NIV More Popular Than KJV, NLT Bibles; 11 Million Copies Sold Worldwide

This is disturbing but everything that we see going on in todays culture and church culture is disturbing.

"....the Bible, an ancient manuscript that keeps getting makeovers for new audiences. Bible sales represent a whopping market—estimated between $425 million (by Harper San Francisco) and $609 million (by Zondervan), with relatively stable sales. Paul Caminiti, v-p and publisher for Bibles at Zondervan—which accounts for one out of every two Bibles sold—notes, "Although there was a significant spike in Bible sales following 9/11, the Bible market as a whole has remained relatively the same."

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20061030/16711-not-your-mother-s-bible.html

This article doesn't talk about what the publishers of the updated NIV have done. In 2011 they released an updated version of the 1984 translation. The strategy they've employed in the hopes that the 2011 version doesn't meet the same fate as the TNIV is to pull the rights of all publishers and merchants to sell the NIV1984. They have even pulled the '84 version off of Bible apps. If you have the YouVersion Bible app on your smart phone or tablet you'll notice that the NIV bible on the app is now the 2011 updated version. Also, you won't be able to find the 1984 version of the NIV in any merchant's Bible store. They have recalled those and replaced them with the 2011 version.

Probably not for a long time. Pulling the 84 version was a marketing tactic designed to increase sales of the new version.

Here is a fair review showing the strengths and the weaknesses of the new version.

One good thing is they stopped using the term 'sinful nature' in Romans 7:5. That's probably the best example of a mis-translation messing up doctrine that there ever was.

Here is the link to that review:

http://www.joshhunt.com/mail446.htm

RE:///One good thing is they stopped using the term 'sinful nature' in Romans 7:5. That's probably the best example of a mis-translation messing up doctrine that there ever was.///

This is true!!

'The NIV reconsidered A fresh look at a popular translation'
1990 Kerugma,inc by Earl Radmacher BA and MA from Bob Jones University and ThM and ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary and Zane Hodges BA degree from Wheaton and ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary

p.113-117

VERSE 3
In this verse we meet, for the first time in Romans 8, a typical NIV interpretive translation. The Greek word for "flesh" becomes "sinful nature," as it does also in Romans 7:5, 18, 25 and in many of the verses following this one (8:5, 8, 9, 12, 13). yet it is not handled this way consistently, as we shall see. The result of the NIV's freewheeling treatment of this basic Greek word is confusion compounded by confusion!
Is it in pursuit of "clarity" and "intelligibility" that the NIV opts for "sinful nature" rather than the more literal, and familiar, rendering "flesh"? If so, it is more than doubtful that actual clarity has been achieved.
What indeed does the term "sinful nature" signify? Since the English word "nature" has more than one basic meaning, which one should the English reader understand here? Of themeanings offered by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969 edition), we have at least these options:
1. The intrinsic characteristics and qualities of a person or thing.
7. Theology. Man's natural state, as distinguished from the state of grace.
9. The aggregate of a person's instincts, penchants, and preferences: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" (Gertrude Stein).
10a. A particular kind of individual character or disposition; temperament: "In spite of her small vanities, Margaret had a sweet and pious nature" (Louisa May Alcott).
11. The natural or real aspect of a person, place or thing. (All italics are as in the dictionary.)
No knowledgeable user of contemporary English can believe that the word "nature" is self-explanatory in a phrase like "sinful nature." The very reverse is the case.
We might ask whether the word "nature," in connection with "sinful," refers to some intrinsic feature of man's makeup, or does it simply refer to an aggregate of characteristics which he displays? Does it reflect his "temperament" only, or is it something metaphysical in its essence?
How are we supposed to know the answer to any of these questions when we read the NIV phrase "sinful nature"? And why didn't the NIV leave well enough alone and simply translate the Greek word by "flesh," as did the KJV and NKJV? Such biblical/theological terms are better left for expositors to explain.
Nevertheless, we get the NIV's commentary on the Greek word "flesh," but before the light can dawn for us we must have a commentary on the commentary! The NIV's adoption of the phrase "sinful nature" is conspicuously ill-advised. It does not seem to have been carfully thought through at all.
Additionally, we might ask whether the NIV is precisely on target when it reads, in this verse, as follows:
For what the law was powerless to do in that [it was weakened by the sinful nature].
Compare with this the NKJV:
For what the law could not do in that [it was weak through the flesh].
The two renderings are not quite identical. The phrase "it was weakened by the sinful nature [= flesh]" might not mean exactly the same thing as "it was weak through the flesh." The NIV leaves the impression that, somehow, man's sinful nature sapped the law of strength which it otherwise possessed, as when one might say, "The man was weakened by his exertions." But does Paul mean to imply this?
Probably not. Ther is nothing in paul's thought about the law, either in Romans or elsewhere, to suggest that the law in some way became weaker than it once was. Rather, the law had an inherent incapacity to meet man's need because it had nothing to offer the sinner by way of deliverance from his sinful condition. When Paul says that "the law was weak through the flesh," he means to indicate that the law was ineffectual in coping with man's sinful condition.
The NIV adoption of a passive verb phrase in English to render the active verb phrase in Greek is certainly not a case where "faithful communication...[demands]...frequent modifications in sentence structure". On the contrary, it is an undesirable "modification" and potentially misleading.
Finally, the NIV concludes verse 3 as follows:
And so he condemned sin in [sinful man].
But the words "sinful man" translate exactly the same Greek ward (sarx, "flesh") that the NIV rendered "sinful nature" earlier in the verse. Thus the underlying verbal connection between "sinful nature" and "sinful man" is lost in the NIV, except for the word "sinful" which is a paraphrase to begin with.
In the previous sentence in this verse we also read "sinful man" where the NIV translates "by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man." This time, however, there is a word for "sin" in the Greek text which, more literally, reads: "in the likeness of (the) flesh of sin." The NKJV renders: "in the likeness of sinful flesh."
Observe, then, the NIV treatment of three uses of "flesh" in verse 3:
NKJV
through the flesh
the likeness of sinful flesh
sin in the flesh

