Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!
- Thread starter SpiritDove05
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Do you really think anyone is reading all your garbage?? You are like the Pharisee praying.... he hopes to impress people by his many words...
In reality, you are a hindrance to the furthering of the Kingdom. You are deliberately sowing seeds of discontent, under the false guise of pious instruction. You should be ashamed, which I know that you self-righteously are NOT.
I, for one, am going to take leave of your self-love fest. I do not want to waste any more time on your silliness, and I hope others here will do the same.
I will leave you with words from Paul.... certainly appropriate in this case.
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.
In reality, you are a hindrance to the furthering of the Kingdom. You are deliberately sowing seeds of discontent, under the false guise of pious instruction. You should be ashamed, which I know that you self-righteously are NOT.
I, for one, am going to take leave of your self-love fest. I do not want to waste any more time on your silliness, and I hope others here will do the same.
I will leave you with words from Paul.... certainly appropriate in this case.
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Legitimate questions have been raised about the NIV, but to what are we comparing the NIV? To the KJV? Is that KJV the most accurate Bible? Written in 1611, the translators did not have access to the thousands of ancient Biblical transcripts written, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, based on the scholarly material available to them at that time, those dedicated and hard-working scholars created a Bible fit for the ages, but compared to the modern Bible versions, the KJV does not compare. This raises a new question: what are some of the most "accurate" Bible translations that have been published since the Dead Sea Scrolls were found?
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well said, and welcome to CC. 
If you have not already, you will find that most KJV-only proponents treat the the KJV as the standard to which all others should be compared. That is why you see so many posts here claiming that the NIV "removes" or "changes" this verse or that word. It's circular reasoning (also very common among KJV-o's) and has absolutely no validity. However, what I have seen is that KJV-o's are either not willing or not able to understand the fallacious nature of their assertions. They will reject the idea outright and respond with more fallacious reasoning, often involving ad hominem attacks.
If you have not already, you will find that most KJV-only proponents treat the the KJV as the standard to which all others should be compared. That is why you see so many posts here claiming that the NIV "removes" or "changes" this verse or that word. It's circular reasoning (also very common among KJV-o's) and has absolutely no validity. However, what I have seen is that KJV-o's are either not willing or not able to understand the fallacious nature of their assertions. They will reject the idea outright and respond with more fallacious reasoning, often involving ad hominem attacks.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well the nice Christian brother that I had addressed that response to had spoken of an lxx, so in that context, it made sense to discuss an lxx.
it's my impression that the vast majority of biblical scholars acknowledge the existence of a pre New testament translation of the old testament. The story is that it was translated, miraculously, by 70 or 72 elders, hence the name.
But if you wish to deny the existence of such a translation, that's fine. I believe the example that I gave from Luke chapter 4 where a passage from Isaiah is quoted would still hold.
it's my impression that the vast majority of biblical scholars acknowledge the existence of a pre New testament translation of the old testament. The story is that it was translated, miraculously, by 70 or 72 elders, hence the name.
But if you wish to deny the existence of such a translation, that's fine. I believe the example that I gave from Luke chapter 4 where a passage from Isaiah is quoted would still hold.
You might not be able to make God's words clearer, but you can explain what you were thinking when you made a post.
I believe I had asked if there was a test to see whether a particular translation was the word of God.
You replied with a verse from Isaiah, a verse from John, and a PostScript.
So, you could explain how you personally use those two verses as a test, and you could talk about how the PostScript relates to the two verses in your mind.
I believe I had asked if there was a test to see whether a particular translation was the word of God.
You replied with a verse from Isaiah, a verse from John, and a PostScript.
So, you could explain how you personally use those two verses as a test, and you could talk about how the PostScript relates to the two verses in your mind.
Let us try this in reverse, and have your answers appear in their own conclusion.
Do you believe that scripture (God's word) is self-defining, as in self-interpreting? Or do you believe you need something which is not God's word to define God's word?
Do you believe that scripture (God's word) can ever be contradictory with itself? (If a true contradiction is found, would the truly contradictory passages be scripture or not scripture?)
Do you believe that the men that were inspired of God, that wrote what we have in scripture, makes scripture (God's word) inspired of God, even the Holy Ghost/Spirit?
Do you believe that scripture (God's word) is preserved of God? If so, in whole or in part? If in part, which part/s?
Do you believe that a translation of scripture (God's word; ie, from Hebrew to Greek, Greek to English, etc) is also scripture?
Do you believe that scripture (God's word) is self-defining, as in self-interpreting? Or do you believe you need something which is not God's word to define God's word?
Do you believe that scripture (God's word) can ever be contradictory with itself? (If a true contradiction is found, would the truly contradictory passages be scripture or not scripture?)
Do you believe that the men that were inspired of God, that wrote what we have in scripture, makes scripture (God's word) inspired of God, even the Holy Ghost/Spirit?
Do you believe that scripture (God's word) is preserved of God? If so, in whole or in part? If in part, which part/s?
Do you believe that a translation of scripture (God's word; ie, from Hebrew to Greek, Greek to English, etc) is also scripture?
I just showed you, by evidence, that the Isaiah text from so called septuaginta (which one are you referring to specifically???), is actually taken from Luke and placed into the OT text as Greek, as are all the other so called similarities. It was done to make apparent differences between the Hebrew (OT) and the koine Greek (NT) citations disappear.
