NIV vs KJV. You decide.

[upnorthfan]

Quotes from you on this thread:

The translators of the NIV are against Christ. They are truly Anti-Christ. They do not want you to believe in Him nor put your faith in Him as your personal Lord and Savior, and they do not want you to serve Him and obey Him. If they can get you to believe in a historical Jesus, whom you do not put your faith in and trust in for forgiveness of your sins, and without bowing your life and heart to worship and serve Him as Lord, they will have succeeded in keeping you from Heaven and will help send you to Hell for all eternity!

It is a spiritual battle going on out there and Satan is winning, partly because God's Word is getting so watered down the power of it is deluted, because it is being spoken incorrectly.

So what version do you use or what version would you recommend? Hopefully not one that supports Satan and pornography.

Totally up to you what Bible you want to buy. I would strongly discourage it, particularly if you are going to do battle in any type of "deliverance" ministry.

Some have been saved by being witnessed to using the NIV, as one poster pointer out. I submit however, that Satan does appear as an angel of light, and one of his many nicknames is the deciever. He may allow one or 2 or however many people to be saved, knowing up ahead it will pay Him dividends later on. People often tell me they are white witches, and in their mind they think of themselves as godly because they think only "black" witches are the bad guys.

Anyone with a brain will read this thread and recognize that you are 1) accusing the NIV of being an anti-Christian book that Satan uses as a front to confuse people, 2) warning that people who buy the NIV are not only funding porn but put themselves in danger of being led away from Christ, and 3) asserting that NIV readers are akin to white witches.

You can't drop a bomb like randomly mentioning white witches and then play semantics about what that comment means.

Then let's look at this: It is not my intention to "corner" anyone into an all or a nothing situation (my apologies if I did), nor am I here to judge anyone

An apology loses its luster when it comes attached to a denial. You're now apologizing outright, I respect that.

Don't ask me if I think my money went to porn. You're the one who made that assertion. Either every single book that Zondervan sells contributes to porn (which has zero to do with NIV and is therefore irrelevant to NIV or KJV), or only *certain* books they print contribute to porn. You're loathe to admit that a KJV sale could fund porn, so instead of retracting that ammo against NIV you'd rather dodge a straightforward question.

The puppy comment is not rude. Let me rephrase it: you can't throw out verbal hand grenades like "Satanic" and "white witch" and then back away from them when someone pins you down to defend who they're aimed at.

Either stand behind your own OP or start retracting the ill-advised bombs you dropped.

I am sorry I called you sir, I see you have female listed as your gender. *** removed personal attack ***

Edited August 21, 2012 by OneLight

[John Robinson]

Good gravy. I knew this thread would spiral downward. They always do (viz. my comment, "here we go again").

[JTC]

I have something to say here. I read the original NIV cover to cover because to this day, I just don't comprehend Old English. Thirty years ago I was struggling to read the KJV and had given up. The NIV was brought to my attention and I was delighted. I was so dumb back then I didn't know there were many different Bible translations. I now found out, on the Internet that there are several NIV translations. I won't read them. I checked out a few verses and compared them to the Original NIV, and they are too liberal with the translations. In my old NIV, I am almost positive that David killed Goliath. I was well aware of that fact even as a Catholic. I also used to compare the original NIV to the KJV often, and I never found an appreciable difference. Btw, there are various KJV translations too. Some are much harder to read than others. I'm not saying they change facts, but they are much harder to figure out what the facts are.

I also have to disagree with you, in that if the NIV said the Parents of Jesus, or Joseph and His Mother, it's not an attempt to deny the divinity of Christ. You're reading that into it. The NIV attempts to be as readable as possible, and to let the verses flow. It also seeks to use modern day English. I had a Christian friend who once asked me if I thought Jesus spoke in weird ways, or did I think He used the everyday language of His time? I told her I'm sure He used the language of His time. A great example is the 1st Beatitude. When Jesus said the words "poor in spirit" He was using the language of His time, and that was why I couldn't grasp the meaning until recently. I was taking the word "spirit" literally, and Jesus didn't mean it literally. He meant people who are humble, don't think they know it all. So back to KJV vs NIV.