NIV
by the sinful nature
the likeness of sinful man
sin in sinful man
Whatever else may be said, it is clear that the NIV is either correct in its interpretive renderings, or it is mistaken and misleading. unlike the NKJV, which does not attempt to interpret the word "flesh" for its readers, the NIV does so and thus asks the readership here, as in so many other places, to trust the expository acument of its translators and editors.
But is the NIV really accurate here? And can the reader in fact pick up the obvious Pauline tie between "flesh...flesh...flesh"? Of course he cannot, and the loss of this element in the intended Pauline meaning must be compensated for by some other significant gain from the NIV renderings.
But the gains are dubious at best. At worst, they are not gains at all, but losses. let us consider the issues involved.
The reason Paul likes the word "flesh" as a term for describing man's inward bent toward evil is because he sees this bent as situated in man's physical being--in his body. This is quite clear from Romans 7:22-25. To erase the word "flesh" from the text is to destory this implicity pauline link with man's physical experience.
Moreover, the phrase "in the likeness of sinful man' misses the fact that Paul is indicating that the incarnation of the Son was indeed physical, or bodily, but that it was also sinless. It was"in the likeness of sinful flesh" that He came. That is, He came in flesh which was not sinful. As Paul would later say, He was "manifest in flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16).
but the statement of teh NIV that He came "in the likeness of sinful man" loses the direct implication of physicality found in the word "flesh." yet, in first-century Christianity, this was an important issue since some intellectual and religious currents of thought resisted the notion of a divine being actually living in physical flesh (see 1 John 4:2,3; 2 John 7).
Moreover, the NIV follows this use of "sinful man" with a second use of the same expression to translate the simple word "flesh." But does Paul mean only that "sin in sinful man" is condemned, or does he mean to affirm that "sin in man's physical being" is condemned? The latter is almost certainly his intended thought. Paul thus anticipates our ultimate freedom from a physical body in which sin dwells. And, as he will say later in the chapter, "the glorious freedom of the children of God," in a coming day, will be the model for the freedom of all creation from "its bondage to decay" (verse 21).
Thus the loose, paraphrasing way the NIV treats the Greek word for "flesh" in verse 3, fails to accomplish any significant clarification. Instead, the NIV reader is left at a serious disadvantage when it comes to entering more fully into the Pauline concepts expressed in this verse.
The NIV's showing in Romans 8:3 is deeply disturbing to those who wish their translation to give them careful and reliable guidance into the original author's outlook and perspective.

