King James Version 100% pure

[AVBunyan]

Like I said. It does have minor problems, but it does not change any biblical doctrine. This version does recognise Jesus as God in the flesh, so it can not be construed as an evil, deceitful version as you are making it out to be. I can find translation problems in any Biblical translation.

No doctrinal issues changed???  
Below are just a few after just 5 minutes of searching:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/version1.html
http://www.scionofzion.com/nivx.htm
http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/articles.html

If one cannot see the doctrinal errors then there may be a few reason why:
1. Some folks have never been grounded in sound doctrine so they would not be able to see it when it was false.
2. They just don't want to see it - they feel comfortable going along with the world.
3. Or...they may be lost and can't see it.

God bless  

[Bronzesnake]

Like I said. It does have minor problems, but it does not change any biblical doctrine. This version does recognise Jesus as God in the flesh, so it can not be construed as an evil, deceitful version as you are making it out to be. I can find translation problems in any Biblical translation.

No doctrinal issues changed???  
Below are just a few after just 5 minutes of searching:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/version1.html
http://www.scionofzion.com/nivx.htm
http://www.geocities.com/gotcha104/articles.html

If one cannot see the doctrinal errors then there may be a few reason why:
1. Some folks have never been grounded in sound doctrine so they would not be able to see it when it was false.
2. They just don't want to see it - they feel comfortable going along with the world.
3. Or...they may be lost and can't see it.

God bless  

 After I looked the very first verse from the very first link, it was immediately clear that the folks who are screaming foul, such as yourself, are using isolated verses and building false impressions about the "apparent" evilness of the NIV.

 The first claim is that the NIV doesn't recognise any siblings of Mary and Joseph for the expressed purpose of adding "credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary"

Here is the piece directly from your first link...

 

MATTHEW

1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

 The last sentence attempts to hammer home the fact that "The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters" The inference, of course, is that the NIV does not recognise Jesus had siblings for the "evil" purpose of expounding upon the RCC's false doctrine of a perpetual virginity of Mary.

 It's clear that people such as yourself, and those who spend (waste) so much time flinging around false and misleading information in order to vilify fellow Christians, have - A) Never read the NIV - B) Read enough of it to totally misunderstand it - C) Have an agenda, and are wilfully misrepresenting the truth - D) Are just plain ignorant.

 Here's a verse straight out of the NIV...

 Matthew 13:55
“Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Guess that blows that foolishness out of the water huh?

I'm not going to waste my time responding to any more of this foolish, mean spirited nonsense my friend. You keep on believing that the NIV is all evil and scary, and I'll keep on knowing the Truth. It would do you, and others who are equally ignorant on this topic, a world of good to actually read the book before you start flinging false accusations around.


Bronzesnake

[AVBunyan]

I'm not going to waste my time responding to any more of this foolish, mean spirited nonsense my friend. You keep on believing that the NIV is all evil and scary, and I'll keep on knowing the Truth. It would do you, and others who are equally ignorant on this topic, a world of good to actually read the book before you start flinging false accusations around.Bronzesnake

Then fine - I am not sure what category you fall into in my list - will not judge -

I presented just 4 links and you focused on 1 verse from 1 link - You haven't even scratched the surface of objectively researching the matter - It appears you don't want to know.

You think all we do is pick on the NIV?!?!?  All modern versions came from Egypt - they are read basically the same.  So, yes they all basicaly agree with one another.  

This issue is a much bigger issue than just the NIV and a few changes in a few bibles.

The issue is they do not agree with the line of manuscripts that God has used and blessed for the past 1800 years - and the AV1611 came from this line - your versions came from the other line which came from Egypt.

Have a nice day

[Bronzesnake]

I'm not going to waste my time responding to any more of this foolish, mean spirited nonsense my friend. You keep on believing that the NIV is all evil and scary, and I'll keep on knowing the Truth. It would do you, and others who are equally ignorant on this topic, a world of good to actually read the book before you start flinging false accusations around.Bronzesnake

Then fine - I am not sure what category you fall into in my list - will not judge -

I presented just 4 links and you focused on 1 verse from 1 link - You haven't even scratched the surface of objectively researching the matter - It appears you don't want to know.

You think all we do is pick on the NIV?!?!?  All modern versions came from Egypt - they are read basically the same.  So, yes they all basicaly agree with one another.  

This issue is a much bigger issue than just the NIV and a few changes in a few bibles.

The issue is they do not agree with the line of manuscripts that God has used and blessed for the past 1800 years - and the AV1611 came from this line - your versions came from the other line which came from Egypt.

Have a nice day

Yes, you presented 4 links. I did go through several examples within those links, and they are all just as weak and deceitful as the first. How can you accuse me of lacking objectivity? That's truly ironic considering the example I gave which I found on the very first link and the very first verse. I exposed the deceit and total lack of evidence and credibility in your accusations in regard to the NIV.

"your versions" How do you know which version I use?

"All modern versions came from Egypt"?!!

I could make a far more credible argument for exclusively using the original text in their original language as opposed to using the KJV or any other translation for that matter - however, I would never make outlandish claims such as any translation other than the original manuscripts from antiquity changes biblical doctrine. In order to "corroborate" such an ignorant claim, I would be force to take single verses out of context, and disregard any and all other relevant verses which would lead to the full understanding and corroboration of Biblical doctrine - you know, just like you and your friends do.


Bronzesnake

[joelkaki]

Then fine - I am not sure what category you fall into in my list - will not judge -

I presented just 4 links and you focused on 1 verse from 1 link - You haven't even scratched the surface of objectively researching the matter - It appears you don't want to know.

You think all we do is pick on the NIV?!?!?  All modern versions came from Egypt - they are read basically the same.  So, yes they all basicaly agree with one another.  

This issue is a much bigger issue than just the NIV and a few changes in a few bibles.

The issue is they do not agree with the line of manuscripts that God has used and blessed for the past 1800 years - and the AV1611 came from this line - your versions came from the other line which came from Egypt.

Have a nice day

AVBunyan, no offense intended, but those links (yes, I went and read most of what was on them) were examples of horrible scholarship.  If they were supposed to prove that the newer versions change major doctrines of Christianity, they failed quite miserably.  None of the changes actually changed anything.  Most omitted some things, but that just means that that particular text doesn't teach that truth.  It doesn't mean the truth is changed (exception, the New World Translation, which is not comparable to the NIV, or NASB, etc, since it is produced by  the Jehovah's Witnesses, which deny central doctrines of Christianity.)  Other minor changes (were afraid instead of marveled???) simply DO NOT affect any major doctrines.  

Joel

[Bronzesnake]

Then fine - I am not sure what category you fall into in my list - will not judge -

I presented just 4 links and you focused on 1 verse from 1 link - You haven't even scratched the surface of objectively researching the matter - It appears you don't want to know.

You think all we do is pick on the NIV?!?!?  All modern versions came from Egypt - they are read basically the same.  So, yes they all basicaly agree with one another.  

This issue is a much bigger issue than just the NIV and a few changes in a few bibles.

The issue is they do not agree with the line of manuscripts that God has used and blessed for the past 1800 years - and the AV1611 came from this line - your versions came from the other line which came from Egypt.

Have a nice day

AVBunyan, no offense intended, but those links (yes, I went and read most of what was on them) were examples of horrible scholarship.  If they were supposed to prove that the newer versions change major doctrines of Christianity, they failed quite miserably.  None of the changes actually changed anything.  Most omitted some things, but that just means that that particular text doesn't teach that truth.  It doesn't mean the truth is changed (exception, the New World Translation, which is not comparable to the NIV, or NASB, etc, since it is produced by  the Jehovah's Witnesses, which deny central doctrines of Christianity.)  Other minor changes (were afraid instead of marveled???) simply DO NOT affect any major doctrines.  

Joel

Well stated my friend. You just took all my hard work and condensed it into a paragraph or two!   Nice job.

