NIV has left out some scripture

  • 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.
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
#81

Yes I am aware that the King James Holy Bible is a translation, but a translation can be inspired if God is involved in the process.


Also, when it comes to the added words in Italics, all translations add words when translating from the Hebrew and Greek language into the English Language. But do you know what? The King James Bible translators were honest about it when the translators of the new versions are not. You see, that is why the KJV translators put the added words which were not in the Greek in Italics to let the reader know that these words were not a part of the Greek Text. That just shows you the honesty and integrity of the King James Bible translators.

Now, let me ask you this: Does the NIV put the words which they add in italics? Does the ESV? Does the NLT? No. They do not.

Check out this video on Italics by Sam Gipp. I believe it will help you:

Italicized Words in The KJV by Sam Gipp


[video=youtube;ArulSDj59yY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArulSDj59yY[/video]
No, the NIV tends to use footnotes to make not of their additions and their choice of omissions. Unless you're saying that italics are somehow holier its a moot point.

Gods hand is in many translations. You're just being dogmatic about your own.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#82
I love how people think it's okay to just copy and paste copyrighted text from other websites. :p
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
#83
You can't make a living off of copyrighted material.


Unless your youtube.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#84
Hello Tintin. I prefer when a brother or sister post what they have learned with an occasional copy and paste when absolutely needed from the Word. As for copyrighted text, I believe websites have the option to disallow copying, of course that does not prefent screen copies. Keep posting truth in Jesus.
I love how people think it's okay to just copy and paste copyrighted text from other websites. :p
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#85
People should link to the article so the original website gets traffic, otherwise it's stealing. Copying and pasting from the Word is fine but it shouldn't be done in great slabs. I love to read but I will skip most posts if I have to scroll a few times to read them.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,242
6,532
113
#86
I skip any monologues, or chapter pastes, and even lengthy Bible cut and pastes. This, being a forum, I consider it to be conversation among family in Yeshua, and when videos, long quotes of scholars, theories puported by intellectuals, or anything else "about" the Word of God are posted, I usually skip it, probaby always.
I truly believe that all members of the family in Yeshua have learned of the Holy Spirit, some a little, some a lot, but all have knowledge imparted by the Holy Spirit, and this is what I come here for, not lessons in comparative religions, dogmas or sects.
Thanks for always contributing and sharing............j
People should link to the article so the original website gets traffic, otherwise it's stealing. Copying and pasting from the Word is fine but it shouldn't be done in great slabs. I love to read but I will skip most posts if I have to scroll a few times to read them.
 
Jan 10, 2013
318
4
0
#87
I love how people think it's okay to just copy and paste copyrighted text from other websites. :p
I would always provide a link.
Sometimes though I might provide a link and show a small bit of text. That way a point can be made without the reader having to flip about but for the complete picture the link is there.
But never whole swathes of text or the whole thing.

It is sometimes made hard by websites where you get a URL to current stuff - and then the current stuff is archived to some hidden away place by the time the viewer clicks the link. So they end up not seeing what you thought you were pointing at. This is particularly true of some blogs.
 
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#88
The problem with copying and pasting is that you are using others to speak your point of view for you so that you don't have to form your own opinion. Will Kenney is one of the most Anti-NIV anti-other Bible version nuts out there and that's where most of the KJVOnly-ism material comes from. Spitting out information does not prove you know anything either. It just proves you don't think for yourself. And the long posts are annoying. No one reads them because most of them are arguments that people who support the NIV have heard millions of times. I find the arguments pointless anymore because most of the time, they refuse to listen.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#89
No, the NIV tends to use footnotes to make not of their additions and their choice of omissions. Unless you're saying that italics are somehow holier its a moot point.

Gods hand is in many translations. You're just being dogmatic about your own.
God's hand is not in the modern translations. The modern translations attack and dishonor the Son. So again, God's hand is not in the modern English translations. Nearly all English translations since 1881 are yoked up to the Roman Catholic church and their Siniaticus and Vaticanus text.


How Modern Translations Dishonor the Son and Father!

[video=youtube;JOjqPLhDUmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOjqPLhDUmk[/video]
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#90
The problem with copying and pasting is that you are using others to speak your point of view for you so that you don't have to form your own opinion. Will Kenney is one of the most Anti-NIV anti-other Bible version nuts out there and that's where most of the KJVOnly-ism material comes from. Spitting out information does not prove you know anything either. It just proves you don't think for yourself. And the long posts are annoying. No one reads them because most of them are arguments that people who support the NIV have heard millions of times. I find the arguments pointless anymore because most of the time, they refuse to listen.
[HR][/HR]I do have my own opinion about the Bible Version Issue and I have shared it with others on here. The purpose for sharing other videos and articles is for further documentation and evidence to back up what I am saying and why I stand where I stand. And it is also to show that there are other men out there who also have realized that the new versions are not of the Lord. And guess which Bible they believe to be the perfect and inerrant and infallible word of God. The King James Bible. There are still thousands upon thousands of King James Bible believers out there and they are all over the world by the way. And that is a fact.

It's funny though how I have never seen anyone standing up and saying that they believe that the NIV is the pure and inerrant word of God. Nor have I heard anyone saying that they believe that the ESV is the 100% perfect and inerrant word of God. Have you? I sure haven't. I have never met an NIV onlyist or NIV bible believer. Neither have I met an ESV onlyist or ESV bible believer.

