Why Everyone Should Use the NIV

Huh? Ok, that is a strong statement but I think it is important to read from a translation you can understand and feel comfortable with. Here are some loaded and biased questions to convince you to use the NIV over the other translations:

  • Did you know that “the authorized version” does not mean that the KJV came straight from the hand of God?
  • Did you know that all translation takes some liberty with the original language and requires interpretation to render an accurate translation?
  • Did you know that manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was translated that make a significant difference in the translation of some passages?
  • Did you know that the KJV was translated from decent but less than adequate texts?
  • Wouldn’t you want to read a translation that doesn’t require you to find a dictionary from the 1600’s to understand?
  • Do you realize that all translations have problems and that the NIV’s are no worse than those of the NASB, NRSV, etc?
  • Wouldn’t you want to use a translation that allows you to be reading the same words as most of the people in the room with you (depending on where you are)?
  • Wouldn’t you want to read a translation that structures poetry like poetry, uses paragraphs, and is generally formatted like many other things you are familiar reading?
  • Does the NIV get it all right and that the others don’t? No. None of them get it all right. We wouldn’t ever even know if a translation got it all right because we don’t totally understand everything in the Bible.

Are you convinced? 🙂 Now seriously, the NIV is a pretty good translation. I have some real problems with it but I can handle them a lot easier and they occur less frequently than many of the other translations (possibly save the NRSV). I would go with the NRSV but I like to be reading the same words everyone else is reading and when I read aloud in a Bible class or sermon I like for people to be able to follow along easily and most people in our pews have the NIV.

I would also like to mention that one thing that is left out of the old “my translation is better than your translation” is the fact that in many languages there is no translation or only one translation. We are spoiled and so we can write posts like these. We are blessed to have options as to which version we understand the best. To make translations a salvation issue or a heated discussion is very egocentric.

What questions would you ask to get someone to read from your translation of choice?

91 Responses to Why Everyone Should Use the NIV

  1. Rick says:

    I’m not sure a layman like myself is qualified to judge. We used to say that NIV meant “Necessary In Vineyard”. But I am impressed with those that are impressed with the ESV and those folks write convincingly about the differences.

    What do you think?

    I generally ask, “well, who recommends that version?” and then I judge based on my assessment of that person’s ministry. Not good I know … but what else can I do?

  2. The NIV is an excellent translation. Sometimes I scratch my head in bewilderment … but I do that with the KJV too. I would love to see an NIV with the Apocrypha but given the Evangelical prejudice on this subject I doubt that will ever happen.

    I preach out of the NIV because that is what is in our pews. My favorite is the NRSV but the NIV is not far behind.

    Shalom,
    Bobby Valentine

  3. I FINALLY got around to having some devotional time with my son last night. We decided (well I did, he is 12 and his answer was what ever, I had to make him pause his video game so that we could read together,I have been slacking off a whole lot in that area) to start in the book of John. I bought him a NIV for Christmas. I spend a lot of time in the KJV and maybe I need to start thinking that way. I really didn’t realize just how biased I was towards any other translation. Well it had been a while but I think I am going to study with it for a while

  4. Mark says:

    For me, the most comfortable one read is the HCSB…I really like it, though I don’t care for some of the extra stuff included in the bonus materials, such as a plan of salvation that skips a vital step.

    I grew up with the NIV, and I like it a lot. In my congregation, it was probably the most widely used. Then when I started preaching in Rose Bud, there were several KJV folks, and the NIV and KJV don’t mix well. I was forever having to explain why the bibles sounded different yet somehow conveyed the same idea.

    My new favorite is the ESV. It’s readable enough to be comfortable. It is literal enough to satisfy the anti-paraphrase types. It has a traditional enough word order so that KJV people can easily follow along. It’s the version I now preach and teach from. I think the ESV is exactly what the NKJV SHOULD have been.

    By the way, I have a book in my office that is the Geocentric Primer, explaining how the earth is at the center of the universe. Included with it is an essay about how the KJV is the only acceptable translation with some pretty amazing(ly bad) reasoning.

  5. Frank says:

    Zondervan used to sell (still does?) a coffee mug that says: “If King James were alive today, he’d read the NIV.”

