Recognise:

@JeSoul

- JeSoul

Why would anyone use the NIV and use it exclusively for that matter?

Jay, am not quite sure how to gently drop this . . .

What Zondervan Publishers won't DARE tell you is that they are OWNED by Harper Collins,

who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. 

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone and a love for Christ that the world's largest Bible publisher (Zondervan) is owned by the same company, HarperCollins, that publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex." 

Every pastor and Christian using the NIV are supporting these demonic publications. 

For an idea of the perversions of NIV (i.e. the New International perversion) Click here

Kay aint got your addy

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

By: Daniel B. Wallace
Download Word Doc
First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.2

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?3

JeSoul:

     Why does it matter who 'prints' the bible? The same catholic/RCC church that most of us other christians believe to be evil are the ones who 'compiled' the bible. Yet we don't reject the scriptures just because of who had their hands on it at one point do we?
 

davidylan:

this is grossly untrue. These scriptures were being read by the ancient church way before the RCC came on the scene. We know that copies of the old testament were kept in the temple and read in the synagogues. The gospels provide evidence of Christ reading from the book of Isaiah (no RCC existed then) and he also quoted from Deuteronomy and the book of Psalms.

Paul talks about his writings being copied and read among the churches too. Peter quotes some of the old testament writers too. Brother Jude also quotes the book of Enoch which is strangely missing from our copies of the bible.

Pastor AIO:

To read all the text go here
http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Definately KJV is dangerous in Nigeria. I've just got back and I met a pastor who quoted "Suffer not a Witch to Live". For a start he kept quoting it wrong and saying "Suffer a witch to NOT live". For him Suffer meant that we had to torture witches and make them suffer in the modern sense of the word. He was one of those Mountain of Fire guys. I saw that to explain the original meaning of suffer to him would take too much time and effort and he still probably wouldn't get it.

JeSoul taken from What Is A Familiar Spirit? on August 08, 2009, 10:13 PM:


. . . But I wouldn't trade the ease of understanding & simplicity of versions like the NIV for the KJV.

Is The NIV Bible Corrupt?

Yes it is and the evidences are abound

Someone has to say it if no one else yet, is prepared to admit it

Having said that incidentally, it doesnt stop me using it

since I use it with caution; Aye, extreme caution.

Oddly enough, back in the days when I couldnt come to grips with KJV

it was NIV that I used to blitz the Bible through back to back.

So in fairness,  NIV put me in good stead & prepared me to grasp KJV afterwards

The ". . . wouldn't trade versions like the NIV for the KJV . . ."

gave the impression that NIV is what you exclusively use

The unawareness of familiar spirits fuelled further the presumption

KJV, once gotten the hang off, is a doodle

The key is to use it inconjunction & in parallel with other translations

Whenever the bones are about to choke, dont hesistate, just spit them out literally . . .

Pastor AIO?

Jay dont let the title or office razzmatazz you. Thats all I'll say about that . . .

By the way, those in the know, understand that "Suffer little childre to come unto me” and the likes

means "Tolerate, allow endure or permit little children to come unto me"

Trust me NIV is corrupt and perverted

It is lethal and dangerous if in the hands of those that dont know or are naive

Recognise:

[size=12pt]

Pastor AIO?

Jay dont let the title or office razzmatazz you. Thats all I'll say about that . . .

davidylan:

this is grossly untrue. These scriptures were being read by the ancient church way before the RCC came on the scene. We know that copies of the old testament were kept in the temple and read in the synagogues. The gospels provide evidence of Christ reading from the book of Isaiah (no RCC existed then) and he also quoted from Deuteronomy and the book of Psalms.

Paul talks about his writings being copied and read among the churches too. Peter quotes some of the old testament writers too. Brother Jude also quotes the book of Enoch which is strangely missing from our copies of the bible.

VI-XI. The Fall of the Angels: the Demoralization of Mankind: the Intercession of the Angels on behalf of Mankind. The Dooms pronounced by God on the Angels of the Messianic Kingdom-- (a Noah fragment).

