NIV, RSV & ASV: The Anti-christ bibles identified by Amazing Discoveries
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- 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.
C
Ok, first I don't know the RSV or ASV, but have an NIV bible.
Matthew 16:22 - NIV and RSV slightly different from KJV but not really a different meaning, not a fan of the RSV word choice
Titus 2:13 - KJV and NIV the same, RSV and ASV different wording but glorious appearing and the appearing of the glory doesn't really say anything different(though he twists it to mean something else)
Isaiah 7:14 - I agree that RSV choice of wording wrong, but in the end this is one of many messianic prophecies and doesn't change the meaning of the bible as a whole as Matthew still shows the virgin birth. KJV, NIV and ASV all use "virgin"
Psalm 45:6 - God is divine so not entirely sure how he twists this to be something derogatory, but again this is just the RSV. ASV and NIV same wording as KJV
Ok got his meaning and agenda, he is happy with the virgin birth but reject Jesus as God and twists the Hebrews passage to try and prove his point. Not even going to listen to the rest of this filth. Maybe the RSV is a bit off, but his theology need checking.
Matthew 16:22 - NIV and RSV slightly different from KJV but not really a different meaning, not a fan of the RSV word choice
Titus 2:13 - KJV and NIV the same, RSV and ASV different wording but glorious appearing and the appearing of the glory doesn't really say anything different(though he twists it to mean something else)
Isaiah 7:14 - I agree that RSV choice of wording wrong, but in the end this is one of many messianic prophecies and doesn't change the meaning of the bible as a whole as Matthew still shows the virgin birth. KJV, NIV and ASV all use "virgin"
Psalm 45:6 - God is divine so not entirely sure how he twists this to be something derogatory, but again this is just the RSV. ASV and NIV same wording as KJV
Ok got his meaning and agenda, he is happy with the virgin birth but reject Jesus as God and twists the Hebrews passage to try and prove his point. Not even going to listen to the rest of this filth. Maybe the RSV is a bit off, but his theology need checking.
R
ChosenbyHim, you need a new shtick.
S
No! Not at all! That has got to be one of the worst mistakes of fact and belief ever! What is the worst translation available at public libraries? The NWT (New World Translation) of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (and Pennsylvania), Brooklyn, NY, Jehovah's Witnesses! The NIV is a fine and accurate Bible, and is more accurate and more Christian in Isaiah 53:11 than the KJV is. In this one verse, the NIV correctly has the words "the life of life", which come from the Greek Septuagint Old Testament Bible, and from the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Bible.
The KJV verse in Isaiah 53:11 lacks the resurrection of Jesus Christ! A serious mistake, based upon using the WRONG OLD TESTAMENT TEXT, the Masoretic HebrewText of unchristian Jews.
In Erie Scott Harrington
The KJV verse in Isaiah 53:11 lacks the resurrection of Jesus Christ! A serious mistake, based upon using the WRONG OLD TESTAMENT TEXT, the Masoretic HebrewText of unchristian Jews.
In Erie Scott Harrington
C
This guy is really a joke. I have been a Biblical scholar and a student of the word for over 20 years and this guy has no clue on how a translation is made from Hebrew and Greek into English. Even the KJV is wrong in many place in the text. This guy claims that other bibles attack the virgin birth because translations put Joseph as his father in Matthew. The KJV does the same thing in the versus below.
In Luke 2:42 (KJV) it says Jesus had parents. Now this guy attacks the other tranlation but won't address the KJV issues. What a hypocrite.
Also Luke 3:23 says Joseph was his father.
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
I have studied the Hebrew and Greek as a biblical scholar and this guy has not right to pretend to know what he is talking about.
In Luke 2:42 (KJV) it says Jesus had parents. Now this guy attacks the other tranlation but won't address the KJV issues. What a hypocrite.
Also Luke 3:23 says Joseph was his father.
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
I have studied the Hebrew and Greek as a biblical scholar and this guy has not right to pretend to know what he is talking about.
Hi ChristianTalk,
Sorry but you got it wrong in Luke 3:23 (King James Version)
Out of the original KJV it is said in brackets that Joseph is supposed to be His father but we all know he isn't.
Look at it again,
Luke 3:23 (KJV)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
If anyone wants to degrade the KJV it will be very foolish because ALL the other modern translations comes from THE KJV.
Sorry but you got it wrong in Luke 3:23 (King James Version)
Out of the original KJV it is said in brackets that Joseph is supposed to be His father but we all know he isn't.
Look at it again,
Luke 3:23 (KJV)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
If anyone wants to degrade the KJV it will be very foolish because ALL the other modern translations comes from THE KJV.
Over 30 omissions in the KJV versus NIV,
many relating what Jesus says are not trivial at all.
I read about westcott and hort, darby and scofield which are
the "founders" of the niv.Those people are not reliable as i see.
QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?
ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.
EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
Further i understand that the todays people involved in the
NIV are not very trustful also as to say it moderate.