    NIV has outdone the KJV in sales for a long time now, even though the KJV is no longer under copyright protection in the U.S., thus becoming the translation of choice for baby Bibles, cheap gift Bibles etc. (the ONLY reason KJV ranks second in sales, I believe).

    NIV is what the big majority of preachers should use. It’s what so many people have these days.

    To their credit, a good number of old-school leaders among the Churches of Christ have quit fighting the translation war, and actually make arguments similar to the ones in this post.

    Church bulletin from the year 2407: “When reading Scripture from the pulpit, use the NIV.” –The Elders

    • intell007 says:

      I believe your right………Some of my early research have told me that KING James had to get a printed Bible to his people because another one was also in the printable stage. He did not want to be beaten by another because he would lose favor with this people (the Catholics at that time) His translators wanted to make sure his people would understand the text. By doing so the translators elected to over use of words to explain each verse by being redundant through out the Bible.
      But the NIV uses a much early Manuscript called the Alexandrian Family which include the three oldest, The Codex Alexandrius, the Codex Veticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. These Manuscripts dated (AD200-400) verses the KJV at (AD 500-1000). The Kings of early put great value of these manuscripts which were passed down the ages. This makes the Alexandrian Family of manuscripts more likely to be closer to the original than the Textus Receptus (Byzantine Family) manuscripts…………Now if you want to really want to get into the Weeds, take on the task of Greek words translated to English language which can change your mind about the NT…. But God knew this was going to happen and fixed it by other scriptures. Man does not have the true translation of the Bible but God is still in control and the Holy Spirit will fix our minds….

  6. greenup says:

    The NIV is great, and the reasons you list are excellent. “Readable” is a strong point for it. (though I’ve heard that HCSB does that even better) An even better one might be “People can agree on it”… But here’s a pair of dangers in this area:
    1. Do we like it because it’s popular, or do many like it because it’s a good representation of the Truth.
    2. Are there any translations that we can point to and say “That is Wrong” (in error?!? a word? a verse? a chapter?)

    The whole bit about “infalliability” and “inerrancy of the original manuscript” (never mind the fact that nobody has a copy of that mythical object) has always troubled me; particularly because I don’t speak or read Hebrew OR Greek, much less ancient varieties. Yet Jesus said that the Kingdom of God belonged to children (or “such as these”, Mark 10:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&verse=14&version=31&context=verse ) who probably were not all educated. Salvation is given to the simple; so why do the rest of us make it so complicated?

    All that said, I change versions based on my purpose.
    For “reading”, I use the NIV.
    For “study” or “understanding”, I use the Amplified. (the best I can get without learning another language)

    -greenup

  7. I use it at church. I still don’t like it better than anything else. I still like my NASB for study. I still don’t really care what anybody else is reading. I’m just glad they are reading it.

  8. bellissimanh says:

    I don’t argue over translation anymore. For years I was a forceful (and obnoxious) supporter of the NIV. I grew up on it (PK, don’t ya know) and had read all the information about “dynamic equivalent” versus “literal translation.”

    Then I began attending a Southern Baptist church and they practically shoved NKJV down my throat, calling my NIV the “Non-inspired Version”. All in jest, of course… except that there was a little reality behind the digs. Got into many heated debates over which translation was best. One woman even criticized me for purchasing an NIV for a new believer… “I would never buy that,” she gasped. I told her I wanted the young woman to actually understand what she was reading and left it at that.

    Over time, the more I study, the more I realize that I don’t prefer one version over another. I love them all. I enjoy comparing the different translations with a parallel Bible. When they seem to be in conflict with one another, I enjoy the challenge of heading to an online Interlinear Bible and studying the Greek or Hebrew.

    Bottom line… God’s Word is God’s Word. If He could speak through Balaam’s ass, then I guess He can use just about any translation He desires, regardless of what WE think of it. So long as you pick it up and read it… I don’t care which version you read. 🙂

    That said, I do have to put a disclaimer in and state the I’m not a big fan of Eugene Peterson’s “The Message.”