Bronzesnake

[AVBunyan]

Because you can find a diamond in a trash can doesn't make the trash can a jewlery store.

Because you can find the message, or the fundamentals of the faith, and some truth in the modern versions doesn't mean the modern versions are bibles?

So, because the modern versions support the doctrines in many places - is it ok to attack them in other places?

[Soldier4Christ]

Even if it is in only one verse, if a version deletes even a portion of a reference to the diety of Jesus Christ it is IMO an adulterated Bible. i.e :

1 John 5: 7-8

KJV

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.



NIV

7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


NASB

7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


Or the omission of Jesus' words to Satan:

KJV

4  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.


NIV

4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.



Some of the newer versions also leave out the last 12 verses of Mark which contain the "Great Commision":


Mar 16:15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If any portion of scripture is changed or missing then it is a corrupt Bible.

[Bronzesnake]

 Here's the thing. There are many people who can not comprehend the old English in the KJV. It confuses and frustrates many people. The NIV was translated into a simpler, modern English for such as these.

 Yes, I have stated that there are problems with the NIV, but they do not change any doctrine.

 When we read this version, we don't come away thinking Jesus is just a man, or a good teacher. We clearly understand that Jesus is God in the flesh, who came to earth being born of a virgin, performed miracles, preached as no man had ever preached prior, was falsely accused by the Jewish religious leaders, was brought before a puppet court in the Sanhedrin, was sent to Pilot, who found no fault in Him, was sent to King Herod, who mocked Him, and also found no fault in Him, was returned to Pilot by the Jewish religious leaders, who demanded that Pilot crucify Him. Jesus was brutally scourged, He was spat on and had His beard ripped out. Jesus was crucified, and died on the cross without any broken bones. His side was pierced. There was a great earth quake, and darkness enveloped the earth.
Jesus rose back to life on the third day following His crucifixion, and was seen by many people including over 500 at one time. Jesus ate with His disciples, and Jesus was seen ascending on a cloud up to heaven.

I can go on, but I believe my point is made.

Is this Bible the best translation? No. Is this the Bible we would prefer to use in a Bible study? No. Is this bible an evil corruption? No.

 I use the KJV for my personal use, but I also have used the NIV when I am in fellowship with those who can not comprehend the KJV, and I have lead many to Jesus using this Bible.

 It's not the ideal translation, but it is certainly not an evil translation either. The NWT translation definitely falls under that category, as do other "religious" books.


Bronzesnake

[joelkaki]

Because you can find a diamond in a trash can doesn't make the trash can a jewlery store.

Because you can find the message, or the fundamentals of the faith, and some truth in the modern versions doesn't mean the modern versions are bibles?

So, because the modern versions support the doctrines in many places - is it ok to attack them in other places?

I'm afraid you can find much more than just a little support for fundamental doctrines in some modern versions (I do not advocate all modern versions).  I'm actually not even that big of a fan of the NIV.  I like the ESV personally.  

I don't think they attack the doctrines in other places.  They simply render what was most probably in the original text.  

Let me ask you this question:  If, for the sake of argument, you admit that some things in a version were added to what was in the original manuscript, should that be taken out in a new translation created?  In other words, if, for the sake of argument, 1 John 5:7 was not in the original, shouldn't it be left out in a translation of the text?  

Joel

[Soldier4Christ]

Here's the thing. There are many people who can not comprehend the old English in the KJV. It confuses and frustrates many people. The NIV was translated into a simpler, modern English for such as these.

 Yes, I have stated that there are problems with the NIV, but they do not change any doctrine.

