Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!

I wish Just knowing stuff was enough. I see it as gnosis vs epignosis.

What you do is NOT "in charity" at all.

I do not wish any such thing. I enjoy knowing the Person, who provides.

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.

Yes. Those interested in truth as I am.

Do I think you are reading it? No.

That's okay... you can just leave it that.

I get it, really I do.

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?

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.

What you say is true.

However, I was referring to a translation of the entire Bible.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Should be
quote
not
quite

There is another alternative which is more in line with what we know of synagogues. He quoted from different portions of Isaiah and strung his quote together as was the practice of Jewish rabbis. That is called haphtarah as read in Jewish synagogues.

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".

So, let me re-phrase the question.

Do you believe that scripture (God's word), on earth, is preserved of God? If so, in whole or in part? If in part, which part/s?

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: