Is NIV false doctrine?

[Mcgyver]

 

here is an interesting comparison to the Authorized Version:

 

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

 

That's a very interesting read.

 

 

Last post before I run off to chuch...

 

I read it, and found it to be quite disingenuous...reasons later...

[Floatingaxe]

 

 

here is an interesting comparison to the Authorized Version:

 

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

 

That's a very interesting read.

 

 

Last post before I run off to chuch...

 

I read it, and found it to be quite disingenuous...reasons later...

 

 

 

VERY disingenuous.

[Floatingaxe]

Holy Spirit lives and moves through the NIV just as much as He lives and moves through the KJV, the NKJV and any other recognized translation.

[OneLight]

Let's remember that the Holy Spirit works with truth. If we read in one book the passage of John 3:16, but the passage is used in a way to try to disprove God, does that mean that John 3:16, when used in this manner, is incorrect and a lie? Of course not. The truth remains the truth. What people do with the truth is where the lie starts.

The KJV states "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The NIV states "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Is there such a difference in the words that God cannot use either to show His truth?

[OneLight]

I can't argue with anything you said.  What it comes down to is if we have full faith in the TR, and believe it is the innerant Word of God, as I do?  I would look at it like you have perhaps 1 true text, the TR, and 20 additional pieces of text the modern translators use that are incomplete, so just because you have 17 that don't include the word "fast" doesn't mean it doesn't belong.

I place my full faith in God who teaches me, not in the words of a manuscript, for without His guidance, my understanding of the words would be far removed from His truth. 

 

I also recommend an Abington-Strongs Exhaustive Concordance with a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary.

I do not have the book and will look into it. I do have a library of other books, including books of Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. Tanks for the suggestion.

[OneLight]

 

Let's remember that the Holy Spirit works with truth. If we read in one book the passage of John 3:16, but the passage is used in a way to try to disprove God, does that mean that John 3:16, when used in this manner, is incorrect and a lie? Of course not. The truth remains the truth. What people do with the truth is where the lie starts.

The KJV states "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The NIV states "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Is there such a difference in the words that God cannot use either to show His truth?

God could use the Jehovah's Witness Bible if he wants to, as I have already acknowledged.  That still doesn't make it the ideal translation.  If John 3:16 is as deep as someone wants to go, I suppose the NIV is ok, but even here there is an error.  The KJV Bible correctly says that those who believe "should not perish," while the NIV incorrectly says, "shall not perish."  Big difference.  They can't both be right?  That brings us back to the whole unreliability of translation issue and more confusion.

 

Brother, we all start somewhere and, as you agree.  Truth is truth no matter where it is found.

Neither the KJV or the NIV state what the Greek states. The Greek said "may-be-having life eonian.". The issues is how to translate eche into today's language. Th TR places it accordingly:

G2192 echo ekh'-o, including an alternate form scheo skheh'-o; (used in certain tenses only)

a primary verb;

to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or condition).

KJV: be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can(+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, + return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.

What is strange is the the NIV, when using the Critical Text method, also uses the same word eche, but have decided to used the word to shall have, which I agree, are not the same words, but understanding the basis of each word, they are very similar.

May is used to express "a possibility", while shall is used also to indicate "plan to, intend to, or expect to". Why argue which word is used when the Holy Spirit can use either to provide the truth?

[Floatingaxe]

 

Holy Spirit lives and moves through the NIV just as much as He lives and moves through the KJV, the NKJV and any other recognized translation.

That is a claim based on nothing.  I could simply say it is not true, but I can't prove that either, but I will put it like this.  The Jehovah's Witnesses have a translation too.  Technically, the Holy Spirit could reach someone through that book, but it is obviously not as good as the KJV Bible.  I have known someone saved as a result of "Jesus Christ Superstar."  God can use anything, but the NIV is still a very flawed translation, and is not nearly as good as the KJV Bible. 

 

 

It is no claim, but is the truth! You wouldn't dare deny it lest you deny your very God. when I say 'recognized' you can be assured I am in no way including the writings that cults like the JW's or the Mormons embrace. You are becoming tangential in your defense.

 

All translations have some flaws in some way---including the NIV

Edited September 29, 2013 by OneLight
*** edited out personal attacks ***

[Floatingaxe]

 

 The KJV Bible correctly says that those who believe "should not perish," while the NIV incorrectly says, "shall not perish."  Big difference.  They can't both be right?  That brings us back to the whole unreliability of translation issue and more confusion. 

 

 

Rolling my eyes here! Both are correct.  Seems to me one needs a lesson in English and to familiarize oneself with the use of Old English.

[Floatingaxe]

Here is a thought.  Since most believe God can use any Bible translation, why don't a group of us from Worthy Boards get together with a KJV Bible and a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary, and create the Worthy Translation Bible?  Imagine the money there is to be made for the ministry?  I could sit down myself with my KJV Bible and a computer and translate the Bible word for word and create the Butero Translation.  I would personally have more confidence in those translations than the NIV, given their agenda. 

 

Here are some better thoughts:

 

1. It isn't about money.

2. One needs to be led by God for such an undertakinbg

3. This isn't about words, but about God's word and His ability to cut through the nonsense you think is so important.

4. Placing one's confidence in God and Holy Spirit's command for teaching us what is true may be lacking in those who quibble about bible translations.

[OneLight]

 

 

 

Let's remember that the Holy Spirit works with truth. If we read in one book the passage of John 3:16, but the passage is used in a way to try to disprove God, does that mean that John 3:16, when used in this manner, is incorrect and a lie? Of course not. The truth remains the truth. What people do with the truth is where the lie starts.

The KJV states "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The NIV states "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Is there such a difference in the words that God cannot use either to show His truth?

God could use the Jehovah's Witness Bible if he wants to, as I have already acknowledged.  That still doesn't make it the ideal translation.  If John 3:16 is as deep as someone wants to go, I suppose the NIV is ok, but even here there is an error.  The KJV Bible correctly says that those who believe "should not perish," while the NIV incorrectly says, "shall not perish."  Big difference.  They can't both be right?  That brings us back to the whole unreliability of translation issue and more confusion.

 

Brother, we all start somewhere and, as you agree.  Truth is truth no matter where it is found.

Neither the KJV or the NIV state what the Greek states. The Greek said "may-be-having life eonian.". The issues is how to translate eche into today's language. Th TR places it accordingly:

G2192 echo ekh'-o, including an alternate form scheo skheh'-o; (used in certain tenses only)

a primary verb;

to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or condition).

KJV: be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can(+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, + return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.

What is strange is the the NIV, when using the Critical Text method, also uses the same word eche, but have decided to used the word to shall have, which I agree, are not the same words, but understanding the basis of each word, they are very similar.

May is used to express "a possibility", while shall is used also to indicate "plan to, intend to, or expect to". Why argue which word is used when the Holy Spirit can use either to provide the truth?

 

I guess I just care about getting it exactly right, rather than close?  Some people are ok with close.  When I was Pastor of a denominational church, I remember them going through sections of the manual, and discussing minor word changes.  Simply changing "shall" to "should" completely changed the way the churches operate.  If you say for instance that a deacon "shall" only serve 2 terms, that is definate, but if it says, "should", that leaves wiggle room.  They explained how words have meaning.  I have also heard Rush Limbaugh make that point more than once, and it is true. 

 

 

That is impossible while living this life.  It is like a dog chasing his short tail, always seeking, never finding.