    • Steve says:

      I’m confused….If you like all of these “translations”, then why are you not a big fan of “The Message”. Personally, I only use formal translations. If you look at the definition of “dynamic equivalent”, it’s basically the same as paraphrase. Would you rather study as close to the original Hebrew or Greek or would you rather study what a “translator” thinks the Hebrew or Greek is trying to tell you? My choice is obvious. I know that some of the Hebrew or Greek doesn’t translate word for word. But that’s the only time that a formal translations strays away from word for word. I don’t believe that man has the right to translate God’s Word with the latitude that the “dynamic equivalent” people do….

      • mattdabbs says:

        Hi Steve,

        Welcome to the blog…just a heads up. That comment is four years old and so I doubt you will get much response at this point. Thanks for stopping by!

      • In translating the NIV, the only time the translators did not translate each word literally was when it would have been too difficult to understand or too hard to translate. Even “literal” translations depend on judgements from the translators.

      • Ryan says:

        I know, this discussion is old. But I figured I would leave my two cents here anyway. I was saved while coming to the knowledge of Jesus using an NIV (18 years ago , just about). Today, I tend to lean toward the literal versions (KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV). NKJV being my favorite. That said, if God wanted to He could use a tomato to get His word out. We must be careful getting caught up in an argument about Bible translations. Such arguments can cause division…such as the “KJV Only” movement. I’ve talked to some KJV Onlyists who had no problem being very rude to me over such a topic. Is the KJV reliable? Sure it is. If you can understand it, and it is a blessing in your life, then by all means use it. But, like anything else we must consider that the KJV Only position can be interpreted as idolatry, and thus attempt to rise itself above the very essence of God and the message He means to communicate. The NIV served it’s purpose in aiding me to Christ. And it still continues to do so. With that understanding, it should also be noted that the NIV should not be the only one to refer to. I would say and NIV/KJV Parallel Bible (or something similar) would be useful. Peace!

  9. Frank says:

    Greenup, excellent points; especially the part about what biblicists say is necessarily inerrant: a hypothetical text that nobody has, or ever will have, or ever had for that matter.

  10. renaissanceguy says:

    NIV is highly readable. It is good to memorize from. Sometimes I cringe at the word choices, knowing a bit of Greek and Hebrew, but I like it. We use it as our family Bible.

    I believe that NASB is the most literal modern translation, and I like to read from it, despite its sounding stilted. I feel that I can tust it to relay the original languages as closely as possible in English.

  11. mattdabbs says:

    A couple of ESV mentions. I have heard it is good but have no experience with it.

    I am with Bobby V on the NRSV. From what I have seen it is probably the best translation out there.

    Clint,

    Glad to hear it. I think bellissimanh’s comment is on target. I don’t think it is worth it to get too tied to one particular translation. Just use what you understand and seek God.

    Mark,

    I will have to check out the Holman as well as the ESV sometime.

    Frank,

    I love it and will have to find one of those mugs. That is great.

    Greenup,

    There are some translations that reflect some doctrinal error (if you agree with me on a few things).

    Renaissance,

    People always point to the NASB and talk about literal being a good thing. I appreciate the attempt to reflect word for word what was there but that just doesn’t work all that well in a practical sense when translating. I think it is a good approach to study with a NASB and an NIV or NRSV that way you get a good balance. Too literal can be a problem just as much as too dynamic can be a problem.

  12. In Church of Christ circles, the NIV, ESV, and NKJV seem to be the most popular. The NIV is certainly better than the NKJV, which takes not notice of 400 years of improvements in manuscript accuracy. The ESV is really more literal than the NIV and just as readable. I do recommend you give it a serious look.

  13. mattdabbs says:

    I am going to have to give the ESV a shot.

  14. Steve says:

    I have been drawn most recently to the New Living Translation (NLT). I find it to be much more modern, readable, and a better representative of the dynamic equivalence translation model than the NIV or the TNIV. I have been disappointed that the NIV and TNIV continue to use antiquated or less than understandable language in quite a few texts. Bible translation is certainly one of the more dynamic of the sciences and for that reason translations will always lag behind a bit.

    Peace.

