niv

[Joulre2abba]

2 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Do you think homosexuals are prostitutes?

There are different views about this. There are those online who insist that homosexuals are not prostitutes. However, there is at least one verse in the Bible that I've come across so far that states otherwise. http://biblehub.com/1_kings/14-24.htm  It's also possible that Romans 1 could be indirectly referring to it as well.

[warrior12]

6 hours ago, Butero said:

have a 1611 KJV Bible reprint that I have read cover to cover 3 times.  The only changes in the Authorized KJV Bible is the spelling.

Thank you for your brief clarification of the difference between the two.  This was my point, actually that the language was updated from the 1611 with its archaic spelling to modern English to make the KJV readable for modern man.   Now, i used to word grammar and you pointed out spelling only.   I am no expert on these things and will take your word for it as others have said that grammar was changed to, though in minor form along the lines of the spelling of  words. 

 

[Guest Butero]

5 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

There are different views about this. There are those online who insist that homosexuals are not prostitutes. However, there is at least one verse in the Bible that I've come across so far that states otherwise. http://biblehub.com/1_kings/14-24.htm  It's also possible that Romans 1 could be indirectly referring to it as well.

It only says that in one of those counterfeit translations.  In the real Bible, the KJV Bible, it refers to them properly as sodomites.  

[Guest Butero]

56 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

Thank you for your brief clarification of the difference between the two.  This was my point, actually that the language was updated from the 1611 with its archaic spelling to modern English to make the KJV readable for modern man.   Now, i used to word grammar and you pointed out spelling only.   I am no expert on these things and will take your word for it as others have said that grammar was changed to, though in minor form along the lines of the spelling of  words. 

 

It is possible there could be minor changes to punctuation.  I read it through 3 times, and did compare the wording, but not every coma or period.  The original manuscripts didn't use punctuation as we do.  I am just saying that if I read from the 1611 version, I get the same content as if I read from the Authorized version.  It is a bit more difficult to read, not only because of the spelling, but because certain letters appear different than they do now, and there are also Roman numerals used throughout.  Still, it says the same thing.  

I have no problem with simply updating language if that is all that is being done.  It appears on the surface that is what the NKJV tried to do, though I am not that crazy about some of the changes.  That is not what has happened with most modern English translations.  They have removed part of the text and change the meaning of other portions of the text.  

[Joulre2abba]

17 hours ago, Butero said:

It only says that in one of those counterfeit translations.  In the real Bible, the KJV Bible, it refers to them properly as sodomites.  

There are not any counterfeit Bibles among the many versions. They are all "the real Bible".

If you wish to continue to give your opinions on the matter then kindly do so with anyone else on this forum.

[Guest Butero]

Every translation that is out there that begins with the Egyptian and Alexandrian text is counterfeit.  That is just about every translation besides the Geneva Bible, the KJV Bible and the NKJV Bible.  When your foundation is bad, your entire Bible is bad.  This reply is to everyone else on the forum besides Joulre2abba.   

[LadyKay]

4 hours ago, Butero said:

Every translation that is out there that begins with the Egyptian and Alexandrian text is counterfeit.

And you know this to be true because.......? 

[Guest Butero]

9 hours ago, LadyKay said:

And you know this to be true because.......? 

Because the manuscripts that were being used by the church were the Textus Receptus manuscripts, and that was what was used by the Geneva Bible, the 1611 KJV Bible, the Authorized KJV Bible and the NKJV Bible.  Most of the other translations leave out portions of the original text, and they will say it is because the most reliable or preferred or something along those line, manuscripts leave them out.  For years, I questioned what manuscripts they were using, till I bought a NKJV Bible and a handful of other translations to compare.  The NKJV Bible specifically tells which manuscripts leave out portions of the original text, and in every case but one verse, it is only the Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts.  

The Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts were older than those in use, but that was only because they were being preserved in a cave, while the others were in use.  When something is constantly in use, the paper wears out, and it must be copied.  That is why the paper found in caves was technically older, but the text was not.  The text of the Geneva Bible, 1611 KJV Bible, Authorized KJV Bible and NKJV Bible is all the same.  When I say the same, I mean everything that is found in one is found in the rest.  That is because they all used the same foundation, the Textus Receptus, as their starting point.  In the case of the more recent translations, they abandoned what was in use in the past, and went with the more recent discoveries.  The Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts were incomplete.  They had verses left out that were considered to be part of the canon.  That means that ministers were using verse for messages that are left out of the modern translations.  As such, since they are not the originals that were used by the early church, and leave out text that was considered canon by everyone until they came along, I am calling them counterfeits.  That is how I know this.  To review this again...