Lets consider the todays distributers of the NIV.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HynaTooUA[/video]
Professed Sodomites on NIV Translation Committee
Again, another conflict of interest. How can someone translate a book that they’re living in open
rebellion against?! Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, one of the fourteen literary critics on the NIV
translation committee, is a professed lesbian. She is the author of such books as, “Omnigender:
A Trans-Religious Approach” and “The Divine Femine: Biblical Imagery of God as Female.”
She also facilitates and speaks at such events as, “Sisterly Conversations: Current Concerns
Among Lesbians of Faith” and “Christian People of the Rainbow.” She is a proud active
member of CLOUT (Christian Lesbians OUT).
Dr. Martin Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee, was a homosexual. Dr.
Woudstra quoted, “There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as
we understand it today.” He was once an OT Professor at Calvin Seminary, the college of the
Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Calvinistic) and assisted in writing a report regarding a study
into homosexuality for the Christian Reformed Church, which concludes with a compromised
“middle line.” A couple of quotes from the report are as follows:
“Responsibility and possibility of personal guilt for the homosexual arises at the point where he
must decide what to do with his sexuality. It is here that the Christian homosexual must ask
what God’s will is for him in the same way as the Christian heterosexual must ask what he must
do in obedience to God with his sex drive.” (Report 42, Art. 53, Page 616).
And also, “From this story [ Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah ] read as an isolated incident we
cannot conclude however that homosexualism is here condemned.” (Report 42, Art. 53, Page
617). Dr. Woudstra was incorrect in all accounts, especially in Report 42, Art. 53, Page 616.
You don’t “ask” God’s will to decide what to do with your sexuality, He’s already laid it out for
you in His word! God is unchanging, and whether you like it or not, you conform your way to
God’s word, you don’t conform God’s word to your way.
The Word “Sodomite” is Removed From the NIV Bible
Well with two sodomites on the committee, it’s not a surprise. In the KJV, the word “sodomite”
appears five times:
many relating what Jesus says are not trivial at all.
I read about westcott and hort, darby and scofield which are
the "founders" of the niv.Those people are not reliable as i see.
QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?
ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.
EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
Further i understand that the todays people involved in the
NIV are not very trustful also as to say it moderate.
Lets consider the todays distributers of the NIV.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HynaTooUA[/video]
Professed Sodomites on NIV Translation Committee
Again, another conflict of interest. How can someone translate a book that they’re living in open
rebellion against?! Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, one of the fourteen literary critics on the NIV
translation committee, is a professed lesbian. She is the author of such books as, “Omnigender:
A Trans-Religious Approach” and “The Divine Femine: Biblical Imagery of God as Female.”
She also facilitates and speaks at such events as, “Sisterly Conversations: Current Concerns
Among Lesbians of Faith” and “Christian People of the Rainbow.” She is a proud active
member of CLOUT (Christian Lesbians OUT).
Dr. Martin Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee, was a homosexual. Dr.
Woudstra quoted, “There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as
we understand it today.” He was once an OT Professor at Calvin Seminary, the college of the
Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Calvinistic) and assisted in writing a report regarding a study
into homosexuality for the Christian Reformed Church, which concludes with a compromised
“middle line.” A couple of quotes from the report are as follows:
“Responsibility and possibility of personal guilt for the homosexual arises at the point where he
must decide what to do with his sexuality. It is here that the Christian homosexual must ask
what God’s will is for him in the same way as the Christian heterosexual must ask what he must
do in obedience to God with his sex drive.” (Report 42, Art. 53, Page 616).
And also, “From this story [ Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah ] read as an isolated incident we
cannot conclude however that homosexualism is here condemned.” (Report 42, Art. 53, Page
617). Dr. Woudstra was incorrect in all accounts, especially in Report 42, Art. 53, Page 616.
You don’t “ask” God’s will to decide what to do with your sexuality, He’s already laid it out for
you in His word! God is unchanging, and whether you like it or not, you conform your way to
God’s word, you don’t conform God’s word to your way.
The Word “Sodomite” is Removed From the NIV Bible
Well with two sodomites on the committee, it’s not a surprise. In the KJV, the word “sodomite”
appears five times:
Why don't you google it for yourself?
Anyone that has God's truth in him seeks understanding and will never compromise truth.
i only recently discovered that the KJV contains the most accurate words of God.
i knew a man that claimed Jesus to be a created being with some authority born of Joseph because of the NIV. and that is a lie from the devil. It's bad to believe a lie.
Satan will do anything in his power to let people believe Jesus is not THE LORD or at least a created being.
Jesus Christ is LORD and the KJV makes this clear more than any other.
Last edited:
C
Wow are you serious? You obviously never studied the manuscripts. There is no brackets in the Greek text. That was added by men in the KJV to try to show it differently. Don't add to the scriptures.
And no, all other translations do not come from the KJV text. I should know because I have been apart of translating from the Greek texts. The KJV is an English translation and that's it. You really have no clue on the transmission of the text in history.
And no, all other translations do not come from the KJV text. I should know because I have been apart of translating from the Greek texts. The KJV is an English translation and that's it. You really have no clue on the transmission of the text in history.