NIV compared with KJV ( more chick quotes)

NateDaGrimes · Mar 26, 2013

[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Ephesians 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and inyou all"[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

"one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
With an NIV is pretty easy for a Christian Scientist to say that God is "in everyone," even those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Luke 2:33
"And Joseph and his mother marveled…"[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

"The child's father and mother marveled…"[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Anyone who believed that Joseph, not God, was Jesus' true father would love the NIV (or any other of the Alexandrian perversions).
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Mark 10:24
"…Jesus answereth again, … Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

"…Jesus said again, 'Children,how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'"[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The perversions spread the lie that it is hard to get to heaven. That makes it easy to say we need to do good works to be saved.
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Mark 15:28
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

[Omitted][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
This is the only place in the New Testament that shows us the fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 53:12. The perversions hide a fulfilled prophecy!
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Luke 9:54-56
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"] [/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"[comparison with Elias omitted]
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, [Jesus' words of rebuke omitted]
56 [Jesus' reason for coming to earth omitted] and they went to another village.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Alexandrian writings make this passage meaningless! The preserved Bible shows us that Jesus' disciples are not to take revenge, nor to "destroy lives," but to "save them." The whole lesson here is removed in the perversions.
There are many other examples. Many can be found in the excellent book, If the Foundations Be Destroyed by Chick Salliby
But these show us that every word of the Bible is very important. That is why God warns us about adding to or taking away from His words.
God's preserved words in the King James Bible are what we need as Christians, to prepare in this life for the life to come, and to know what God wants us to know. Anything short of that-is not God's word.

(quoted of the same site like my last thread)

Tintin · Mar 26, 2013

Hmm.......

Bookreader · Mar 26, 2013

I looked up the first one. In my KJV the word 'you' is in italics.

What that means is that it is NOT in the text. It means it was ADDED by the translators so it would make sense based upon their belief of what was meant.
Isn't that the point you were trying to make about translators not 'adding to' the text?

It may well be a correct translation.

But what you (and other KJV-only types) have done is to suggest that later works are more accurate than earlier versions of a text. You have decided that the translators of the KJV were inspired and incapable of doctrinal bias as they translated. No doubt you believe 1John 5:7-8 is correct in the KJV too? Even though it was in no old greek texts at all?

You decry the older texts from Alexandria and yet, I imagine, you stick to other things that came out of Alexandria - like the doctrine of trinity.

Please don't decry everything that is different from your beliefs is a 'perversion'

NateDaGrimes · Mar 26, 2013

Since 155 changes some verses to dishoner the lord.. never read anything from alexandria

if you had some disernment you would see the differences in the 2 seperate bibles,

"[TABLE="width: 500, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Apostolic[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Apostate (heretics-disbelieving cardinal doctrines)[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Antioch (Acts 11:26)[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Alexandria, Egypt (never a good thing said about it)[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Preserved words of God[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Perverted words of God[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]5,321 manuscripts: massively agree.[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]45 manuscripts. No *two* consecutive verses in them agree![/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Persecuted by others, Bibles burned and their people brutally killed[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Persecutors of the believers, killed Christians and burned their Bibles[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Manuscripts Reformed the Christians[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Manuscripts Deformed the Roman Catholic "Church".[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Bibles without Apocrypha[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Apocrypha COMES from Alexandrian "Bibles"![/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Bibles lead to Tyndale to Rogers to Coverdale, to Great Bible to Geneva, to Bishop's Bible to the King James Bible.[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]Bibles lead to Constantine's "Bibles," to RC Latin Vulgate to Jesuit 1582/1610 Rheims/Douay to Challoner's Revision to the 1850s revised Douay/Rheims to the New American Bible (on the Roman Catholic side); Protestant Side: Revised Version (1881), made with the SAME MANUSCRIPTS, and all those that followed, such as the NIV, ASV, RSV, TEV, NASV, NRSV, NEB, REB, Good News, New Living, and almost 200 others![/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The King James Bible brought revival[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The "per-versions" brought a revival--of doubt.[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The KJV brought the missionary movement[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The Catholic versions caused people to submit to Rome.[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The KJV helped found the USA[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The Catholic versions were only used by Roman Catholics[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The KJV helped people say: "Thus saith the LORD!"[/SIZE][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"][SIZE=-1]The modern Alexandrian versions quenched God's words. People said, "thus saith my teacher!"[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
the site im getting this from knows about every little detail about roman catholism, mormanism, masonry, islam, and creation/evolution
this is not the 155 verses but what comparison to kjv and alexandrian. They honestly do make it sound perverted

peacefulbeliever · Mar 26, 2013

I love my KJV but I also like my NIV. What I see as a problem is that KJV onliers hunt for any little difference to pounce upon to discredit the NIV. The differences turn out to be nothing or not relative or explained in footnotes.
[TABLE="class: cms_table, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]KJV
Ephesians 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and inyou all"[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