Good morning,
Greg,

This is an artical that was printed ( stated )in the Hattiesburg American news paper
5-5-01,..and I kept the artical.

" Until the 1950's,the King James Bible was the only Bible in wide use among Protestants,who tend to dominate the Bible-buying market.
Since then the new Verizon's have been produced to meet the demand
for modernized scriptures.
In the Gallup Poll 54% owned King James,followed by 15% New International "...etc. ..

.( I kept this note in my Bible,I don' know what else was wrote as I quit
copying at that point. )

My comments on this is,...I use The King James and I realize others may not feel the same as I do,...but I was concerned that as time goes on,men have lost their fear of God,and may change the scripture more and more.

Just thought I'd share.

elizabeth

Miles Smith, one of these who
worked on the KJV and wrote its preface:

"And in what sort did these [the
translators} assemble? In the trust
of their own knowledge, or of their
sharpness of wit, or deepness of
judgment, as it were in an a,rm of
flesh? At no hand. They trusted
in Him that hath the key of David,
opening, and no man shutting; they
prayed to the Lord...

...The translators of the KJV
labored according to the rules
set forth by John Purvey, secretary
to John Wyckliffe, translator
of the first English Bible:
"A translator hath great need to
study well the sense
. . . and then
also he hath need to live a clean
life and be full devout in prayers,
... that the Holy Spirit, author of
all wisdom and knowledge and
truth, dress him for his work and
suffer him not to err. By this manner

"men can come to true and
clear translating, and true understanding
of holy writ."

Probably the scholarship and
devotional life of Lancelot Andrewes,
chairman of one of the
translation companies of the
KJV, exceeded those of many of
his co-workers. True, he did not
have the earliest and, perhaps,
the best manuscripts to work
with, nor the advantage of the
Twentieth Century "linguistic
researches" as have the translators
of the NEB. He did know
six ancient and fifteen modern
languages. But there was something
else about Andrewes: His
" 'life was a life of prayer'; a
great part of five hours of every
day, did he spend in prayer and
devotion to God."
One cannot but wonder about
the complete qualifications of
men who "represent more or
less" only "relative conservatism
in theology" to translate the
Scripture. Men of such belief
are not known to give themselves
to prayer, the only means
whereby they may be filled with
the Spirit of God who alone can
give the "true understanding of
holy writ." How then, for all
their scholarship, can they be
able "to grasp and convey the
spirit of the original"?

from a Bread of Life Archive

Quote:

"Standout among the list, however, is the NIV, which has more than 450 million copies in print."

That is awesome and a reason to celebrate, regardless whether it is NIV, KJV, NLT, ESv etc etc.

I would even take "The Message" over no Bible at all, if that was the choice.

If we don’t speak a foreign language then we don’t know how, say the Chinese Bible is written but we definitely know it’s not King James! How are these foreigners even becoming Christian if they aren't reading the KJV? How do we know if they are even being led of the Lord if it’s not KJV? I’m so worried how God can even speak to people if they are using the “correct” version.

That previous post was sarcasm and it was done good naturedly. (is that a word?!!) I'm sorry brothers and sisters but I could not resist.

"God is God and God don't never change." (Old song?)

God bless,
Lisa

Ah it's Bible Babel time again and why we must tolerate all renderings as God's truth,

Ok, then let's rather find harmony in opposing views than being divisive, which "version of truth" should I believe?

Psalm 10:4, 5

KJB wicked…..His ways are always GRIEVOUS

NIV wicked…..His ways are always prosperous

NKJV wicked…..His ways are always prospering

ESV wicked…..His ways prosper at all times

HCSB wicked…..His ways are always secure

Ecclesiastes 8:10

KJB wicked…..were FORGOTTEN

NIV wicked…..receive praise

ESV wicked…..were praised

The actual real advise on this is this:

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Even if only one of thousand Bible students actually does that, it helps to read a few of the true scholars and not follow forum gossip that is not even able to come to the insight that 2 opposing statements as above are not ready to be harmonized under the umbrella of tolerance.