1.  The majority of the new translations leave out portions of the text that was part of the closed canon.

2.  The majority of the new translations use the Egyptian and Alexandrian text as their starting point, rather than the manuscripts that were in          use by the early church.

3.  I know what manuscripts they used as their basis because I have a NKJV Bible that tell which manuscripts left those verses out.

4.  In addition, some of the modern translations will include a random verse here and there others leave out for no apparent reason.  The only            logical reason they would do this is to differ enough to get a copywrite.  I know that because I bought several translations and compared them.

5.  The Geneva Bible, 1611 KJV Bible, Authorized KJV Bible and NKJV Bible all contain the same verses.  

Is that satisfactory enough LadyKay?  What is counterfeit is the Egyptian and Alexandrian text.  I would also point out, since this thread is about the NIV, that it is counterfeit because the translators intentionally made it gender neutral when the original text was not.  They admitted to this.  Since it is not genuine, that makes it counterfeit.  

[frienduff thaylorde]

7 hours ago, Butero said:

Because the manuscripts that were being used by the church were the Textus Receptus manuscripts, and that was what was used by the Geneva Bible, the 1611 KJV Bible, the Authorized KJV Bible and the NKJV Bible.  Most of the other translations leave out portions of the original text, and they will say it is because the most reliable or preferred or something along those line, manuscripts leave them out.  For years, I questioned what manuscripts they were using, till I bought a NKJV Bible and a handful of other translations to compare.  The NKJV Bible specifically tells which manuscripts leave out portions of the original text, and in every case but one verse, it is only the Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts.  

The Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts were older than those in use, but that was only because they were being preserved in a cave, while the others were in use.  When something is constantly in use, the paper wears out, and it must be copied.  That is why the paper found in caves was technically older, but the text was not.  The text of the Geneva Bible, 1611 KJV Bible, Authorized KJV Bible and NKJV Bible is all the same.  When I say the same, I mean everything that is found in one is found in the rest.  That is because they all used the same foundation, the Textus Receptus, as their starting point.  In the case of the more recent translations, they abandoned what was in use in the past, and went with the more recent discoveries.  The Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts were incomplete.  They had verses left out that were considered to be part of the canon.  That means that ministers were using verse for messages that are left out of the modern translations.  As such, since they are not the originals that were used by the early church, and leave out text that was considered canon by everyone until they came along, I am calling them counterfeits.  That is how I know this.  To review this again...

1.  The majority of the new translations leave out portions of the text that was part of the closed canon.

2.  The majority of the new translations use the Egyptian and Alexandrian text as their starting point, rather than the manuscripts that were in          use by the early church.

3.  I know what manuscripts they used as their basis because I have a NKJV Bible that tell which manuscripts left those verses out.

4.  In addition, some of the modern translations will include a random verse here and there others leave out for no apparent reason.  The only            logical reason they would do this is to differ enough to get a copywrite.  I know that because I bought several translations and compared them.

5.  The Geneva Bible, 1611 KJV Bible, Authorized KJV Bible and NKJV Bible all contain the same verses.  

Is that satisfactory enough LadyKay?  What is counterfeit is the Egyptian and Alexandrian text.  I would also point out, since this thread is about the NIV, that it is counterfeit because the translators intentionally made it gender neutral when the original text was not.  They admitted to this.  Since it is not genuine, that makes it counterfeit.  

Butero,    in all honesty I do not think most people understand .    Satan has never been sleeping .   So he does all to deceive.

Most people hear the words more accurate and Believe it .    most people trust in scholars .   So how to deceive.    simply this

come along and say we have found something better and all the while the goal is really to take from or add to THE ORIGINAL.  

This is simply what this was all about .    We have some people now so confused,  I often hear well NO bible is fully accurate.    Man ,  

that leaves room for deception with that type of mindset .    Don't it .   I mean if the bible is not fully accurate ,   people can add or take from it and stuff gets changed.

They say that translaters added phrases into the kjv.      may as well say they did it to the Geneva too, and other bibles at that time.

Men who actually risked their lives to get the bible out to folks ,   God did not let those men receive a wrong versoin and then TODAY all of a sudden

IN the most lukewarm time I might add, suddenly wow they got it right .    No , this sounds very deceptive to me .