"one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/QUOTE]
and in you all. . . .in all Does that not mean the same thing?

Who was the "child's father" on earth? Joseph

This is what I mean by "hunting" differences. *footnote: Some manuscripts is for those who trust in riches.

Again: *footnote> Some manuscripts include here words similar to Luke 22:37

And again: *footnote> Some manuscripts, them, just as Elijah did

No deceitfulness intended at all.

The perversions seem to come from the minds of men set out to be on a witch-hunt.

nonicknametouse · Mar 26, 2013

I think that God's word is God's word and as long it can lead you to Jesus , the cross and salvation it is good. An NIV person will have the same arguement. Are we to dispute everything. Do you think we need to focus on Jesus and not on the devil's scheme to divide the brethern because of what bible they use. I believe it is personal preference and until the Lord tells me not to use either bible I will continue with the one that has been feeding me for many, many years. It does not make you a bette rChristian according to the bible you choose. In the south everyone uses the KJV in the east the NIV is mostly used. Usually whatever the Pastor uses the congregations tend to use.

ChosenbyHim · Mar 26, 2013

NateDaGrimes said:

[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Ephesians 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and inyou all"
[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

"one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
With an NIV is pretty easy for a Christian Scientist to say that God is "in everyone," even those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Luke 2:33
"And Joseph and his mother marveled…"
[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

"The child's father and mother marveled…"
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Anyone who believed that Joseph, not God, was Jesus' true father would love the NIV (or any other of the Alexandrian perversions).
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Mark 10:24
"…Jesus answereth again, … Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"
[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

"…Jesus said again, 'Children,how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'"
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The perversions spread the lie that it is hard to get to heaven. That makes it easy to say we need to do good works to be saved.
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Mark 15:28
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

[Omitted]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
This is the only place in the New Testament that shows us the fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 53:12. The perversions hide a fulfilled prophecy!
[TABLE="width: 510, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 250"]KJV
Luke 9:54-56
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[TD="width: 250"]NIV

54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"[comparison with Elias omitted]
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, [Jesus' words of rebuke omitted]
56 [Jesus' reason for coming to earth omitted] and they went to another village.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Alexandrian writings make this passage meaningless! The preserved Bible shows us that Jesus' disciples are not to take revenge, nor to "destroy lives," but to "save them." The whole lesson here is removed in the perversions.
There are many other examples. Many can be found in the excellent book, If the Foundations Be Destroyed by Chick Salliby
But these show us that every word of the Bible is very important. That is why God warns us about adding to or taking away from His words.
God's preserved words in the King James Bible are what we need as Christians, to prepare in this life for the life to come, and to know what God wants us to know. Anything short of that-is not God's word.

(quoted of the same site like my last thread)

Amen Brother! Amen. Thank you so much for sharing this information. It is so vitally important. I also study the Bible Version Issue, and I definitely am considering getting that book by Chick Salliby. I know that Brother Bryan Denlinger promotes this very book in his video: KJV777 NIV666.

Again, thanks for sharing this. And may the people on here take time to consider what's been shown here and may the Christians on here that are using some of these modern corrupted versions repent and convert to God's pure word, the King James Holy Bible.

ChosenbyHim · Mar 26, 2013

nonicknametouse said:

Here is the thing though nonicknametouse,

for it to be God's word, it must be perfect and without error. The NIV has been shown to have many mistranlsations and errors in it. The NIV attacks the Deity of Jesus Christ in many places and if you do not think that the NIV is a satanic perversion, than what you need to do is look up Revelation 22:16, then look up Isaiah 14:12. Compare the readings from the King James Bible with the readings of the NIV. Then you should be able to see that the readings in the NIV are corrupt.

