Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Ken John | 110261 | ||
Hi Kalos, Yes I would be able to give you examples in the NIV. Here are some and there are many more if you require them. #1.The lies in the modern versions go much deeper than erring on who killed Goliath. They, like the Mormons, confuse Jesus with Lucifer. In Isaiah 14:12, we read: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" The verse clearly talks about Satan, called Lucifer before he fell from heaven. There are few credible scholars who question this matter. Yet, the modern translations all read, "How you have fallen from heaven, O Morning Star, son of the dawn. . ." The "modern versions" change "Lucifer" to "Morning Star". Has the devil suddenly changed his status and become some kind of a good guy? We rather doubt it. The use of "Morning Star" concerns us because of Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Jesus calls himself the "bright and morning star" so calling the devil that in Isaiah must be an incorrect translation. #2. The clearest example is in Psalm 9:17: which says,"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." The NIV reading,"The wicked return to the GRAVE . . ." is clearly absurd, for we all "return to the grave." The issue is what happens to our soul after we die. The devil would prefer that we not think about that place called hell. In fact, he would rather call it something else. So instead of using the word Hell, they come up with the nice Greek word "Hades" (also a place in Greek mythology) or Hebrew "Sheol," which is not the same as Hell.(See Matt. 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31 and many, many more, the "NEW King James" does this 29 times!) Rather than translate into the obvious word hell - THEY REFUSE TO TRANSLATE IT! When the translators are questioned about this,they contend "this is a better translation" and are "easier to read" and "understand"? Who in their right mind thinks the words Hades or Sheol is "easier to understand" than the word Hell? Why didn't they leave in the Greek word Ouranos for heaven? It's obvious! Because someone is trying to remove and cast doubt on the place called Hell! #3.The King James Bible in Luke 11:2-4, reads,"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."Incredibly, the "modern versions" take out: "which are in heaven," plus they remove "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth," and most interestingly "deliver us from evil." Heaven is completely removed! To believe these "modern scholars," God is not in heaven and does not deliver us from evil. This is sounding more and more like a demonic program from hell itself. #4.The King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible! That's right! 2 Timothy 2:15 teaches us to: "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" The "modern bible translators" apparently think that Bible study is not so necessary. The program is apparent here. Just go to a church, sit in a pew, and let the preacher "enlighten" you. Also, it will be easier for you to accept the beast system when it comes. Sorry I had to cut this short as I have exceeded the number of words I am allowed in a note. In Christ, KJ. |
||||||
2 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Taleb | 110494 | ||
Ken John, on Sunday, at 5:08 PM, you wrote on under your number 2: “When the translators are questioned about this, they contend "this is a better translation" and are "easier to read" and "understand"? Praise the Lord! Have you never read what KJV 1611’s translation’s preface declares? In effect it stated it was not their purpose to make a new translation, but to make a good one better”. Like many today, people rejected the “new translation (KJV), claiming ” the Geneva Bible (originally printed in 1560) was the only correct one. Some of the pre-Geneva’s more than likely protested when that new fangled translation came out. I can almost hear their outcry today - “What’s the matter with Wyclif’s translation? We’ve been using that since 1384. Look what they that evil King James’ translators did with Matthew 7:1,2 “ Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged…” Then they would quote what they had memorized from Wyclif’s “Nyl yee deme, that yee be no demede, for in what dome yee demen yee schulen be demede.” But those who spoke the “king’s English” accepted KJV because it read like they spoke. Like in Luke 17:9 where KJV reads “I trow not”. ! Sam 21:3 talks about scrabbled on the doors. Numbers 20:3 “the people chode”. Gen. 8:1 ”and the waters asswaged”. Sorry, but God’s intention is to remember what Jesus said about “coming as little children” and I TROW NOT (don’t think) that any child would understand what we are CHODING (arguing) about. THAT is why updated translations, which use pre-KJV manuscripts, are so important to us today. Blessings, Taleb |
||||||
3 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 110498 | ||
Taleb, a thoughtful post and your illustrations were superb. .... To be sure, the Authorized or King James Version is a noble translation and ably has stood the test of time, but time itself has become rather a formidable enemy of this distinguished opus. In but seven years hence the KJV will observe its fourth centennial, and during those four centuries the English language has undergone enormous changes as have all other living languages. Many words and phrases that were in common usage in 1611 no longer are; in fact, a large number of them are either foreign to current usage or they have changed dramatically in meaning, so much so that certain words of 1611 meant the very opposite of what they mean today. I have long admired the King James Bible and its merits are commendable, but it is rapidly becoming virtually unintelligible to speakers of modern English unless they grew up with it or are able and willing to devote considerable time and effort to learn the Elizabethan English of the KJV. I suspect that many die hards who doggedly refuse to let go of the King James, at least to a certain degree, and avail themselves of some of the newer and clearer translations do themselves undue harm, for I'm convinced that there are many who adhere rigidly (and perhaps foolishly) to the 1611 version and who are not really equipped with the necessary reading skills to unlock the riches of this older version. Such are they who would profit greatly by reading a more modern version. There is an immense span between the 1611 KJV and, say, the English Standard Version or the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Scripture presents the reader with portions that are of great complexity in any version, even in the "simplified" language of the paraphrases. It becomes enormously more difficult for the reader who is unskilled in 16ll English, because he has the formidable task of wrestlling both with archaic language and complex subject matter. --Hank | ||||||
4 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | Taleb | 110501 | ||
Thanks, Hank. I read a neat book once on this topic. Before I believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I spent some time on skid row. In order to obtain a free bed and bowl of soup, I HAD to attend the chapel meeting. Too often I heard what sounded like gibberish, such as, “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.” (Romans 7:19-21) Needless to say, I had absolutely no idea what they were trying to say. Had they used something like the NIV, well I wouldn’t have gone away with only a bed, supper and slip for breakfast. I would have become a believer a year earlier. “When I want to do good, I don’t. And when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. But if I am doing what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it. It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. ” I would have jumped up and shouted, “I know exactly what you are saying. I have the same problem. How do I get rid of this sin that keeps me from doing what I know is right?” Blessings, Taleb |
||||||
5 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | TommyS | 110502 | ||
Taleb, that quote you gave in this post WASN'T NIV, although it was similiar. What was it, please? TommyS |
||||||
6 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | CDBJ | 110506 | ||
Hi TommyS, The translation that Taleb used is one that is used quit a lot now days, I call it the Koine English, and it is known as the NLT or New Living Translation. It is very enjoyable for just reading but it’s accuracy lacks in my opinion. It is used to reach a lot of young people though and it seems to be real effective. CCBJ |
||||||
7 | NIV bible | Bible general Archive 2 | TommyS | 110510 | ||
CCBJ, thank you. Reading from the NIV and reading what Taleb quoted from made me wonder if he meant to use another translation for an example or what. It as so close, yet different. TommyS |
||||||