New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)

  • 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.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,689
13,141
113

it's not hard:

fah - see - shuss

i see that Magenta provided this info sooner than i did, but i trust that for anyone who was uncomfortable being taught by a woman my re-post was helpful :)
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,084
26,181
113
i see that Magenta provided this info sooner than i did, but i trust that for anyone who was uncomfortable being taught by a woman my re-post was helpful :)
Your pronunciation method was better :) Because a "C" could cause confusion as to whether soft or hard :) Although mine showed where to place the emphasis :D
 
Last edited:
Aug 17, 2017
143
4
0
Have in read through the arguements in this thread, im still KJV (I can't afford to buy a great bible or a genevian even some of the replicas are quite pricey) because I know that the publishing houses that print (HarperCollins is the parent company of Zondervan that owns the copyright NIV) new world order bible versions are infact working for satan.

There are some folk in the thread who aren't prepared to have their paradigms challenged to the fact they will build a defence and actively defend the NIV.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Have in read through the arguements in this thread, im still KJV (I can't afford to buy a great bible or a genevian even some of the replicas are quite pricey) because I know that the publishing houses that print (HarperCollins is the parent company of Zondervan that owns the copyright NIV) new world order bible versions are infact working for satan.

There are some folk in the thread who aren't prepared to have their paradigms challenged to the fact they will build a defence and actively defend the NIV.
You have tongue in a cheek.

Or, in other words, you are being fašceoušous.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
I'm sure these King Jim people are fasthideous.....ugly and good runners.....
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,754
13,415
113
The simple solution to this "apparent contradiction" is that Ahaziah was physically 22 years old when he began to reign, but since God had appointed Jehu to cut off the house of Ahab, as a son of Ahab through marriage, he was 42 years old. The information is all there in the texts.
That's not a simple solution. Rather, it's convoluted, and demands that the reader interpret one concept in two different ways, without any contextual justification to do so. Either he was 22 or he was 42. He can't be both. If the text actually stated, "it was 42 years since (something happened) it would make sense. It doesn't. The contradiction stands.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,754
13,415
113
Have in read through the arguements in this thread, im still KJV (I can't afford to buy a great bible or a genevian even some of the replicas are quite pricey) because I know that the publishing houses that print (HarperCollins is the parent company of Zondervan that owns the copyright NIV) new world order bible versions are infact working for satan.

There are some folk in the thread who aren't prepared to have their paradigms challenged to the fact they will build a defence and actively defend the NIV.
Since you claim to have read through the thread, you should be able to see that it is the KJV-only proponents who "aren't prepared to have their paradigms challenged". They are unable to provide an adequate response to nearly every challenge to their assertions. What is far more common is circular reasoning, avoidance, red herrings, and logical fallacies.

I don't think you'll find anyone has a problem with you using only the KJV; I certainly don't, though I wouldn't recommend it. What some of us do reject is the idea that the KJV is the only accurate English translation of the original texts. Please ensure you don't misrepresent the positions of others.

Further, very few posts in this thread even mention the NIV. Methinks you have a bee in your bonnet about it.
 

toolsoftrust

Junior Member
Aug 23, 2017
29
0
0
In my view, and I've approached this question carefully over the years, the real question is not "which is the best version or translation?" The correct question really is, "what is the truest, the fullest, the most complete translation?" And I have found that the only certain way to get the accurate meaning of the Scripture is to count each STANDARD edition of the Bible as equal, rejecting only the Jehovah's Witness and Mormon versions. I have even written a tool, and I hope this is acceptable under the rules here, toolsoftrust.com (click the link, "final | translations"). It let's the community there use tools like the one at biblestudytools.com to do the research themselves.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
I don't see anything wrong with the NIV.

I bought one used years ago that was given to an obviously beloved sister by her E. Free Church, by the worn condition it appears she read it a lot, but apparently, according to the King Jimmers' she went to her grave deceived..

I'm honored to have her bible in my collection.

 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,671
3,541
113
That's not a simple solution. Rather, it's convoluted, and demands that the reader interpret one concept in two different ways, without any contextual justification to do so. Either he was 22 or he was 42. He can't be both. If the text actually stated, "it was 42 years since (something happened) it would make sense. It doesn't. The contradiction stands.
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God"
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
Yes, I think thou needs to study thyself, otherwise a psychiatrist may have to be engaged to do so..:p
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,647
1,397
113
Oh, okay, I have not been following the convo, just saw your response and the post, and thought you were being serious haha. Hey, did you know that facetious is one of only two words in the English language that uses all the vowels (once only, with no repeats) in alphabetical order?
Ok, I'm gonna win some bar bets with THAT one....:cool:
 
Apr 23, 2017
1,064
47
0
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
what happens if i read the message bible?
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
come on mon the rastafarians read the KJV, look how bright they turned out.
I've told you before they use it instead of rollings papers cos they give the KJV away for free...:cool:
 

FlSnookman7

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,125
135
63
[h=1]“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” T. Aquinas[/h]
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
Yes... blah, blah, blah.... it's ok. YOU can choose to accept the KJV as the only correct translation if you wish. You are basing your judgment of the accuracy of other translations on whether they agree with the KJV.

That's like being taught that a blue ball is actually green, so that for the rest of your life, anything blue is green. Even though more accurate studies into color recognition have shown, and proven, that it is actually blue.
Huh! I thought it was aqua.

#whoknew?