 When we read this version, we don't come away thinking Jesus is just a man, or a good teacher. We clearly understand that Jesus is God in the flesh, who came to earth being born of a virgin, performed miracles, preached as no man had ever preached prior, was falsely accused by the Jewish religious leaders, was brought before a puppet court in the Sanhedrin, was sent to Pilot, who found no fault in Him, was sent to King Herod, who mocked Him, and also found no fault in Him, was returned to Pilot by the Jewish religious leaders, who demanded that Pilot crucify Him. Jesus was brutally scourged, He was spat on and had His beard ripped out. Jesus was crucified, and died on the cross without any broken bones. His side was pierced. There was a great earth quake, and darkness enveloped the earth.
Jesus rose back to life on the third day following His crucifixion, and was seen by many people including over 500 at one time. Jesus ate with His disciples, and Jesus was seen ascending on a cloud up to heaven.

I can go on, but I believe my point is made.

Is this Bible the best translation? No. Is this the Bible we would prefer to use in a Bible study? No. Is this bible an evil corruption? No.

 I use the KJV for my personal use, but I also have used the NIV when I am in fellowship with those who can not comprehend the KJV, and I have lead many to Jesus using this Bible.

 It's not the ideal translation, but it is certainly not an evil translation either. The NWT translation definitely falls under that category, as do other "religious" books.


Bronzesnake

I understand some peoples inability to comprehend the KJV even though it is one of the lower reading levels (grade 5). It's reading level is even lower than most comic books. Most other Bible versions are at grade level 6.

Personally I found the KJV easier to read and comprehend, less confusing, than most others but then that is me. After all it was my first reader.

[AVBunyan]

Even if it is in only one verse, if a version deletes even a portion of a reference to the diety of Jesus Christ it is IMO an adulterated Bible. i.e :

If any portion of scripture is changed or missing then it is a corrupt Bible.

Thank you Pastor - sound reasoning.  The examples you used to show that were outstanding.  If one were to be honest he would have to see that the AV was more clearer and exact in the examples you used.  Nice job!

God bless

[Bronzesnake]

Even if it is in only one verse, if a version deletes even a portion of a reference to the diety of Jesus Christ it is IMO an adulterated Bible. i.e :

If any portion of scripture is changed or missing then it is a corrupt Bible.

Thank you Pastor - sound reasoning.  The examples you used to show that were outstanding.  If one were to be honest he would have to see that the AV was more clearer and exact in the examples you used.  Nice job!

God bless

 I agree with you here. I disagree that the NIV is the evil translation that you think it is.

 The KJV is the closest Bible to the origional text of antiquity. I do not dispute that.

Bronzesnake

[Soldier4Christ]

I agree, Bronze, to the extent that it is not an openly evil translation such as the NWT is. I do believe that with its ommissions as well as the footnotes and side margin notes that the NIV caused confusion and doubt as to what the Word of God truly is. It has caused many to doubt the true diety of Jesus Christ. I realise the footnotes and side margin notes are only commentaries and should be taken as such. Unfortunately there are to many people that have put more weight into them than that.

I also believe that it laid the ground work for even more evil and adulterated versions of the Bible than what the NIV is.

No matter how you look at it, even the smallest amount of evil is still evil.

[Bronzesnake]

I agree, Bronze, to the extent that it is not an openly evil translation such as the NWT is. I do believe that with its ommissions as well as the footnotes and side margin notes that the NIV caused confusion and doubt as to what the Word of God truly is. It has caused many to doubt the true diety of Jesus Christ. I realise the footnotes and side margin notes are only commentaries and should be taken as such. Unfortunately there are to many people that have put more weight into them than that.

I also believe that it laid the ground work for even more evil and adulterated versions of the Bible than what the NIV is.

No matter how you look at it, even the smallest amount of evil is still evil.

After reading through all these posts, I may be coming around somewhat to understanding the full scope of the situation. I have read the NIV and I came out with the same doctrinal beliefs that I have through my KJV. I can concede that there may be some who don't have the same biblical foreknowledge that I had when I first picked up the NIV, and perhaps that could lead to confusion - but do you really think people can read the NIV and doubt that Jesus is God? I guess anything is possible, and I know for a fact that there are lots of people who read the KJV and also have doubts, or even down and out deny Jesus is God. So could the emphasis be more on the reader than the text itself?


 Bronzesnake