Can the NIV version be trusted?

[Dkh587]

For the most part the kjv is an alright translation. Don't be led astray by the people that say it's infallible, because it's not. There's errors in it, but truth can still be found in it.

There are other translations that I prefer much more though. There are many words in the kjv that are taken from pagan origins due to the catholic church early on trying to merge pagans into their audienceso as to gain control over more people (don't just believe me, research into it to see if what I'm saying is true.)

I've found that the isr is a good translation though. They even restore His name. We've even been lied to about His name. God isn't His name, it's only a title.

Jeremiah 23:27 - Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.

We've forgotten His name for Baal. When you look at the definition of the pagan name for the "god" baal, it literally translates into the english word "lord". (Again, don't just believe me, research into this yourself. Ignore the other posters, and research into it for yourself)

His real name however is יוהו
or YHWH in english characters.
I
Here's a except from the isr:
Exodus 3:15
And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Ya‛aqoḇ, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’

They take the original scrolls (the oldest ones we have anyway) and translate directly from them. So things like God's name or Moses (Moshe) are more precisely translated. Along with many other words.

Forgetting God’s name for Ba’al doesn’t mean that people stopped calling him Yahweh and started calling him lord/Ba’al. thats a gross misunderstanding of what “name” means in the Hebrew.

God told Israel he was a ba’al to them in Jeremiah 31:32, and there was even an Israelite named Baaliyah(1 Chronicles 12:5), which means Yahweh is Ba’al/Master

 

[kiwimac]

That's right! And then they get the copyright on it and the cash......until they update it again and on it goes.....

The KJV is under copyright you know?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Got no idea where you going with this, it doesn't make sense other than deflecting my comment.
So you read the Bible? That's good I hope its the King James!

Oh, you're one of THOSE, that believe that the King James Bible dropped down to King James' I lap, with a burgundy leather cover, the words of Jesus in red, and gold edging on the pages.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult, but there are many of people that don't read English, and to put a stumbling block like that in front of a Franco-phone is not only an insult to him, but an insult to God.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That's good I hope its the King James!

Now, which version of the KJV do you think is authentic? Would it be the 1611 version, did it have the apocrypha? Is there the mystical (or mythical) animal the cockatrice in there? If the Bible is actually, factually the true Word of God, do you think that God would call bats birds?

 

[Devin P]

Forgetting God’s name for Ba’al doesn’t mean that people stopped calling him Yahweh and started calling him lord/Ba’al. thats a gross misunderstanding of what “name” means in the Hebrew.

God told Israel he was a ba’al to them in Jeremiah 31:32, and there was even an Israelite named Baaliyah(1 Chronicles 12:5), which means Yahweh is Ba’al/Master

Well, the root word of that word, is Ba'al, yes, but the actual word used, is an entirely different word in the hebrew, which means husband.

The root word that the word husband is taken from, is Ba'al, yes. Which, again, simply means "lord". But, the actual word used isn't simply "בעל" (ba'al), it's "בעלתי", which is again, husband, not lord (aka, ba'al).

And the name "Baaliyah" has a possessive yod used in the middle of the name. Whenever you see the I, or the hebrew character known as a "yod", at the end of a word like that: Baal"i"yah indicates that whatever came before the yod, belongs to the person. It indicates possession, or "my". So, it's saying, "my lord is Yahweh or Yahuah, depending on which name you prescribe to. It is not saying that ba'al, is Yah, it's saying that my lord, is Yah. Because that is what again, the yod placed there indicates, possession.

I can show you this through various different names. Ammi, which is a word that means my people, Uzziyah, which means my strength is yah, etc, etc,. Even the name Eli (El"i"), it means my God. Eliyah (El"i"yah) or Elijah, means my God is yah.

 

[Devin P]

Forgetting God’s name for Ba’al doesn’t mean that people stopped calling him Yahweh and started calling him lord/Ba’al. thats a gross misunderstanding of what “name” means in the Hebrew.