What you're saying, upnorth, may be true of these later NIV versions. But it's not true of the original NIV. Not the one I have.

I further suggest that the original ancient languages the Bible is written in are so hard to translate that even the KJV may have minute errors. As I said, when I was studying the Bible I often went to the KJV. But when I tried to study using the KJV, I often had to switch back to the NIV. I even tried using Strong's concordance but that takes almost a linguist to grasp.

So as far as the original NIV goes, it may use modern English but the essential ideas are unchanged from the KJV. Ultimately the Holy Spirit has to open up the Bible to us in order for it to make sense. I propose the Holy Spirit can open the meaning to a person of any translation. I think the KJV is great. But what good is it if one of us can't grasp old English? It just leads to assuming what a verse means, and often being wrong.

[upnorthfan]

I have something to say here. I read the original NIV cover to cover because to this day, I just don't comprehend Old English. Thirty years ago I was struggling to read the KJV and had given up. The NIV was brought to my attention and I was delighted. I was so dumb back then I didn't know there were many different Bible translations. I now found out, on the Internet that there are several NIV translations. I won't read them. I checked out a few verses and compared them to the Original NIV, and they are too liberal with the translations. In my old NIV, I am almost positive that David killed Goliath. I was well aware of that fact even as a Catholic. I also used to compare the original NIV to the KJV often, and I never found an appreciable difference. Btw, there are various KJV translations too. Some are much harder to read than others. I'm not saying they change facts, but they are much harder to figure out what the facts are.

I also have to disagree with you, in that if the NIV said the Parents of Jesus, or Joseph and His Mother, it's not an attempt to deny the divinity of Christ. You're reading that into it. The NIV attempts to be as readable as possible, and to let the verses flow. It also seeks to use modern day English. I had a Christian friend who once asked me if I thought Jesus spoke in weird ways, or did I think He used the everyday language of His time? I told her I'm sure He used the language of His time. A great example is the 1st Beatitude. When Jesus said the words "poor in spirit" He was using the language of His time, and that was why I couldn't grasp the meaning until recently. I was taking the word "spirit" literally, and Jesus didn't mean it literally. He meant people who are humble, don't think they know it all. So back to KJV vs NIV.

What you're saying, upnorth, may be true of these later NIV versions. But it's not true of the original NIV. Not the one I have.

I further suggest that the original ancient languages the Bible is written in are so hard to translate that even the KJV may have minute errors. As I said, when I was studying the Bible I often went to the KJV. But when I tried to study using the KJV, I often had to switch back to the NIV. I even tried using Strong's concordance but that takes almost a linguist to grasp.

So as far as the original NIV goes, it may use modern English but the essential ideas are unchanged from the KJV. Ultimately the Holy Spirit has to open up the Bible to us in order for it to make sense. I propose the Holy Spirit can open the meaning to a person of any translation. I think the KJV is great. But what good is it if one of us can't grasp old English? It just leads to assuming what a verse means, and often being wrong.

Excellent post, thank you.

[Guest yod]

From a small book I own called "The Answer Book" by Samuel Gipp concerning "Easter" in the KJV.

He comes across a bit forward, yet with a solid answer.

"QUESTION: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word "pascha" and should it be translated as "passover"?

ANSWER: No, "pascha" is properly translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as the following explanation will show.

EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word "pascha". This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "Passover" in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.

The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of "pascha".

Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.

Problem: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of "pascha" as "Easter" is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.

To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse 4, we must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread... ") To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).

Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4,5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.

17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."

Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.

After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!

In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st.

This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.

17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:"

In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."

Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.

2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.

3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.

4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.

5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:

6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt. <

7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.

8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."

Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).

In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.

II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles."

Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.

II Chronicles 30:l5,21: "Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."

Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel."

We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:

(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.

(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.

It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.

Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4: "And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-2 1). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.

First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.

Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.

In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.

It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17- 47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun ". He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.

Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate "pascha" as "Easter". It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear. "

If Herod was waiting for Easter to be over, the word would have been "Ishtar" or some other name for the Feast of Tammuz. The scriptures use the word "Pascha" which can not be translated as easter. Period. Your source is just wrong and it's a silly stretch.

