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 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
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:
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.
 
Paisley_buddie said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have tongue in a cheek.

Or, in other words, you are being fašceoušous.
 
I'm sure these King Jim people are fasthideous.....ugly and good runners.....
lol-034.gif
 
John146 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paisley_buddie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.

niv2.gif
 
Dino246 said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God"
 
Yes, I think thou needs to study thyself, otherwise a psychiatrist may have to be engaged to do so..:p
 
Magenta said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm gonna win some bar bets with THAT one....:cool:
 
[h=1]“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” T. Aquinas[/h]
 
hornetguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh! I thought it was aqua.

#whoknew?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back