God told Israel he was a ba’al to them in Jeremiah 31:32, and there was even an Israelite named Baaliyah(1 Chronicles 12:5), which means Yahweh is Ba’al/Master

And for the most part, people definitely have stopped calling Him by His name, and have started calling Him Ba'al (lord), you've read the KJV right? They've replaced His name with Ba'al (lord) over 6 thousand times.

You say His rightful name to 99.9% of people, and they aren't going to know what you're talking about. You say lord to the same people, and they're going to know you mean Yahuah "יהוה".

The jehovah's witnesses (while horribly off in 95% of their beliefs), they do for the most part have His name right. I mean, they use the J character which doesn't exist in the language His name was given in, therefore it's not really His name, but it's still at least them trying to call Him by the name that He continually asks His children to call Him by for all generations, forever.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Its a fact that in order for them to legally write a new translation they had to change sentences and words to make it there own real translation.

This was by real admittance by the translators who wrote the NIV .

The NIV leaves out 16 entire verses!


1. Matthew 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."



2. Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."



3. Matthew 23:14: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."



4. Mark 7:16: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."



5. Mark 9:44: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."



6. Mark 9:46: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."



7. Mark 11:26: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."



8. Mark 15:28: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."



9. Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."



10. John 5:4: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."



11. Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."



12. Acts 15:34: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."



13. Acts 24:7: "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"



14. Acts 28:29: "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."



15. Romans 16:24: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."



16. I John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Are these "omissions" true omissions or are these passages foot-noted stating something like ...some later mss record this, but are not in the most ancient mss??? I could look it up in my NIV84, but doesn't seem worth the effort. It is a very good translation if you know how to use it and know the mission and intended goals of the translation. (I have posted on that above...perhaps you've seen it.)
Remember, we are not to add or subtract from His Word...no matter the good intentions...it is an act of arrogance.

 

[Dkh587]

Well, the root word of that word, is Ba'al, yes, but the actual word used, is an entirely different word in the hebrew, which means husband.

The root word that the word husband is taken from, is Ba'al, yes. Which, again, simply means "lord". But, the actual word used isn't simply "בעל" (ba'al), it's "בעלתי", which is again, husband, not lord (aka, ba'al).

And the name "Baaliyah" has a possessive yod used in the middle of the name. Whenever you see the I, or the hebrew character known as a "yod", at the end of a word like that: Baal"i"yah indicates that whatever came before the yod, belongs to the person. It indicates possession, or "my". So, it's saying, "my lord is Yahweh or Yahuah, depending on which name you prescribe to. It is not saying that ba'al, is Yah, it's saying that my lord, is Yah. Because that is what again, the yod placed there indicates, possession.

I can show you this through various different names. Ammi, which is a word that means my people, Uzziyah, which means my strength is yah, etc, etc,. Even the name Eli (El"i"), it means my God. Eliyah (El"i"yah) or Elijah, means my God is yah.

The bottom line is, the word ba’al and it’s derivatives are not exclusive to the pagan deity

To forget the name of God for the name of Ba’al is to turn their backs on God and forget his character and authority(his character and authority define who God is) in favor of another god. It’s more than just casting 4 letters aside. To forget his name is to forget God period. It’s way deeper than grammatical names and letters, even though in our English bibles and translations, they use “The LORD” instead of the 4 letters of God’s name. I do believe we should use God’s name where it’s written in the scriptures. I don’t call say/read “The LORD” if His name is written in the Hebrew.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Are these "omissions" true omissions or are these passages foot-noted stating something like ...some later mss record this, but are not in the most ancient mss??? I could look it up in my NIV84, but doesn't seem worth the effort. It is a very good translation if you know how to use it and know the mission and intended goals of the translation. (I have posted on that above...perhaps you've seen it.)
Remember, we are not to add or subtract from His Word...no matter the good intentions...it is an act of arrogance.

Yes, the only legal way to re write the bible and to re translate it was to change the wording in a lot of scriptures.

