages, it says the NIV denies virgin birth. Luke 1:26-38 in NIV talks about the virgin birth.

NIV denies omnipresence because they omit "which is in heaven" (John 3:13) but it is in the footnote.

NIV denies deity (1 Timothy 3:16) because it says "he" rather than "God" came in the flesh, but if you read verse 14 first, it is clear the "he" is referring to God.

That's all I have time for right now. I've seen plenty of debates, read articles and have done my own research.


It denies the virgin birth in that passage by its changes - he is talking about what each particular change does.

Regardless of the way you are painting it, it can not be denied that these are changes and they diminish the teachings of God's Word by those changes.

Ask for the changes, complain that no one shows them and then dismiss them as petty when they are shown?

I already said that some are small and relatively insignificant to meaning, but some are not.

What do you think about the removal of Jesus Christ from that verse that states He is the creator?

Try to talk to a Jehovahs Witness from an NIV without that statement.
Yes it can be shown, but many people want it in a plain statement.

The changes are there. As you point out, over 100 pages of changes where comparison is shown side by side.
What is different is not the same.

Does you Bible call Joseph the father of Jesus?
The KJV doesn't. The NIV does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Why remove it all?

The footnotes are not inspired.
They are removing it from the Bible and placing it on the level of men's thoughts.

How far will you go to avoid seeing that these changes are true?

You can not explain away changes that are significant by saying it is the footnotes - no one believes the foot notes are the inspired Word of God.

Move it to the foot notes and it becomes men's ideas......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It denies the virgin birth in that passage by its changes - he is talking about what each particular change does.

Regardless of the way you are painting it, it can not be denied that these are changes and they diminish the teachings of God's Word by those changes.

Ask for the changes, complain that no one shows them and then dismiss them as petty when they are shown?

I already said that some are small and relatively insignificant to meaning, but some are not.

What do you think about the removal of Jesus Christ from that verse that states He is the creator?

Try to talk to a Jehovahs Witness from an NIV without that statement.
Yes it can be shown, but many people want it in a plain statement.

The changes are there. As you point out, over 100 pages of changes where comparison is shown side by side.
What is different is not the same.

Does you Bible call Joseph the father of Jesus?
The KJV doesn't. The NIV does.

I didn't ask anyone to show me the changes.  I already did my own research.  I showed the virgin birth is there, the deity, eternal punishment, etc., whether it be in footnotes or other verses in another thread a while ago.  It's all in there and doctrine is not changed.

 

The real problem I see with other translations is not the translations in and of themselves, but the divisions it's causing among Christians because of what translation they choose to use.  It's Satan's way of turning Christians on each other, and it's working. Shame on all of us for allowing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why remove it all?

The footnotes are not inspired.
They are removing it from the Bible and placing it on the level of men's thoughts.

How far will you go to avoid seeing that these changes are true?

You can not explain away changes that are significant by saying it is the footnotes - no one believes the foot notes are the inspired Word of God.

Move it to the foot notes and it becomes men's ideas......

That is a ridiculous explanation.  The KJV is not inspired either.  Only the original documents written by the original authors were inspired.  If you believe KJV is inspired, then you believe in double inspiration and I will not be sucked into that lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't ask anyone to show me the changes. I already did my own research. I showed the virgin birth is there, the deity, eternal punishment, etc., whether it be in footnotes or other verses in another thread a while ago. It's all in there and doctrine is not changed.

The real problem I see with other translations is not the translations in and of themselves, but the divisions it's causing among Christians because of what translation they choose to use. It's Satan's way of turning Christians on each other, and it's working. Shame on all of us for allowing it.


And the KJV was the almost universally accepted version until the NIV, the RSV etc were done.

Why blame the KJV for the argument, when your own logic says that the multiplicity of versions is Satan's tool, therefore the cause of the argument is in fact the new versions........

No new versions - no argument.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mar 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

NIV removes "for them that trust in riches"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

NIV changes "us which are saved" (KJV) to "us who are being saved".

Tense isn't important is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

NIV removes "take up the cross".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

NIV removes "but by every word of God".

Interesting that one.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

NIV says "do your best to present yourself..."

Maybe the NIV translators didn't want people to study the Bible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is just cherry picking a few of many many changes.

And the document also includes reasons why one should be preferred over the other in each instance.

But seriously - why would the translators want to remove references to Jesus as creator, to replace the definitive use of Jesus with the more vague "him", to remove study and replace it with do your best?....

And if someone wants to answer each individually? Then I guess I can keep posting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...