  15. mattdabbs says:

    Steve,

    I also really like the NLT. I think it is great for daily Bible reading. I doubt that I will study from it any time soon but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be good to study from. I have been pretty impressed by it. I also don’t quite get why the TNIV has kept some strange things and removed some perfectly adequate ones, like changing “fishers of men” to “fish for people.” in Matthew 4:19. I think that is even more awkward and changes nouns to verbs a little awkwardly as well.

  16. Steve says:

    Here’s a scholarly analysis of the NLT if you’re interested:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html

    For my personal study I make extensive use of Accordance Bible software. Easy to use and wonderful language tools. They are based out of Orlando.

    http://www.accordancebible.com

    Peace.

  17. Trey says:

    Matt … I think I’d ask a KJV only person to teach the story of Baalam to a group of school kids. Let him/her use the word “ass” a few times (as it does in the KJV) and see if the reactions he gets from the kids wouldn’t be proof enough that his translation is out of date.

  18. mattdabbs says:

    Steve,

    Thanks for the link. I am more impressed by the translation board than I am by the critique of the translation. With thousands of verses to translate it is easy to pull out the ones done poorly. There are so many verses translated very well in the NLT. I wish they would have mentioned a few more of those! Accordance? Why not switch to PC and Logos? 🙂

  19. mattdabbs says:

    Trey,

    To go along with that have a look at bellissimanh’s comment about Balaam in the last full paragraph and notice she starts the paragraph with “Bottom line…” That just cracks me up!

  20. Frank says:

    When guys insist on the KJV, have them read from the pulpit a passage like 1 Kings 21:21,

    “Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel.”

    Aye-MEN!

  21. mattdabbs says:

    I mentioned some of the fun words from the KJV in this post compliments of Jack Lewis who has compiled a list of 374 words that are nearly unintelligible in the KJV.

    There are also some passages in the KJV that reflect a Calvinist twist.

  22. Thos says:

    I’ve written about some serious problems with the NIV. I’ve been a lifelong NIV supporter and user (born & raised + a dozen years as an adult), but have been so convinced of serious problems lately that I’m on my way to something else. ESV is much more accurate (but at the expense of readability) – the accuracy allows you to catch depth of scriptural meaning that gets washed out of NIV. ESV does still have its biases. RSV is readable and accurate, though NRSV is a big no-no in my book (gender neutral, became very liberal with the Scriptures). Also, I know a Brother who has studied this far more thoroughly than I have, and he supports NKJV use.

    Peace in Christ,
    Thos

  23. mattdabbs says:

    If you want the low down on translations read Jack Lewis’ – English Bible From the KJV to the NIV. It is roughly 500 pages of critique of the major modern versions up until about 1990. I don’t have it in front of me as I type this but I have read it in its entirety. It will help you understand very quickly that all translations have problems. It is important to recognize the problems of the translations you read and study from and determine whether or not you are comfortable with. There are major problems with the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, etc that would get many to stop reading them in their entirety. I am not going to go into all the problems. Lewis already did that a lot better than I can. Have a look at his book and see what translational problems, doctrinal issues, etc are present in the translation you read. It is a must read for anyone struggling with these issues.

    I can say that for me personally I feel fine with reading and studying from the NIV, NRSV, NASB, and the NLT (as well as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the UBS3 or 4 :). I do not feel comfortable with the KJV, NKJV, or the Message (which is a translation by the way).

  24. mattdabbs says:

    I should have added the TNIV to the comfortable list.

  25. Trey says:

    I caught that too … made me smile….

  26. bellissimanh says:

    LOL… didn’t even catch that. Completely unintentional… although it WAS pretty punny… I mean, funny… if I do say so myself. 😉

  27. darqlyte says:

    INTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Versionª Bible (NIV), answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse (Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible.).

    1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. “Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, ____________ _ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you.”

    2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?

    3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

    4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate’s first name?

    5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

    6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:

    7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

    8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?

    9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

    10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

    11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

    12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

    13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

    14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

    15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

    16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

    17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

    18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

    19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

    20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain’s name? What did the chief captain command?