I took some time to read some of these articles because I prefer to read facts based study material instead of small talk:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

http://av1611.org/othpubl.html

....good starter to grasp why the NIV and the Vatican have more things in common than I previously thought:

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB are the new "Vatican Versions"
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

Isn't it wonderful they all agree with each other by actual contract?

Bear wrote ///A-servant there are many people in tbis forum who use different translations including the forum administrator. Those of us who use the NIV or NASB will continue to use them and post scriptures from them.
I am courious why you hang around? Would you and those who hold to the KJV only position be happier on a KJV only forum.
Just couriius.
Bearmaster.///

Hi bear, I relieze that many on these forums have differing views concerning the inerrancy of scripture but we must remember that many of the Spirit filled preachers presented on SI also hold very strong beliefs on this topic.

Those preachers that hold similar perspectives as my own on this topic as well as other topics are what has brought me to this sight,
I was hoping to find like minded brethren to fellowship with, and on certain subjects and with certain brethren including yourself I have.

But I have also been amazed and saddened by many of the beliefs and thoughts on several subjects that are held by many including the moderators on this forum.
but at the sametime, I have been amazed and encouraged on many other subjects and have found like mindedness with many including yourself and the moderators of SI

bear wrote RE: /// Would you and those who hold to the KJV only position be happier on a KJV only forum.///

A KJV revivle forum would a be a nice Idea, except I am afraid that it would soon be flooded with hard core fundamentalist, whom no more believe what they are reading than the next person and probably believe it less than many.
I would love to fellowship with those whom would believe the Bible to the degree that they would throw out their commentary, throw out their preconcieved doctrines and traditions and just rely on the scripture and the unction. But I do not know where such a fellowship exist.

On several other topics, many including yourself, and others on these forums have came to many Similar conclusions as myself and have helped to enlightened me on several topics.
and with the excelant work of the moderators which keep me safe from attack and also keeps me accountable, this is some of the reasons why I enjoy the fellowship of this forum

bear wrote RE:///Just courious. Those of us who use other translations allow you the the liberty to use your KJV. Yet you will not allow us the same liberty. Just wondering why?///

No one is taking your liberty away, no one is pushing for legislation to take you choice of translations away.

This is a disscussion forum, It makes since to disscuss issues that pertain to the church today and to discuss issues that are held by various preachers whom are represented on this websight.

I have a conviction concerning this subject as does others including many of the Spirit filled preachers on this sight, It makes since that when this subject or other subjects that we hold strong convictions about, come up, that we in a calm and edifying way express reasons for the faith that we have.

The Bear, did you ever consider to address the objections instead of the person?

This is about truth, not about what people do. Facts and details. Object based, not sentimental murmurs.

a-servant wrote:

KJB wicked…..His ways are always GRIEVOUS
NIV wicked…..His ways are always prosperous
NKJV wicked…..His ways are always prospering
ESV wicked…..His ways prosper at all times
HCSB wicked…..His ways are always secure
========================

Obviously the KJV got it wrong here. Why is that so hard to accept? The psalmist here is lamenting the pride of the wicked and asking that the Lord intervene. He does not understand why the Lord allows them to prosper. In the context of the passage it is clear that "grievous" is the wrong translation. If the wicked's ways were grievous, then the psalmist would not be complaining.

There are other places where KJV clearly got it wrong. There are other places in the Bible that say that the wicked prosper despite their wickedness, so why should this translation be surprising?

As cynical as it sounds ...The bible is still the worlds No1 best selling book. There are dollars to be made. Not that that is necessarily the reason for mass huge production ...and newer versions ..being constantly introduced into the market (now to think that would be cynical) So The NIV finally out trumps the KJV in sales
(you kjv only people oughta watch out now ) the NIV is on a roll ...a runaway train - and unstoppable (is that irony sarcasm that is maginally allowable)

KJV people only should finally relent and fall on there sword:

Its all over ...finished!

outgrossed in sales (time to get with the program you kjv only folks)

This is a sign ...of the times ( i reckon)

KJV Bible ...your days are numbered:

Sales = truth = bigger is always better

The gauge of all correctness: Indeed.

