Is NIV false doctrine?

[Floatingaxe]

We are made holy. Our spirits are pure and holy because we are the righteousness of God in Christ. We are God's holy people on the earth.

 

The NIV doesn't present a problem in this regard.

 

Hebrews 10:14 (AMP)

¹⁴ For by a single offering He has forever completely cleansed and perfected those who are consecrated and made holy.

 

Hebrews 10:14 (NIV)

¹⁴ For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

 

1 Peter 1:2 (AMP)

² Who were chosen and foreknown by God the Father and consecrated (sanctified, made holy) by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and to be sprinkled with [His] blood: May grace (spiritual blessing) and peace be given you in increasing abundance [that spiritual peace to be realized in and through Christ, freedom from fears, agitating passions, and moral conflicts].

 

1 Peter 1:2 (NLT)

² God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and his Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed him and have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

May God give you more and more grace and peace.

 

1 Peter 1:2 (NIV) ('sanctifying' meaning being made holy)

² who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

[BlessedByTheBest]

here is an interesting comparison to the Authorized Version:

 

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html

[JDavis]

@ McGyver:  To me, we are cursed to have many translations, not blessed.  They cause confusion, and most are not from the original manuscripts, so they leave certain parts of the text out, or relegate them to footnotes.  Even so, this is always a controversial issue, and everyone is going to do what they feel is right.  As for me, I will stay KJV only.  I do believe we are blessed to have easy access to that reliable translation, and at a relatively low price. 

 

There are no original manuscripts, not a single Bible translation we have to day is from an "original" manuscript.  The TR is from 1500 years after the death of Christ.

[JDavis]

here is an interesting comparison to the Authorized Version:

 

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html

 

very biased site, to put it mildly.

 

First off, the fact that the KJV and the NIV are different does not make the KJV automatically correct, which this site assumes...

 

second...Matt 6:13....looking at 5 of the major translations, only the KJV adds the extra words.

 

third...look at Matt 8:29 in the original Greek and tell me which word should be translated to "Jesus".  Looking at my intinterlinear Bible I just dont see it.  And also, leaving this out in no way degrades the power of the verse, it is plain and clear who the demon is speaking to.

 

I could go on and on, but I think people get the point.

[BlessedByTheBest]

 

here is an interesting comparison to the Authorized Version:

 

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html

 

very biased site, to put it mildly.

 

1) First off, the fact that the KJV and the NIV are different does not make the KJV automatically correct, which this site assumes...

 

2) second...Matt 6:13....looking at 5 of the major translations, only the KJV adds the extra words.

 

3) third...look at Matt 8:29 in the original Greek and tell me which word should be translated to "Jesus".  Looking at my intinterlinear Bible I just dont see it. 

   a) And also, leaving this out in no way degrades the power of the verse, it is plain and clear who the demon is speaking to.

 

4) I could go on and on, but I think people get the point.

 

 

well obviously, but biased with some merit.  because it isn't solely about correctness, but also the quality of fruit a translation produces.  the AV stands alone.

 

1)  fair enough, but there is no denying the AV is the veritable standard by which all translations are to be compared with.

 

2)  which translations?  and is there a literal one in your top 5?

i saw plenty here that found it worthy:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-13.htm

 

you say "extra words" as if they are insignificant:  "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

 

3)  ok, but i'll assume it to be a matter of consistency across Matt., Mark, and Luke in the KJV.  good work, translators.

        a)  i disagree, there is Power in the name of Jesus.

 

4)  by all means, please do.

and don't be burdened in critiquing one of the more controversial omissions in the NIV, such as those concerning Redemption for example.

 

Acts 8:37  KJV 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.

 

Acts 8:37  NIV  ?????

[Floatingaxe]

The NIV is the closest English translation to the original Greek.

[Floatingaxe]

 

 

@ McGyver:  To me, we are cursed to have many translations, not blessed.  They cause confusion, and most are not from the original manuscripts, so they leave certain parts of the text out, or relegate them to footnotes.  Even so, this is always a controversial issue, and everyone is going to do what they feel is right.  As for me, I will stay KJV only.  I do believe we are blessed to have easy access to that reliable translation, and at a relatively low price. 

 

There are no original manuscripts, not a single Bible translation we have to day is from an "original" manuscript.  The TR is from 1500 years after the death of Christ.

 

The TR was an exact copy of the original manuscripts, and it was complete.  The manuscripts used for the NIV and other translations are incomplete.  They left out portions of the original text.  Of course we don't have the originals, because they decayed over time. 

 

@Floatingaxe, I am not satisfied with a translation simply because you can point to a handful of scriptures and say they are ok.  The NIV and most new translations leave out portions of the text and discredit other texts they leave in.  I mentioned one in particular with regard to fasting and prayer with regard to casting out devils. 

 

 

Nothing is left out of the NIV. All is included in the context---the translators were very careful about that.

[JDavis]

There is no possible way to know if the TR is an exact copy of anything.

That is merely a claim that has no basis

[Floatingaxe]

 

 

 

 

@ McGyver:  To me, we are cursed to have many translations, not blessed.  They cause confusion, and most are not from the original manuscripts, so they leave certain parts of the text out, or relegate them to footnotes.  Even so, this is always a controversial issue, and everyone is going to do what they feel is right.  As for me, I will stay KJV only.  I do believe we are blessed to have easy access to that reliable translation, and at a relatively low price. 

 

There are no original manuscripts, not a single Bible translation we have to day is from an "original" manuscript.  The TR is from 1500 years after the death of Christ.

 

The TR was an exact copy of the original manuscripts, and it was complete.  The manuscripts used for the NIV and other translations are incomplete.  They left out portions of the original text.  Of course we don't have the originals, because they decayed over time. 

 

@Floatingaxe, I am not satisfied with a translation simply because you can point to a handful of scriptures and say they are ok.  The NIV and most new translations leave out portions of the text and discredit other texts they leave in.  I mentioned one in particular with regard to fasting and prayer with regard to casting out devils. 

 

 

Nothing is left out of the NIV. All is included in the context---the translators were very careful about that.

 

That is not true.  One such example is where Jesus told his disciples that a certain type of devil couldn't be cast out but by prayer and fasting, and the word fasting was left out, and relegated to a footnote. 

 

 

We have to take all things into consideration...the NIV limits to certain manuscripts:

 

Matthew 17:21 (NKJV)

²¹ However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”^[a]

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 17:21 NU-Text omits this verse.

 

Matthew 17:21 (NIV)

^[21] [a]

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 17:21 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.

 

Mark 9:29 (NKJV)

²⁹ So He said to them, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.”^[a]

Footnotes:

1. Mark 9:29 NU-Text omits and fasting.

 

Mark 9:29 (NIV)

²⁹ He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.^[a]”

Footnotes:

1. Mark 9:29 Some manuscripts prayer and fasting

[JDavis]

There is equally no way to accept as fact when FA claims that the NIV is the best English translation. That is merely a claim with no basis. There is no way to prove the innerancy of scripture, but I hold to it, as does Worthy Boards. You made a claim with no basis that the KJV Bible adds things to the text. I am saying the new translations removed portions of the text. It comes down to what we believe to be true, but I do know they can't all be right, and I do know the NIV transators have an agenda, based on the TNIV that they put out.

I actually made no such claim...i understand the weaknesses of translating ancient text.

It is logically faulty to assign an agenda to one group based on the actions of a different group 30 years later. while the name may be the same the people involved have changed.