The only Onlyists and Bible believers I have ever met are King James Bible believers. And I do think for myself Chica. That's why after having looked at both sides of the issue, I have come to know which one is the right side. We King James Bible believers defend Final Authority and we defend Bible belief.

The "educated" liars and scholars out there like James White promote confusion and doubt. If you have truly studied the issue Chica, then you know better and you should not be defending the new versions like you do. I believe that any Christian that truly knows about the Bible Version Issue and still defends the modern versions are going to be held at a higher level of accountability at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
#91
God's hand is not in the modern translations. The modern translations attack and dishonor the Son. So again, God's hand is not in the modern English translations. Nearly all English translations since 1881 are yoked up to the Roman Catholic church and their Siniaticus and Vaticanus text.


How Modern Translations Dishonor the Son and Father!

[video=youtube;JOjqPLhDUmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOjqPLhDUmk[/video]
This is an arbitrary and cultic distinction. It is not for you nor your tradition to decide what Gods hand is and is not in.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#92
No, I won't watch the video. I very rarely watch any videos posted on a thread. But I really don't think I want to listen to someone tear down other translations that, if taken in context with the KJV, basically mean the same thing.

lol. . .I don't believe that I am producing rotten fruit because of the Bible I read.


Well you are just going to continue to be willingly ignorant then peacefulbeliever. Because you know that the information and evidence is out there. In fact, there is a lot of information out there regarding the Bible Version Issue. So, you have no excuse at all for your defense for the wicked modern versions. The new versions are satanic. Any bible that degrades and diminishes the person and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ; well, that same bible has the spirit of antichrist on it. And nearly all of the modern versions degrade the person of the Lord Jesus.


On the other hand though, the King James Bible honours and exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. That is just the way it is. The Bible Version Issue is a heart issue. The new versions are producing rotten fruit. That's why so many churches are now apostate. It may also be why there are so many lukewarm modern professing Christians.
 
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#93
Your logic is flawed. What part of "Jesus and God never spoke English" don't you get? I've seen more hatred come from KJV cultists than any other cult out there. You have pretty much condemned us to hell...I will continue to read the NIV which is a translation from the GREEK and HEBREW manuscripts in the languages that JESUS spoke.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#94
This is an arbitrary and cultic distinction. It is not for you nor your tradition to decide what Gods hand is and is not in.
[HR][/HR]No JGPS. It is evidence that the new versions attack the deity and person of the Lord Jesus. Which is proof that God's hand is not behind the new versions. If God's hand is on a Bible, that Bible will honour and exalt the Son. Just like the King James Bible honours and exalts the Son. The King James Bible has produced more spiritual fruit within the last 400 years than all the original autographs combined. And that is a fact. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Authorized King James Bible.
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
#95
[HR][/HR]No JGPS. It is evidence that the new versions attack the deity and person of the Lord Jesus. Which is proof that God's hand is not behind the new versions. If God's hand is on a Bible, that Bible will honour and exalt the Son. Just like the King James Bible honours and exalts the Son. The King James Bible has produced more spiritual fruit within the last 400 years than all the original autographs combined. And that is a fact. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Authorized King James Bible.
No Chosen. It is well evidenced that you're driven by a cultic view of the development of scripture and willfuly ignorant to those who where saved through, grow through, and learn through other versions. You are claiming the Holy Spirit to your own cultic cause, and to me that in and of itself is evidence that it is not there.

New versions do not attack the deity or person of the Lord Jesus (aside from editions such as JW's which openly do so). If anything they attack your flawed dogmas based in the interpretation you choose.
 
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#96
I was baptized and saved using the NIV. And no, it does not remove the Trinity concept from the Bible. Have you ever READ the verses in CONTEXT with each other instead of picking and choosing?
 
Feb 17, 2013
1,034
9
0
#97
I would rather read the catcher and the rye the the NIV. Just my opinion. It greatly differs than the King James. However the Gospel is told and thank God for that and the peopl that own the copyrights thank you to cause you helped pay the mortgage on their mansion.
 
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#98
I would rather read the catcher and the rye the the NIV. Just my opinion. It greatly differs than the King James. However the Gospel is told and thank God for that and the peopl that own the copyrights thank you to cause you helped pay the mortgage on their mansion.
Actually the difference is only 7% or so and that's just reducing most of the fluff from the Latin vulgate since it is a fat text. It's not THAT much if at all.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#99
Your logic is flawed. What part of "Jesus and God never spoke English" don't you get? I've seen more hatred come from KJV cultists than any other cult out there. You have pretty much condemned us to hell...I will continue to read the NIV which is a translation from the GREEK and HEBREW manuscripts in the languages that JESUS spoke.
My logic is flawed? How so Chica?

I did not condemn anyone to Hell. If you are saved, then you are saved eternally. You cannot lose your salvation. What I did say is that you will be held accountable at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
I am aware that the Lord Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew while on Earth, but what makes you think that God doesn't speak English? Are you aware that right now English is the universal Language of the end time? God can speak any language. If you want to keep using the NIV, then that is your choice.

And as for me, I will continue to read, study, defend and believe the King James Bible. If you read the King James Bible, then you can be assured that you are reading the very words of God. For the Bible believers like me and many others that are out there who believe the BOOK, we stand for and defend Final Authority.
 
Jan 11, 2013
629
0
0
I am aware that the Lord Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew while on Earth, but what makes you think that God doesn't speak English?
At this point we're just throwing a logical approach to translation out the window...