So when did sales revenue or copies sold ever become the barometer or bastian of truth upon which we determine which is the right way?

(and therefore walk ye in it)??

The problem is that KJV only-ists cannot admit they are wrong.

A Bible teacher I really admire teaches from KJV and he does think it is a superior translation but even he will admit when the KJV misses it.

HezWellings wrote ////Who/whom do i obey?....you and the folks at "brandplucked dot com".....or God the Holy Spirit?
its a very simple question, but i beg you, be very careful how and what you answer, if you do indeed answer that simple question.
May God bless you and your kin abundantly with His Mercy, Grace, Love in Jesus Messiah, is my prayer, amen,. neil////

I myself do not know what brandplucked dot com is. and I do not care.
Their are several pro KJB peoples whom do more damage and do very little other than invite mockery on us whom believe that God in His Sovereignty has the ability and the power and indeed has inspired the very Jot and tittle that He wiches for our generation to have.
( the extreme minute details of the scripture, surely where not included just for the original autographs.)

Just because some give a belief a bad wrap, this does not in anyway nullify it's truth.
For instance, just because kent hovind believes in Christian Creationism and speaks boldly out about it and has in many ways brought mockery upon the creationist, this does not nollify the facts of Creationism.
and I could go on with many like examples

HezWellings wrote /// okay, the Bible i just "came out of" is an ESV, and i know that i know, i am filled with God the Holy Spirit, because everytime i open that Precious Word, i humbly ask the Father, "please fill me with your Holy Spirit, so that i dont merely "read" This Word, with my human eyes".///

I have read several statements by ESV translators and affiliates such as Dr.Wayne Grudem whom are very opposed to the methods and the lack of accuracy of the NIV.
John Piper said that he 'would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset... '

HezWellings wrote RE: ///"please fill me with your Holy Spirit, so that i dont merely "read" This Word, with my human eyes".///

HezWellings wrote RE: ////Who/whom do i obey?....you and the folks at "brandplucked dot com".....or God the Holy Spirit?
its a very simple question, but i beg you, be very careful how and what you answer, if you do indeed answer that simple question.////

What do you hear or feel when you get to Matthew 17:21 ?
or acts 8:37 ?

Hi TMK

TMK wrote ///The problem is that KJV only-ists cannot admit they are wrong.
A Bible teacher I really admire teaches from KJV and he does think it is a superior translation but even he will admit when the KJV misses it.///

I am not a Christian because I have intellectually been convinced that Christianity is supiour to all the other religions of the world.
I am a Christian because of the inward certainty within me.
likewise I am not a Bible beliver because of the rational arguments that are presented in the positions defence.
I am a Bible believer because of the inward certainty within me.

bear wrote //PP I like that parayer. Lord, please fill me with your Spirit so that I do not read your word with merely human eyes. Very lovely. One I will pray.

The Bear.//

That was HezWellings prayer, I was just responding to him, But agreed that is a very lovely prayer to pray before studing the Bible.

bearmaster wrote ////In the not to distant future when the remnant is meeting underground and all translations of the Bible are declared politically incorrect and illegal. I think we will welcome any encouragement from the scriptures irregardless of the translation.
Somehow I do not see the KJV vs NIV conversations as having any meaning under persecution.
My thoughts.
Bearmaster.////

With more than 450 million copies of the NIV alone in print. and reliezing that the Bible business is a 400-600 million dollar business and with elitist like Rupert Murdoch whom have so much to continue to financially gain from the business. I personaly doubt that we will see the Bible being outlawed in any near time future.

More likely we are going to see the direction that the translations and the Church are already on, to start to move more and more rapidly.
And that is further away from the specifics of the scripture and more and more into generalizations, in which all of the various christian religions will melt together.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.John 4:24
Personally I love this scripture, you notice he put "spirit" first? When we worship him in spirit first, we can know the truth in any translation, he will revel the meaning of any scripture to us in spirit,and speak to us personally through that scripture, regardless of the translation. If we are reading the word and not worshiping him in spirit at the same time, no matter what translation your reading, you will not understand. "Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and it said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" Numbers 22:28..If God can work through a donkey, he can surely work through any Bible translation, so why all the fuss?