And Just know that the true text, the God-honoured text is in the King James Bible.

Now after you see and notice the blasphemy that the NIV commits in the 14th chapter of Isaiah, if you still think that this issue is just about preference, then I don't know how to help you. Here is a video which exposes the vile and wicked man behind the copyright of the NIV:

NIV bible and Satanic bible owned by Pornographer Rupert Murdoch:

[video=youtube;n-HynaTooUA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HynaTooUA[/video]

Bookreader · Mar 26, 2013

ChosenbyHim said:

We see there are differences. Both were translated by men.
The NIV scholars (drawn from a diverse background) had more documents, the KJV scholars (Church of England monks under direction on the King of England) didn't have all the documents available (as some were still hidden).

ChosenbyHim said:

Really?!! It's not even April 1st yet!

BTW - if your Bible starts like this

then are reading the King James Bible (1611).

If it does not (and I'm guessing it doesn't) then you are using a later translation.

Also you might want to know that the word apocrypha means 'hidden' - nothing more.

ChosenbyHim · Mar 26, 2013

Bookreader said:

Well yes, but so were the original autographs Bookreader, what is your point?

Okay and where is your proof of that? Where is your proof that the KJV translators did not have all the documents available to them in 1604? How do you know whether they did or not?

Bookreader said:

You must mean a later edition. Same translation, just a later edition. And by the way, the list of words given below that have a bit of spelling variations are NOT word changes. They are simply spelling changes. SAME WORD. Just a different spelling.

[TABLE="class: f"]
[TR]
[TD]begate/begat
[/TD]
[TD]dreame/dream
[/TD]
[TD]hee/he
[/TD]
[TD]sleepe/sleep
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]bin/been
[/TD]
[TD]feare/fear
[/TD]
[TD]knewe/knew
[/TD]
[TD]sonne/son
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]booke/book
[/TD]
[TD]foorth/forth
[/TD]
[TD]publique/publick
[/TD]
[TD]tooke/took
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]borne/born
[/TD]
[TD]foureteene/fourteen
[/TD]
[TD]shee/she
[/TD]
[TD]untill/until
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]childe/child
[/TD]
[TD]fourteene/fourteen
[/TD]
[TD]sinnes/sins
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Bookreader said:

Okay. Well yeah, I know it does. Again, what is your point?

RachelBibleStudent · Mar 30, 2013

NateDaGrimes said:

wow this is -completely- false...

there is no evidence that the textus receptus is any more 'apostolic' than the alexandrian text type...if anything by geographic proximity alone the alexandrian text type is more likely to be associated with the apostles than the textus receptus which originated in western areas where no apostle ever went near...

apollos was from alexandria...and the concept of the 'logos' that john alludes to originated in alexandria...so you cannot claim that alexandria was wholly corrupt...

if you knew anything about the history of the textus receptus...such as the additions that worked their way into the main text...including a blatant forgery...you would not call it 'preserved'

the textus receptus was actually based on about a dozen manuscripts...not thousands...

the roman authorities who were persecuting the protestants and burning bibles actually followed the textus receptus tradition too...they just didn't want it translated into anything other than latin...

in fact the textus receptus was produced by a committed catholic named erasmus...who once stated that he would accept heresies if the roman church taught them... and one of the most debated verses in the textus receptus comes from a forgery produced by a catholic monk...

the 1611 king james version included the apocrypha...

the revised version is just a revision of the king james version...it is no more sinister to revise the king james version than it was for king james' scholars to revise the bishops' bible...

also it is mistaken to include the geneva bible in your sequence...the king james version was produced by opponents of the geneva bible...

preaching from the king james version has led to revivals and driven mission work...but the king james version has also produced many cults...due to the fact that the archaic language is easier to either accidentally or willfully misunderstand...

the geneva bible was actually the 'founding bible' of the american colonies...

being difficult to understand...the king james version has made many people dependent on religious teachers...often false ones...

Search

NIV compared with KJV ( more chick quotes)

NateDaGrimes

Senior Member

Tintin

Guest

Bookreader

Banned

NateDaGrimes

Senior Member

peacefulbeliever

Senior Member

nonicknametouse

Guest

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member

Bookreader

Banned

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member

RachelBibleStudent

Guest