WOW!! did you realize the niv which i LOVE has changed this much ?

  • 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.
L

LanceA

Guest
#21

While good scholars are necessary, it's who's in charge of the project that really matters. That person/persons determines final decisions & changes made.

The Bishop of Canterbury was in charge of the KJV, & slanted it for his own religious & personal purposes.

I personally don't like the NIV. It seems to be the bible of choice among liberals & heretics.(not saying all are)
Sure you are. I know plenty of non heretics and non liberals who use the NIV. This is just a hateful statement and has no place on a Christian Forum.
 
F

FreeNChrist

Guest
#22
How are you so sure they corrected mistakes? What do you base "correctness" on?
That was the purpose of the revisions. Whether you agree with the correctness of them or not.
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#23
It's like the frog in boiling water. If you put him in hot boiling water he will hop out but if you start out with warm water and slowly increase the temp he'll die before he realizes the subtle temp change.

All the new translations do the same thing. Glad you saw the light!
Yeash im glad also, the first day on bible hub i noticed a few different words..even before that i was doing a study with a friend and there were different wordings in thier new niv, and mine. I do trust mine explicitly only because I have since the age of 12 or so stuck to the Kjv as the authoritative version and always compared the 2 and never found many differences. as a kid i really struggled understanding the old english, would read a verse and then be thinking "Huh?" would then go to my dictionary and sometimes not even find the word in there. the Niv ive had is clear to me so i began at that time using both and if something seemed a miss would compare exhaustively for years and years i did that. it truly is troubling to me with the many translations now days, literraly an argument can begin and both can qupte thier version word for word, there needs to be a standard for certain and to my own Belief, the Kjv is that standard. God bless
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#24
'It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.'

https://gotquestions.org/missing-verses.html
There to me is also an aspect of beginning to distrust scripture that is not a good thing if that makes sense. I have always held the kjv standard and used niv to study and compare simply because it is new age english that we communicate now. I believe God is able to give His message in different words, no matter what language we speak or what not, it is troubling to me that the niv version...has differing versions, or the kjv has different versions ect. if a bible is niv, all should be the same word for word in every niv. Kjv should be the same way in my humble opinion. Ithink alot of misunderstandings and arguments could be avoided if there was simply One standard that we all Held to honestly idk it was Just troubling and i wasnt sure if everyone Knew this, though im sure others did, felt it was important to share, God bless
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#26
given the nature of man....im not sure about that. and honestly mean im not sure :)
People have been producing false writings since the time the originals were written.
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#27
The NIV is referred to as the "Nearly Inspired Version"
referred to that way by whop though lol? the point to me here is that the niv has changed from its original. the niv is a good thing because the vast majority of people simply have trouble with understanding old english, shakepear fans probably do not. Ithink to say niv is not inspired is missing the Point. id rather understand what i read than have to read a verse and then go figure out what it says through a dictionary. the Niv has helped people understand Gods word i have no doubt about that, the trouble to me is why change the niv that is comparable to the Kjv, which mine is and i say that after years and years of comparisons. i dont get why there are differing versions......of differing versions thats the problem to me, but of course each has thier own belief. if a bible is teaching a different message than Kjv thats one thing, if it is the same message with modern words...its a great thing to me anyways.
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#28
2 Cor 5:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). The new NIV says: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” I am not as troubled by the way they rendered that verse as I am by the reasoning they gave for how they did it. This is what their translator notes say (the link takes you to the PDF download of them):


“This time it is the Greek that is elliptical, reading simply ‟new creation.” Is it the person in Christ who is the new creation? Yes, of course. But if that’s all Paul meant, there are other more natural ways he could have said it. Given his overall theology that the coming of Christ and the new era he inaugurated began the period of the restoration of all things that would culminate in new heavens and new earth, it is likely that Paul is making a much more sweeping claim than just the salvation of the individual believer. A new universe is in the works!”

excert from article
Farewell, NIV | The Cripplegate

The commitee include Bethel, and the mystical element of changing the translation
is their real intent.

As cc members have demonstrated dominionism and mystical gnosticism is alive and kicking.

It is no surprise this will influence people, but also it show how open things are with
the internet and the open availability of different versions, which will make these
changes obvious.
Yep. to a point concerning the new creation.....there is new everything. New Law, new covenant, new elect, New Kingdom the creation is already New, new temple, new tablets on which the Laws are written, new ark of the covenant the entire creation is already new in that way, a new way of serving God, as well as the new creation regarding the believer. the concept of dying with Jesus and being born again. Some dont catch that in the prophets, the Judgements spoken upon isreal and the foreign countries have many already been fulfilled. Jerusalem was laid to waste just after Jesus ascended to Heaven. all of those things were prophecied in the prophets and alsoi by Jesus on the mount of olives. those Judgements were also a part of the conclusion of the old covenant. there is a new creation a new covenant, a new man, a new Lord, New ways, new Laws, the Old covenant Has gone, the new has come.
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#29
Got to laugh, G7 does not like the idea a translation which supports his theology
could be shown to be wrong or biased.