////by MrBillPro on 2013/3/28 8:49:48

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.John 4:24
Personally I love this scripture, you notice he put "spirit" first? When we worship him in spirit first, we can know the truth in any translation, he will revel the meaning of any scripture to us in spirit, regardless of the translation. If we are reading the word and not worshiping him in spirit at the same time, no matter what translation your reading, you will not understand. "Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and it said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" Numbers 22:28..If God can work through a donkey, he can surely work through any Bible translation.///

What does the Spirit say to you about the various verses excluded from the modern versions including Matthew 17:21
and acts 8:37 and 15 other sound verses excluded from the Niv ?

Bill said, "If God can work through a donkey, he can surely work through any Bible translation, so why all the fuss?"

But it's troubling when a translation is actually a mistranslation.

Will the translation we choose to read help us gain our salvation? or will the translation we choose to read, cause us to loose our salvation? "John 3:16" This is the most important scripture in the word in my opinion, and every translation I have read is plain on this scripture.

proudpapa...What does the Spirit say to you about the various verses excluded from the modern versions including Matthew 17:21 and acts 8:37 and 15 other sound verses excluded from the Niv ?

No one here can even imagine in their wildest and most vivid imaginations, know how God works in each individual person. If you have accepted Jesus Christ into your life and Love the Lord, and are in his will, you don't need to know if every Bible translation is spot on, because any translation "post" the very first one has had change. So unless you have the Hebrew Bible your reading from, all our disagreements are in vain.

Here we are debating Bible translations, and there is billions of lost sheep out there, maybe we should stop worrying about Bible translations, and give ourselves a priority check. These threads like this is why the world thinks Christians are the ones that are really lost, we can't even figure out "in their minds" which Bible to read to figure out the "real" truth, sad!

Hi MrBillPro

RE:///Will the translation we choose to read help us gain our salvation? or will the translation we choose to read, cause us to loose our salvation? "John 3:16" This is the most important scripture in the word in my opinion, and every translation I have read is plain on this scripture.///

Hi Bill what if tomorrow or sometime in the future an ancient manuscript or manuscripts older and more complete than any manuscripts that excist today are discovered that exclude John 3:16 ?
Do you believe if such a case as this happens that a new greek text should be written that excludes the verse and that all versions should subscribe to that text and exclude the verse?
Such a senerio is specifically why the modern versions have excluded many of the verses that they have.

When we start sliding down the venomous path of historical critical method we are sliding down a dangeourous path.
Many doubt the book of John altogether, the Jesus Seminar identify what they perceive as the historical inferiority of John as foundational to their work.

MrBillPro wrote ////by MrBillPro on 2013/3/28 9:28:20

proudpapa...What does the Spirit say to you about the various verses excluded from the modern versions including Matthew 17:21 and acts 8:37 and 15 other sound verses excluded from the Niv ?

We can imagine though that God is universal in rather or not Matthew 17:21 and acts 8:37 and the other 15 sound verses excluded in the NIV and other modern versions are either willed of God or else planted by the enemy. It is either or. So my question is not what does James White or DA Carson or Ken Barker say but ...'What does the Spirit say to you about these verses?

Jesus taught us by example to rely on the Jot and tittle of the scripture.
When Jesus was tempted He relied on the written Logos to overcome the temptation and when the devil quoted scripture as to tempt Him, The devils translation subtly omitted part of the verse.
Jesus proved the resurrection of the dead to the sadducees by matter of verb tense, using the scripture of His day, The scriptures that He used where copies of copies and perhaps even a translation in either Greek or Aramaic.

PP-

Why can you not just admit that the reason so many of the translations leave out verses like Mt 17:21 and Acts 8:37 is because there is very good reason to do so? Perhaps the KJV keeps these verse in for bad reasons? Just possibly?