    21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

    22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

    23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

    24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

    25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, “I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:”

    Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it’s much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. So now what do you think of your “accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible”? If these 25 questions haven’t served to show you that the NIV is a very inferior Bible, based on a very inferior Greek text, write me and I’ll make up another quiz with 25 more questions, or 250, if you wish; but you will still flunk the text. If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible .

    by Rex L. Cobb

    NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to tell God, OUT LOUD, that the NIV is correct in deleting these words (64,098 words to be exact) & phrases?

    If not, you need to get a King James Bible so you can have some confidence.

    Dear Reader, please do not write asking me for information on Mr. Cobb, I do not have any. The test is straightforward. For other dangers of the NIV and modern Bibles, please go to our home page. For some specific verses that the NIV ENTIRELY DELETES, go to;

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

  28. mattdabbs says:

    darqlyte,

    Let me ask you one question. Have you ever translated a block of verses before from Greek or Hebrew to English? I want to address what you have posted but I need to know that first.

  29. darqlyte says:

    I would like to know how that has any bearing on the subject at hand, but no, I have not.

    “He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.” -Proberbs 18:13

  30. mattdabbs says:

    Thanks for the honest answer. Before I say anything else I want to make it clear that I don’t think you have to be a scholar to understand the Bible or that if you don’t know Greek or Hebrew you can’t come to the table. That would be a silly thing to say. However, until you have wrestled with the Greek text it is really hard to understand the issues behind why the translations are different, why words have been “left out,” etc. When you wrestle with a verse to try to get it to say in English what you are understanding it means in Greek you find out how hard it is to be literal.

    Let’s start with two of few of the issues brought up in your post…

    Inferior Manuscripts:

    Cobb mentions “inferior manuscripts” that the NIV is based on. When the KJV was translated in 1611 there were roughly 25 manuscripts at their disposal and not all of those were used. The best manuscript at their disposal, Bezae was not used at all in the translation of the KJV. The manuscripts they had at their disposal were at best a couple hundred years old in 1611 (most from the 1500s). When the NIV was translated there are more than 5000 manuscripts available to work from. Some of those are not as good as others but there are several that are of great importance in translation that are far older than anything on hand in 1611. The accuracy of New Testament translation has been greatly enhanced by these discoveries that were just not on hand in 1611.

    There is no perfect manuscript. We take for granted exact duplication through technology but that was not the case for them. They had to do it all by hand. That means that texts differ on some details. You cannot find two ancient texts that are a perfect match of each other. Not even two! Through textual criticism we have to do the best to reconstruct what was originally there. Remember there are well over 300,000 textual variants in the New Testament alone! Any credible scholar will tell you that translation is more accurately done with information from 5000+ manuscripts ranging from 150 to 1500 AD than it is done from 25 manuscripts from the 1500s.

    Add to that the fact that our understanding of the Greek language has improved significantly since 1611 and that has a huge impact on translation. The translators of the KJV did not know the difference between Hellenistic/Koine Greek and Classical/Attic Greek. Even by 1886 Thayer listed 767 words that were distinct to the New Testament. In other words there were no other documents to work with that had those words in context to help determine their meaning. Today there are less than 50 words in Greek that are only contained in the NT. Why? Because more discoveries have been made through archaeology and that helps narrow our definitions to even understand the words we are looking at.

    Missing words and phrases in the NIV:

    Some of these words and phrases have been omitted because many earlier manuscripts (some 1200 years earlier!) have been discovered since the publishing of the KJV that show that word or phrase was probably not in the original. How does that happen? Try hand copying War and Peace and see if your manuscript matches the original. Chances are you will find some errors. Then remember, the originals were written without spaces and without punctuation. All the letters from all the words are crammed together on the page. Some series of letters end up forming possibly several different words. Which was the original? Someone has to decide. Add to all of that generations of copying and copying, handing down and handing down, copying again and you can see how newer manuscripts end up with more errors. The KJV, as mentioned above, was translated from newer manuscripts which means on the whole they are prone to more errors. So the words and phrases the test tested on may not have even been original, in which case the KJV gave us text that was not scripture. That is just as big of an issue as what you say the NIV did.

    Some words and phrases were lost to dynamic equivalence. Antiquated words were updated to words that mean something in contemporary vernacular. That would seem to be a good thing that people could read their Bibles. The words may be “lost” but the concepts the words were meant to convey remains.