But the point the author of the article is making is it clearly is justified by their
theological interpretation and not the words of verses themselves.

The truth is evangelical church will just choose another translation, as they are
doing. The people of God know error when they see it.

which niv are we talking about is my point, mine compares with near perfection, the point to me is that version of the new international version, continues to evolve. I know my niv and Kjv from cover to cover and they are the exact same message. used together, there are no differences that change any aspect of the message conveyed. the message is the word not the letters. to the point of the op, why adjust what compares so perfectly I know alot of folks who wont open anything but the kjv, and they have very little grasp of what is written and conveyed because though they wont admit it, they struggle understanding old english words and phrasings.

If i want to conveya greeting to you, to send a friendly hello to you. I dont need to say hello. I can say Hi, howdie, hey there, hello, i can say hej, halla, hodi, hola.......all of those words mean hello. the message conveyed is the importance and also, that the hearer understands what is being said. its not about letter for letter, but that the message remains unchanged. i may have failed in the op to convey my point. Nivs should all be the same, kjvs should all be the same. Both are absolutely inspired. and the Kjvs MESSAGE should be the standard, that same message is conveyed in my original niv and i believe Gods plan is to send it out into the world in all languages , ancient, and modern. to me, personally, I want the message spoken By God to mankind in language I can understand clearly as Long as the message is the same. That Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God. as Long as His teachings are the same, as long as the precepts and records are unchanged the spirit of God is well able to keep the mind.
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#30
People have been producing false writings since the time the originals were written.

Yep and man always will produce fallacy, anything that Mans mind concieves will be corrupt, until the spirit of God gives Light for understanding. yet, if we go down a road of mistrusting the scriptures then doubt leeches in " did God really say that?" is the result of doubt. if the message is the same, it can be said in any way. the letters are Like a glass or cup, the message is the water that Gives Life. there are how Many Languages in the world? and a student of languages knows word for word is nearly impossible between say english and swahili. you can convey the exact message , but words arent orginized the same, meanings are sometimes conveyed with a single word in english, and 3 words in swahili. or in spanish, a word can mean different things depending on the words around it, the same words in english have vastly different meanings. old english and modern english are sort of Like that as well. we say things differently than we did 400 years ago, but you can say the same exact things with the new form of language. My point i guess is that the message is the importance.

for example Paul used many different words from Jesus, but what paul was saying, was no different than what Jesus said. Hi, hello, howdie, greetings, hola, hej......all of those words mean hello. even howdie a slang term, but the message it sends is hello. the message conveyed by the Kjv should be the standard and all the translations need to convey that same message. if we dissect line for line and find a different word with the same meaning and begin to distrust...were missing the spirit that resides in the Word of God, the message of Jesus Christ needs to be consistant as every teaching needs to be, but if you have 10 truly annointed preachers preaching, chances are they will say things differently but the message will remain true. the apostles all said the same things, with different words, different examples, different focuses but they spread the same message Jesus taught them and commanded them to teach the world. My issue is that niv, needs to be niv. Kjv also has different versions i just discovered. and all the translations probably will or do have changing versions thats my issue, why begin changing things when you have a consistant message.

I trust Kjv, and my original Niv, ive spent years comparing not just single words, but what is conveyed in both and the message is exactly the same. please understand though, I believe what i believe and everyone has that same privilage God bless you
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,273
1,410
113
#31
The old version of the NIV often translated the Greek word "sarks" (flesh) as "sinful nature". That was a huge mistake! The newer version has corrected that in most cases. Ex. Romans 8:4 - "who do not live according to the sinful nature . . . "

I personal prefer the KJV because of its correctness and the majesty of the language. On the other hand, I will use the NIV sometimes when working with young Christians.
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,430
0
#32
The old version of the NIV often translated the Greek word "sarks" (flesh) as "sinful nature". That was a huge mistake! The newer version has corrected that in most cases. Ex. Romans 8:4 - "who do not live according to the sinful nature . . . "

I personal prefer the KJV because of its correctness and the majesty of the language. On the other hand, I will use the NIV sometimes when working with young Christians.
I agree...that is a definite mis-translation error in the old version of the NIV. I believe the newer version corrects this.

All translations have bias in some form or other made by the translators which is why I believe the Lord has made it so easy for anyone to look on line to see the real Greek or Hebrew word that is used.

The truth is without the Holy Spirit revealing Jesus in the scriptures to us - we will use our own natural humanistic minds to "interpret" the scriptures that that happens to all of us from the first time readers to world renown Greek scholars. ( altho the Greek scholars would probably not agree with this )
 
Last edited:
T

Tintin

Guest
#33
In order to obtain a Copyright, One must turn the Bible into a work of Fiction... i.e. NIV.

Remember...

Don't be spreading the Word of God without permission!

"These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated"

"Any commentary or other Biblical reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the New International Version must obtain written permission for the use of the NIV text"

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/#copy

Of course if you don't want to go to jail for posting verses, there is a 'loophole'... just use the KJV.