Hi TMK

TMK wrote ///PP-
Why can you not just admit that the reason so many of the translations leave out verses like Mt 17:21 and Acts 8:37 is because there is very good reason to do so? Perhaps the KJV keeps these verse in for bad reasons? Just possibly?///

I have read various reasons for leaving these verses out. The reasons are always from Fleshly logic and not the most logical fleshly logic I might add.
Many of these verses are found within 80% and more of the existing manuscripts that we have today and of course I relieze that this does not include the Comma Johanneum.

I know the logical arguments on both sides.
It is unbenificial, to argue on the such, because both sides are opinions both sides hold to speculations with no natualistic proofs.

My stance is that I have an inward certainty on this subject,in the same way that I have an inward certainty that causes me to be a Christian. It is Faith and the faith is the substance and the evidence of the things that I know.

Here is an interesting review of the 2011 NIV from biblestudytools.com

http://www.biblestudytools.com/video/mary-kassian-cautions-about-the-2011-niv-bible-translation.html

I often wonder why folks with no dog in the fight, so to say, even posts on threads like this, if they are happy with the translation they use. Its like, why do atheists even debate if there is a God, if they don't believe there is, if your happy in your stance of God, or your translation why post? I post because I do read and enjoy different translations, so I am always interested when a new one comes about. Folks that are set on one translation, really only cause strife when they post on threads like this, so why even post? read your translation and enjoy, we are not knocking the translation your read, some of us are just more open to different ones. If your concern for posting, is with a preventive attitude for new Christians, who made you the Bible version police? We all sometimes forget, God made us all different, not just in our fingerprints, but in our minds also. I know of some powerful men of God Bible teachers "Charles Stanley" for example, that teach out of the NASB version. Just my two cents. :)

To some of the things mentioned:

Psalms 10:4  The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. 5  His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them. 6  He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved: for I shall never be in adversity. 7  His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.

And someone said in between these descriptions that all tend to say the same thing there would have to be the word "prosperous" injected. What would give thought to the concept that all this vanity of the wicked will result in material prosperity. That well can be, but this is not what is decribed here,

This psalm is about the spiritual condition of the wicked that reflects itself in all these negative inner and outer expressions. There is not one word with positive value in the whole psalm, so where does the idea come from to potentially influence some of the readers to find a source of material benefit in all of this? That idea comes out of thin air.

And Neil also asked a question. That question implies that The Holy Spirit confirms his personal choice of reading material. Well, I will say that the integrity of The Word of God prooves itself in so many places, that it is the final authority in any case there would be any disagreement between the written word and the Spirit. I've seen it before that the owner of a pre-trib forum said the holy Spirit told him that only the pre-trib theory is correct and tortured everyone that said "but the Bible says...." So what is your final proof and authority? Obvioulsy not a religious spirit, that would confirm a false written word. So the priority has to be reversed. First study the authenticity of the Word, then proceed. On this forum it seems to be reversed, almost nobody wants to do that, you value personal preference over the Absolute, as given by God that doesn't write different versions, he has prepared only one version for us, and to say otherwise is the first step of choosing your own god.

Now to Will Kinney, he is a better detective than most of us, and he found something very interesting:

"I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, "Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation ... This signals a new age in the church." - Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.

from Greg:

The King James is very hard for the normal reader today to understand. Remnant believers where persecuted throughout the ages to get the scriptures into the plain peoples speech and terms. I believe the Lord spoke in very basic greek for this reason also.

I can just share with you my experience and observations about this subject through the years.

Have you ever noticed how "scholars" are usually lifted up on a pedestal by the majority crowd? There is nothing that makes a man holy because he is a scholar. Holiness does not come from scholarliness.

We forget that there are liberal lexicographers. And the church has taken some wrong cues from the world regarding scholars. The Church is the one that should guard the Scriptures, not publishing houses. The Scriptures have been taken from the Church and the Church gave in. The Church does not push back on "scholars". We have been taught not to. We have been taught that everything, trained scholars do is somehow incorruptible and beyond question. Yet, we are seeing the fruit of their "sleight of hand" or maybe it is just plain ignorance and experiencing the watering down of the Christian vocabulary in the Churches (and I think, in the lives of people).

"So, who are these men? What kind of relationship do they have with the Lord? All I know is that the words of the the KJV are often higher, "special" words, not defiled or defined by worldly use. Danker (Greek-English Lexicon of the NT) dislikes these, calling them "churchly words"; lexicographers avoid them, calling them "ecclesiastical" words.