And Peter never repudiated the torah if that's what you're trying to say. "Judaism" didn't come about until the year 90 so it's impossible he repudiated something that didn't exist for another few decades. To say that he was no longer a Jew is not only ignorant, but insulting to the people who brought you the scriptures.

KJV is a good translation. It's one of the best english translations there is, but no New Testament versions are infallible, and (gasp) none of them are the exact Word of God but a translation from hebrew speakers into a jewish-greek language, then into Latin, German, or English by people who mostly are ignorant about the hebrews who originally gave us the Word.

I'm not saying that they are useless...just saying they aren't infallible.

Any translation from one language to another will have weaknesses and faults because it depends on human opinions about what words would be best. As such, KJV is stronger than most but I don't worship a book.

Please, this shouldn't be a threat to your faith, if truth matters to you.

.

[OneLight]

Allow me to educate our new members. When you agreed to the Terms of Service, which everyone has to agree to during their request for membership, you agreed to the following:

Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. We also strongly discourage giving out personal information such as email addresses, physical addresses and phone numbers on the public boards. Any information given out in private is at your own discretion and risk. (Eph. 4: 29)

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

If members refuse to follow the above, they will be held accountable for their actions. Please, think before you post. If the insults or inappropriate personal questioning continue, this thread will be closed.

[OneLight]

I have closed this temporarily to clean up the personal attacks.

[OneLight]

Reopening under conditions.

1. No Personal Attacks
   
2. Debate the subject, not the person.
   
3. Stick to facts. If you provide a "fact", also provide the source

As always, apply biblical wisdom ...

Colossians 4:6 "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one."

[OneLight]

He may allow one or 2 or however many people to be saved, knowing up ahead it will pay Him dividends later on.

Satan has no say in who is saved and who is not. He cannot "allow" anyone salvation. Salvation is through Christ, not satan.

[B3L13v3R]

Hi Yod,

I was in agreement with Mr. S. Gipp in that Peter did not die on the Passover day, but another day, that was translated "Easter" in the KJV which I believe to be correct.

I would say again this is the strongest point I would be in agreement with, Peter was not killed on the "Passover" during it's 24 hour period.

Quote Yod:"And Peter never repudiated the torah if that's what you're trying to say."

Simply putting the whole man's answer out there, it was not "what I'm trying to say" but what Mr. S. Gipp had said. Quoting again from him:

"First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.”

I had understood that to mean that the Jews no longer received Peter as one of their own because he was now a Follower of Jesus Christ preaching Him as the Messiah.

I had not known of the "Judaism" didn't come about until the year 90" If so, he may have missed it on this point.

Quote Yod: "Any translation from one language to another will have weaknesses and faults because it depends on human opinions about what words would be best. As such, KJV is stronger than most but I don't worship a book.

Please, this shouldn't be a threat to your faith, if truth matters to you."

No Yod, not a threat to my faith at all, and I certainly don't worship a Book but the Author of the Bible I do indeed worship. I was saved reading a paraphrased Bible from cover to cover called "The Book" however there was not much depth in it at all.

Moved on to the 1977 NAS. (Later they came up with a NAS 95, changed again...) Then sadly to a NIV study Bible, which crippled my reading the Word for a time because of it's false footnotes, (based on so called "most reliable manuscripts") missing verses, two black lines denying that everything after them was "not in the original text" etc. Started reading the KJV in 86 and found it had more depth than any other I had read before, the reason being it's based on the Textus Receptus.

I do find it somewhat crazy to be sure that there are now roughly 900 other various English translations out there (whether finished our not) according to American Bible Society!!!

This in itself is very confusing to most.

The messy “Message” is the worst version I own. I do not consider it Bible at all. Sadly, there are a number that preach from it in our area.

Strong's Concordence:

G3957

pascha

pas'-khah

Of Chaldee origin (compare [H6453]); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): - Easter, Passover.

I have considered much of what OneLight and you have said in the past on this issue as well, and still came up seeing "Easter" as correct in the KJV.

Each one must be convinced in his own mind, and I am convinced "Easter" is the correct translation in the KJV for the previous reasons stated.

I'll bow out for the remainder of the thread.