My question is this, why change it at all? There is nothing wrong with the original translations from the king James version.

My point is if its not broken dont try to fix it and God dont change his words, man does.

When I was a kid, and not a very bright kid at that, I understood the king James bible very well, so if a stupid kid can understand it there was no real reason to change it.

 

[Heavenhome]

Oh, you're one of THOSE, that believe that the King James Bible dropped down to King James' I lap, with a burgundy leather cover, the words of Jesus in red, and gold edging on the pages.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult, but there are many of people that don't read English, and to put a stumbling block like that in front of a Franco-phone is not only an insult to him, but an insult to God.

Do you know what? You did mean to insult me or you wouldn't have written it.
You are simply a rude person and I have no wish to communicate or read anymore on this thread as all you wish to do is be heard as the authority. Hmmm funny that.

I resign from this thread as it seems to me everytime the KJV is mentioned in any way, shape or form, those that don't use it are obsessed with tearing it down. I wonder why, or perhaps not

Anyway go for it.
Gods word stands forever and needs no one to defend it.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Yes, the only legal way to re write the bible and to re translate it was to change the wording in a lot of scriptures.

My question is this, why change it at all? There is nothing wrong with the original translations from the king James version.

My point is if its not broken dont try to fix it and God dont change his words, man does.

When I was a kid, and not a very bright kid at that, I understood the king James bible very well, so if a stupid kid can understand it there was no real reason to change it.

The KJV is not the original either and it has some problems all its own. I can point some out, but not tonight. Also, something I already mentioned, it has additions. The NIV was a translation based on a different set of mss...Codex Alexandrinus. If you are not familiar with manuscripts they are simply the source writings for the Bible and the Bible is translated from them. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus MSS...so you see the possible differences. There was a note discovered from around 5th century noting it as first in ranking of the manuscripts...see Wikipedia...I've read other sources as well, but years ago. After comparisons were made the translation was undertaken. There are numerous additions in the Textus Receptus which is what the KJ is based on.
I take seriously the command not to ADD or subtract from God's Word and it is an act of arrogance to do so...we see what happened to King Saul when he took things into his own hands and how God dealt with him so this was a very serious undertaking and it was a joint effort among many denominations...the NIV translation that is. It was of course attacked when the additions were removed from the main body and footnoted.
Agree or disagree I find this a very noble effort and highly commendable.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You are unaware of King James' requirements of the translators? Not to mention their own disdain for the Geneva Bible.

Odd since they used it word for word in many places. Doesn’t look like distain so that’s probably made up story.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Ok, Dorothy...wasn't meaning to call you names though...just pointing out that this is what it is centered around. The NIV 84 is excellent in my view. Also in my view the NIV came under attack by a lot of ignorants who did no research...prejudiced by lack of research on "missing passages" which were not missing but footnoted and may not have been in the original letters.

There are important verses missing and margins don’t count. Only goes to show that they were there but edited out. Again, the most telling is the kind of verses edited out. That shows the agenda of those so doing. No followers if Christ edit out his deity. They wouldn’t edit at all, frankly speaking since they know they are forbidden to do so.

Those who hate Christ would have no scruples about “adjusting” the text and pick the ones that need to go...power for the church and his deity. Those are not randomly chosen.

For this reason the NIV cannot be completely trusted.

 

[All4Christ]

AMBASSADOR HAT​

Christian Advice is a No Debate forum.

Please do not debate here or discuss this amongst yourselves. Always address the OP. Review the Statement of Purpose for more details.

Thank you!

 

[Monk Brendan]

I resign from this thread as it seems to me everytime the KJV is mentioned in any way, shape or form, those that don't use it are obsessed with tearing it down. I wonder why, or perhaps not

I don't have anything against the KJV. It is simply NOT the only translation in the world, or the most accurate.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


Closed. Please make sure that threads are asking for advice, and not opinions.


ADMIN HAT OFF