6

1
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto
2
them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men
3
and beget us children.' And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not
4
indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations
5
not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves
6
by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn
7
and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl,
8
Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.
7

1
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms
2
and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they
3
became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed
4
all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against
5
them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and
6
fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
8

1
And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all
2
colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they
3
were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Êzêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven,

Pastor AIO:

I'm left wondering what you mean by the above. I see my name in there but what are you saying?

Recognise:

Yes it is and the evidences are abound

The ". . . wouldn't trade versions like the NIV for the KJV . . ."

gave the impression that NIV is what you exclusively use

The unawareness of familiar spirits fuelled further the presumption

KJV, once gotten the hang off, is a doodle

By the way, those in the know, understand that "Suffer little childre to come unto me” and the likes

means "Tolerate, allow endure or permit little children to come unto me"

duduspace:

@Jesoul,
Is this some sort of segregation yu're starting on Nairaland? do yu mean non christians should not contribute?

Anyway's my two pence contribution is simply that god does a disservice to christians when he can't even come down to solve the issues having to do with the adulteration of his supposed words. We aren't talkin about people doubting him here but people who genuinely have faith like you. Bloke is definitely the author of confusion.

JeSoul:

PastorAIO,

   just a quick question. What is your opinion of the "Book of Enoch" you quoted? how do you treat/use such extra-biblical texts personally? What do you think is its importance/significance to us christians today? Thanks.

Pastor AIO:

To be honest, I haven't read much of it.  I've tried a few times but it doesn't really grip me or speak to me in any way.  I don't really use it personally, neither do I use much of the old testament.  That is not to say that someone else might not find in it a rich source of inspiration.  It's importance/significance to us as christians will vary from christian to christian.  For me it has mainly historical significance.

JeSoul:

  Okay thanks. I always find myself somewhat unsure on how to handle or approach extra-biblical texts. Can it be trusted? does it stand in opposition or contradiction to the current bible? if not, does it have any significant application for today's believers? and for that reason I myself don't read or use any of them. I would agree with you though about their historical significance, but beyond that 

Anyways, slightly off-topic but care to explain more why you don't really use the OT?

Pastor AIO:

Here's a website that is a great resource for anyone who really wants to study the bible deeply by looking at the various original manuscripts in Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew:

http://biblos.com/

This is what it has to say about Mark 10:14

All you have to do is put your cursor over a greek word and it will give you it's various meanings.

http://biblos.com/mark/10-14.htm

Pastor AIO:

It is off topic but I'll answer briefly. Save for the psalms proverbs and a couple of others it doesn't really speak to me and there is not much that I can apply to my life in them.

JeSoul:


. . .  Can we discuss what exactly the problems are with the NIV bible compared to the KJV?

. . .  had this debate . . .  in the past and my conclusion

was that the 'differences' or 'omissions' to me are not nearly enough to dismiss the NIV

hence why I still continue to use it.

I attribute those problems to translational or transcriptional errors or shortcomings

- not necessarily a conspiracy to water down the word of God

and I don't see how the NIV presents a different or manipulated gospel from the KJV.

. . . christians your input is more than welcome.

I like the manner you selectively quote and chose your responses

How did you manage to miss the below and not address it as well

[center]" . . . Trust me NIV is corrupt and perverted

It is lethal and dangerous if in the hands of those that dont know or are naive"[/center] 

Have you not noticed that no one has grasped the bull by the horns

and come out to prove or refute Is The NIV Bible Corrupt?

I'll reiterate or paraphrase that the NIV Bible is corrupt because it is dishonest.

It contains undesirable changes in meanings and/or blantant outright errors

It introduced misleading and deliberate ommissions,

an example is "familiar spirits" albeit inspite of it, you are now familiar with the phrase, excuse the pun

We've heard that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

One would have thought, yeah a trivial thing such as familiar spirits would be in HIV Sorry NIV

Jay please can you publish here what  the following verses say from your NIV:

1) Matthew 18:11
2) Matthew 17:21
3) Mark 15:28
4) John 5:4
5) Acts 8:37
6) Romans 16:24

Disclaimer! Weather check, you're due for a disappointment because you wouldnt find such verses in HIV NIV.