Something outside of scripture is needed, for example
Nehemiah 8: 7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
No, but there may be apparent contradictions. It is good, then, to ask the spirit for guidance.
John 16: 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
I believe that the spirit inspired the scriptures. Is that what you're asking?
I believe that the whole of God's word is preserved in heaven.
Psalm 119: 89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
But here on Earth it is a treasure in earthen vessels, human hands.
If God inspired every word of a translation, then yes, it would be scripture in the fullest sense of the word.
Nehemiah 8: 7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
No, but there may be apparent contradictions. It is good, then, to ask the spirit for guidance.
John 16: 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
I believe that the spirit inspired the scriptures. Is that what you're asking?
I believe that the whole of God's word is preserved in heaven.
Psalm 119: 89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
But here on Earth it is a treasure in earthen vessels, human hands.
If God inspired every word of a translation, then yes, it would be scripture in the fullest sense of the word.
Whether Luke quotes the lxx or the lxx quotes Luke, the issue I was raising is still there.
One can say that the Greek text of Luke 4 doesn't exactly match the Masoretic text of Isaiah that we have today.
Or one can say that the KJV of Luke doesn't exactly match the KJV of Isaiah.
Whichever, the issue is that Luke doesn't quite Isaiah exactly.
One can say that the Greek text of Luke 4 doesn't exactly match the Masoretic text of Isaiah that we have today.
Or one can say that the KJV of Luke doesn't exactly match the KJV of Isaiah.
Whichever, the issue is that Luke doesn't quite Isaiah exactly.
That is a misunderstanding of that text. They (outside of scripture) were not defining God's word. They were reading God's word, line upon line, yet it was in a language that they all did not understand clearly being a mixed nation, and some needed translation, and so allowing it to define itself, thus "caused the people to understand the law" (not themselves).
There was no personal interpretation going on. They were simply reading the book of the law to those who could understand, and making it understandable to those who could not understand the language clearly, being a mixed nation.
Notice my question again. "Defining".
Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
Neh 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
Neh 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.
Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
Neh 8:9 And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.
Neh 8:12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.
Neh 8:13 And on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to understand the words of the law.
Neh 8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:
Neh 8:18 Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.
There was no personal interpretation going on. They were simply reading the book of the law to those who could understand, and making it understandable to those who could not understand the language clearly, being a mixed nation.
Notice my question again. "Defining".
Looking at Mss, and the vast evidence for this reading in 1 Timothy 3:16,
why would you (and others) follow the NIV and NWT's choice to remove the word "God" and replace it with a nonsensical "He"?
The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3:16&version=NIV
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-timothy/3/
The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:
Here is the vast extant literature which has the text in it:
Additionally:
Additionally:
1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
why would you (and others) follow the NIV and NWT's choice to remove the word "God" and replace it with a nonsensical "He"?
The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3:16&version=NIV
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-timothy/3/
The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:
Aleph (Sinaiticus), (A*, Alexandrinus), (C*??), D*, G-gr, F-gr, pc, Old Latin: ar, c, d, dem, div, f, g, mon, x, z, Vulgate, Syriac: Pes.hitta, Harclean; Coptic: Sahidic, Bohairic; Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic
Here is the vast extant literature which has the text in it:
"... Aleph-c, A-c, C-2, D-2, K, L, P
Psi
Cursives: MAJORITY, fam 13
Old Latin: Vulgate-ms
Also extant in 056, 061, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151, 0241. We have placed A and C on the revised side only because textual criticism insists in telling us that this is where they belong. In fact, that most careful of scholars, H. C. Hoskier believed the first hand palimpsest C read "God", and codex A, F.H.A. Scrivener wrote during the latter nineteenth century:
Cod. A, however, I have examined at least twenty times within as many years ... seeing (as every one must see for himself) with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod A read THEOS ... the evidence of Young, of Huish, of Mill, of Berriman and his friends, when the page was comparatively unworn, cannot thus be disposed of (Plain Introduction, pp 639, 640 note). ...
... According to Scrivener, it is quoted by some of the very earliest fathers as Ignatius (110), and Hippolytus (235). Of the more than 250 cursive manuscripts containing I Timothy, Theos is found." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, pages 135
Additionally:
"... GREGORY OF NYSSA, Against Eunomius (III 5:101, 155, 176, 232) ..." - Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 57
Additionally:
"... TEXT: "He was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: S* A* C* G 33 syr(pal) syr(p,h)? cop?
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B
NOTES: "God was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: Se A2 C2 Dc K L P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn
EVIDENCE: Se A2 C2 Dc K L P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn
NOTES: "Which was made apparent in the flesh"
EVIDENCE: D* lat vg syr(p,h)? cop?
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn
EVIDENCE: D* lat vg syr(p,h)? cop?
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn
COMMENTS: The word "who" was changed to "which" by some copyists to refer to "mystery." In an older manuscript that does not have accents and breathing marks, all that is required to change the Greek word for "who" (OS) to the abbreviation for "God" (OS) is to add two marks. This happened to several manuscripts, apparently to give a definite subject to the following verbs. ..." - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay23tim.htm