    Cobb implies that the NIV is in error because it is taking away from the word of God. That is simply not the case. You can point out the same “problems” from the KJV or any other translation.

  31. darqlyte says:

    I would like to note you did not answer the test, however, you have brought up a very, very important issue, probably the most important concerning God’s Word, the proper greek/hebrew texts. This is a big issue, so I’ll deal with one aspect at a time. I will be taking some excerpts from James L. Melton’s book Fighting Back. The reason I am posting here is to shed some light on this issue, which I’m afraid many, many Christians are deceived about. Please read through all of this, as it contains information you NEED to know on how to determine was IS and is NOT God’s Word, which He promised to preseve, I might add:

    “The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.” -Psalms 12:6-7

    We hear much talk these days about “older” and “more authoritative” manuscripts, but we aren’t hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come. (Never mind Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.)

    The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2:8), and allegorical foolishness (not believing God’s word literally). The strange thing is that most Christians aren’t paying any attention to what God’s word says about these two places! Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:

    Egypt $ Alexandria

    1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife (Gen. 12:10-13).

    2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave (Gen. 37:36).>

    3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25).

    4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exo. 12:12).

    5. God calls Egypt “the house of bondage” (Exo. 20:4).

    6. God calls Egypt an “iron furnace” (Deu. 4:20).

    7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt (Deu. 17:16), so why should we look there for a Bible?

    8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help (Jer. 42:13-19).

    9. God plans to punish Egypt (Jer. 46:25).

    10. God calls His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1; Mat. 2:15).

    11. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom (Rev. 11:8).

    12. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen (Acts 6:9; 7:54-60).

    13. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).

    14. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .

    Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great (a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8). Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once headmastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen (185-254 A.D.).

    QUESTION: In light of what God’s word says about higher knowledge and philosophy (I Cor. 1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1), why would any serious Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?

    Antioch

    1. Upon it’s first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon (Acts 6:3-5). Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?

    2. In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.

    3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch (Acts 11:20-21).

    4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year (Acts 11:26).

    5. The disciples were first called “Christians” at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

    6. The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).

    7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).

    8. Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church (Acts 14:19-26; 15:35).

    9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch (Acts 15:19-23, 30), because Antioch was the home base.

    10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine (Gal. 2:11).

    Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had it’s on sea port and more than it’s share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a “home base”. Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews (Jerusalem and Judaea) and the Gentiles (Rome, Greece, Alexandria, etc) that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, it’s geographical location was ideal for taking God’s word into all the world.

    So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan’s salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.

  32. mattdabbs says:

    Darqlyte,

    I didn’t answer you survey because there are no answers to it. You said so yourself. Would you mind addressing anything I wrote in my previous comment?

    I will address what you wrote. Again, I appreciate your zeal for wanting to have the correct translation. I think once you hear the other side you will find that the approach you have been reading from just doesn’t pan out very well. However, I do want to say that I think if all someone had was the KJV they would be just fine if they could understand it. I don’t think you have to have an NIV to be a Christian just like I don’t think you have to read from the KJV to be a Christian.

    The argument about texts that you bring up is the classic argument by those who favor the KJV. You cannot convince anyone that a text from 150 AD should be inferior because of something that happened to the Hebrews in that region of the world 1400 years prior. That is like saying we should not trust Great Britain today because of the Revolutionary War or that we cannot trust Rome today because of what happened to Christian under Nero. That is just plain silly.

    You said that not many people know where the “older” and “more authoritative” texts comes from. Do you know where the “Majority text” that the KJV is based on comes? Not everyone reading this will know what the “Majority text” is. So let me do a little background that will help advance this discussion.

    There is no ancient manuscript of the New Testament that everyone agrees is “it.” Everything we have are copies of copies. Every time you copy something there is a chance you will make a mistake. You may write a line twice. You may get to the end of the line and accidentally skip the next line. You might be rewriting Matthew and remember the verse from Mark and accidentally write it that way in Matthew. There are a number of errors that were made in the manuscripts we have.