:cool:
You've said some ridiculously stupid things on this website, but that piece of nonsense really takes the cake. It couldn't possibly be that the KJV is over 400 years old, so copyright no longer applies. It's all about the base, no trouble.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#34
Commercial use means something like you will use their text on a page with ads and earn money from their work.

They will really not sue you, average Joe, for using their quotations on the Christian Chat.

This is the fact.

But the truth is that a copyright on Bible seems always strange and I dont like it either.
A labourer is worth their labour. But I'm pretty sure you can use up to 500 verses without having to get written permission of whatever.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#35
There to me is also an aspect of beginning to distrust scripture that is not a good thing if that makes sense. I have always held the kjv standard and used niv to study and compare simply because it is new age english that we communicate now. I believe God is able to give His message in different words, no matter what language we speak or what not, it is troubling to me that the niv version...has differing versions, or the kjv has different versions ect. if a bible is niv, all should be the same word for word in every niv. Kjv should be the same way in my humble opinion. Ithink alot of misunderstandings and arguments could be avoided if there was simply One standard that we all Held to honestly idk it was Just troubling and i wasnt sure if everyone Knew this, though im sure others did, felt it was important to share, God bless
I don't distrust the Scriptures. I distrust KJV-Onlyists and their bull. But sure, whatever make you happy.
 
Oct 31, 2016
286
2
0
#36

I personally don't like the NIV. It seems to be the bible of choice among liberals & heretics
Lots of liberals and heretics are using the so-called message bible more and more these days.
 
M

MacBestus

Guest
#37
The NIV is referred to as the "Nearly Inspired Version"
I've even heard it called the not inspired version.

It's copyright is held by the largest purveyor of pornography in the world...

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#38
Copyright Bibles


Remind me of the Pink Floyd song the lunatic on the dark side of the moon with this verse
and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is
 
Feb 24, 2015
13,204
168
0
#39
The old version of the NIV often translated the Greek word "sarks" (flesh) as "sinful nature". That was a huge mistake! The newer version has corrected that in most cases. Ex. Romans 8:4 - "who do not live according to the sinful nature . . . "

I personal prefer the KJV because of its correctness and the majesty of the language. On the other hand, I will use the NIV sometimes when working with young Christians.
This brings balance to the whole discussion.
It is obvious that in the discussion we have had the definition of the flesh and what this
is, and the old man, and what this is, is important. If you derive certain models of man
you come to some very odd conclusions, which go against simple rules of life.

It brings to mind an observation in business. Sometimes the most intelligent get too
wrapped up in complexities to not see the obvious that is right before them.

Theologically, though something might fit, if on a simple level it does not reflect
real life, it must be wrong. The emporers new clothes is a classic example of how
this works.

We are all prodigal sons returning to our Father, spurning what our hearts said was
right for adventure and risk.
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#40
This brings balance to the whole discussion.
It is obvious that in the discussion we have had the definition of the flesh and what this
is, and the old man, and what this is, is important. If you derive certain models of man
you come to some very odd conclusions, which go against simple rules of life.

It brings to mind an observation in business. Sometimes the most intelligent get too
wrapped up in complexities to not see the obvious that is right before them.

Theologically, though something might fit, if on a simple level it does not reflect
real life, it must be wrong. The emporers new clothes is a classic example of how
this works.

We are all prodigal sons returning to our Father, spurning what our hearts said was
right for adventure and risk.
i actually find " the sinful nature " to be much clearer than " the flesh" everyone born has a propensity to sin. throw a cookie in with 2 , 3 year olds and see if they share. they are innicent of course but like every human they are born in the nature of adam and eve as all flesh is, and adam and eve were the very first sinners. the sinful nature to me, speaks much clearer. but i honestly think folks should use whatever version speaks to them the clearest.

if we learn to hate the flesh. that can really be misunderstood, even people hating thier bodies confusing literal flesh, with the inner nature of flesh which is sinful. ie sinful nature TO ME, speaks much clearer. but i suppose my thinking is that everyone born needs a savior who is named Jesus, and that alone tells me all have a sinful aspect to thier nature. the only way i clearly understand " flesh" is because i study niv and kjv together. otherwise i feel my grasp would be confused with the term " flesh" and could lead to things like whipping yourself as some monks did, praying with a broomsyick between your legs as some mormons do, feeling if they inflict pain on thier flesh it somehow helps subdue it. or possibly when paukl says " i beat my body to make it my slave" its easy to confuse that part for some folks who would then take it litterally. whereas is your discussing the sinful nature, your not going to confuse that with your actual flesh, but its clearly a spiritual nature we are struggling against...just my thought tho. the op really was that the niv has changed that much sinde its original publication, i feel if a person studies niv, we shouldnt have to wonder which version, of that version were gtetting. i found recently the same thing is beginning with the kjv, which i do hold as the standard od accuracy, but find no difference n the message, even find the niv to be clearer at points......but to each thier own just found it important for those who may not Know as i didnt before this that its evolving from its original state and im disturbed by that immensely