What are these words that "normal" people cannot understand?

These include words such as 'hell, heaven, preach, grace, gospel, mercy, lust, carnal, charity, salvation, sanctification, heathen, heresy, superstition, heretick, redemption, righteousness, repent, judgment, covetousness, ungodly and tribulation".

One will be hard pressed to find these words in most new versions and Bible study tools. Notice, I said Bible Study Tools, too. It is not just Bibles that are being corrupted, er I'm sorry, "changed", but the study tools, too.

It seems like (maybe I'm wrong) that liberal lexicographers have from the very beginning set out to strip the Holy Bible of its "holy" separate from "sinners" vocabulary by replacing these holy words with the words of sinners.

The English defnitions and translation choices in Lexicons are highly secularized, that is, they are "the words which men's wisdom teacheth," not those special "separate from sinners" words which God instilled early in the English Bible."

For a lazy mind, I would recommend the KJV because it will make you think, improve your vocabulary and it preserves the Christian vocabulary.

Don't you think it is important for a "normal" person to understand what "imputation", "sanctification", "justification", "propitiation", "regeneration", etc, etc, means?

When I was a young Christian, I was handed a Scofield Reference Bible so I grew up on the KJV. I was just a dumb ex-doper, drinker. (I don't go for Scofield's dispensational notes or other notes, however). Today, I just read a KJV with no notes. I remember when I came to a word like propitiation and did not know it. It fascinated me. I really wanted to know what it meant. So, I would look it up and it was a rich learning experience, spiritually. I wasn't looking for new Scrabble words, I wanted to know what the spiritual significance of these words, were. It continued as I looked up other words. And I thought this was how all normal people learned. It is not all that foreign, is it? You come to a word which you don't know, so you look it up.

My personal opinion (which doesn't mean much) is that the church is losing more than the richness and holiness of the scriptures and their Christian vocabulary. But, that is a whole 'nother thread.

I don't know, I guess I just think words that were given to us, are important. At least they have been for me. But, thats just me hollering from the uppper balcony.

Pilgrim

P.S. I don't disfellowship anyone over Bible translations.

often wonder why folks with no dog in the fight, so to say, even posts on threads like this, if they are happy with the translation they use. Its like, why do atheists even debate if there is a God, if they don't believe there is, if your happy in your stance of God, or your translation why post?

I see the main problem today that the Church has had the scriptures wrested out of their guardianship. The Scriptures belong to the Church not scholars, bible societies or publishing houses. They have been taught that they have no dog in the fight and are passive towards the counterfeit versions coming out. They need to know they indeed do have a dog in the fight.

We learn in the Church that Satan has a counterfeit for everything that God has. But are insulted when we propose that he counterfeits the Scriptures, too. "What? Oh no, you have got to be off your rocker. Satan has no men under his control in these Bible Societies or Publishing Houses. How dare you even question these "scholars. Hmmmph!! You're overthinking, and you just need to accept what we give you, because we have much more education than you."

Let's see, what was the first thing Satan counterfeited (changed) in the garden?

Pilgrim

P.S. Ok, I'm outta this thread. I know where it is going. Sad that the Church has become blind to what the Enemy is doing.

pilgrim777..Ok, I'm outta this thread. I know where it is going. Sad that the Church has become blind to what the Enemy is doing.

Bill said

..Become blind to what the Enemy is doing? I believe this started with Adam and Eve.

Well, exactly Bill.

That is what I said:

And who taught Adam and Eve to doubt God's Word and to change it?

Man has learned very well, hasn't he?

The Word is watered down for one reason: Jesus Christ is onerous to the flesh, and the flesh can be very religious.

HezWelling wrote:

>>
brother Greg, if you read this, THIS is part and parcel of what i implored you about several years ago....when a man can so blithely accuse another of idolatry...or a counterfeit Relationship OR the Indwelling of God the Holy Spirit....what are we DOING HERE?....where is the Witness of Christ and Him Crucified?...where is the Love shown that makes us seem a "peculiar people" to a dying world?

What are we doing here?....broken hearted.