You think KJV is Kings English What you gonna say if you were reading Chaucers

As I say I used NIV, with caution, extreme caution for that matter . . .

I walk on water and dont sink because I know where the stones are   ^{an old Joke about the Pastor, Padre & Rabbi fishing on a lake . . .}

NIV is a loaded gun left in the wrong hands, its lethal and can be fatal . . .  

KISS- keeping it short & simple

The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth.

Revelation 1:10-11:


New International Version (NIV)
¹⁰ On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,

¹¹ which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

---

---

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁰ I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

¹¹ Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Recognise:

I like the manner you selectively quote and chose your responses

How did you manage to miss the below and not address it as well

[center]" . . . Trust me NIV is corrupt and perverted

It is lethal and dangerous if in the hands of those that dont know or are naive"[/center]  

Have you not noticed that no one has grasped the bull by the horns

an example is "familiar spirits" albeit inspite of it, you are now familiar with the phrase, excuse the pun

Jay please can you publish here what  the following verses say from your NIV:

1) Matthew 18:11
2) Matthew 17:21
3) Mark 15:28
4) John 5:4
5) Acts 8:37
6) Romans 16:24

Disclaimer! Weather check, you're due for a disappointment because you wouldnt find such verses in HIV NIV.

Recognise:

Still awaiting you to publish here what  the following verses say from HIV NIV:

1) Matthew 18:11

Matthew 18:10 Some manuscripts heaven. 11 The Son of Man came to save what was lost.

JeSoul:


. . . Okay so are you saying the NIV is okay for some people but not for others?

I don't want to misunderstand you . .

@JeSoul

- JeSoul

Its OK for all and sundry to use

as in, if all and sundry are aware it's dodgy and arent naive enough to think its harmless . . .

Its akin to carrying a bag full of explosives,

Its either you'll be careful with the bag once you're aware of the explosives in it or let go off it

We havent covered grounds at all, in fact we haven't even scratched the tip of the iceberg yet

This is a can of wriggly rotten worms, it aint goody two-shoes . . .

You said ". . . I will miss and forget certain ones especially the ones I don't use or hear often or are not used in the version I use often . . ."

Funningly enough thats one of the agendas and objectives of NIV and Rubert Murdoch the owner achieved

to remove phrases such as familiar spirits from the Bible to suck the non suspecting public to psychics, mediums etc

JeSoul today 10t Aug 2009:


You're right Matt 18:11 does not 'exist' in the NIV bible. BUT before you smile in false victory  . . .

@^ Muwhahaha . . . 

We're anxiously awaiting your findings & the outcome of the other verses . . . 

JeSoul:


Alleged Perverison #2: The NIV perverts the virgin birth. Luke 2:33

KJV-
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

NIV-
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Bone of contention? NIV says "Father" KJV says "Joseph. Quote from the website: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_exposed.htm 

Seriously? I'll let the readers judge for themselves if this is a serious enough offense by the NIV.

By the way, we should also chastise Mary for refering to Joseph as Jesus's father in yes the KJV:

Luke 2:48
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

@JeSoul

Jay! Please!!

Stop, you've stepped in it again and am hurting . . .

I keep re-writing my responses because I dont want to come across as brash

Are you trying to pull wool over our eyes, hmm?

or recklessly and desperately looking for cheap pot shots without any regard to caution?

You called to chastise Mary for refering to Joseph as Jesus's father, yeah?

Why didnt read and study Luke 2 in context and properly instead of zeroing on Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 alone

Mary hadnt a clue, and Jesus corrected her already

Didnt you notice that Jesus corrected his Mum in Luke 2:49-51 and they still werent the wiser . . .

Luke 2:49-51:


⁴⁸And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

⁴⁹And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

⁵⁰And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

⁵¹And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

By: Daniel B. Wallace
  Download Word Doc
First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.2

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?3

To read all the text go here
http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today