    The Majority text approach tries to solve this problem by laying down a ground rule – The reading that exists in the most manuscripts is the one we will use to construct what we think is the best Greek New Testament we can come up with. Sounds like a good approach. There is one HUGE problem. The newer a manuscript is the more likely it is to contain textual errors because it has been copied more times than an older text. There will always be more newer manuscripts than older manuscripts that means when you count them all up to figure out the reading there is more weight on the newer manuscripts (which typically have far more textual errors) than old manuscripts. This is true of any piece of literature. When Moby Dick was written there was one original manuscript. As time goes on more and more are printed. The printing press assures us that we have the same thing as the original. They didn’t have the printing press so manuscripts contain copying errors. It is just a fact of life.

    Let’s say you sat down today with all available manuscripts to make your “Majority text” of the NT. Out of 5500 available texts you may have 4500 texts/fragments that were copied after 1300 AD and and only 1000 from before 1300 AD. If an error is copied over and over and over again or a phrase has been added in error and is copied over and over again it will make it in your majority text because the number of texts with that error might outnumber the number that do not have the error because the only way to find it without the error is to go back to a text that is older than when the copying error took place (and there are fewer older texts than newer texts). You don’t make use of the older texts because the newer ones outweigh them in your count. Yet the older texts tend to have less scribal errors because they have been copied fewer times.

    Any serious NT scholar will tell you it is a fallacy to think that the KJV was written from better manuscripts than several of the translations available today.

  33. darqlyte says:

    “He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.” -Proberbs 18:13

    ‘However, I do want to say that I think if all someone had was the KJV they would be just fine if they could understand it.’ Funny you should mention that. Please read this article on that: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjveasy.html

    ‘I don’t think you have to have an NIV to be a Christian just like I don’t think you have to read from the KJV to be a Christian.’ The title of this forum is “Why Everyone Should Use The NIV” You don’t think you need to read it to be a Christian, but you do believe it’s the best translation out there, seemingly. And I don’t believe you have to read the Authorized to be a Christian, for it is by grace through faith that we are saved, however, if you don’t have the right Bible, God’s Word, how will you know that you need to be saved?

    ‘I didn’t answer you survey because there are no answers to it. You said so yourself.’ That’s the point. You cannot answer those question with an NIV. ‘Would you mind addressing anything I wrote in my previous comment?’ Well, I’d like to think I did. The subject here is manuscripts. The manuscripts that the NIV is based on are the Synaticus and Vaticanus, which ultimately come from Alexandria, Egypt, and if you read what the BIBLE says about Egypt, then it should be a red flag if you got a manuscript from there. If God didn’t want Israel to get horses from them, why should He want us to get bible from them?

    ‘There is one HUGE problem. The newer a manuscript is the more likely it is to contain textual errors because it has been copied more times than an older text.’ You seem to be doubting God’s PROMISE to preserve His word, as I wrote earlier: “The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.” -Psalms 12:6-7 | Now that is a clear promise from God that He WILL preserve His Word FOR EVER. Let’s look at a brief history of these older manuscripts that the NIV is based on:

    When the New Testament was first inspired of God, it was hand written manuscripts that the people copied. (There was no printing press invented yet) After the death of John (approx.90-100 A.D.) the Church began to spiritually decline, and the manuscripts became “notoriously corrupt” because there was no Apostolic and Prophetic structure left in the Church. This corruption lead by Origen of the School of Alexander. They were changing, and the leaving out scriptures concerning the Deity of Christ, claiming these were corrections, just as scholars do today! (Acts.8:37, Mark.16:9-20, Matt.1:25, Eph.3:9 are some examples) However, God still preseved His Word! (Jer.1:12, Matt.5:18) This corruption became so great, that Constantine called the council of Nicaea.(325 A.D.) The overwhelming majority condemed this corruption and established the “Nicaean Creed.” Constantine then had 50 offical Bibles hand written and set in the Churches to correct this corruption. However, when these offical Bibles where hand copied, the corruption was left in. By 382 A.D. there was a need for a Latin translation of the scriptures, because Latin had become the language of that time.This translating was performed by Jerome, who used the corrupt Greek text of the 50 offical Bibles, that Contanstine had hand copied. This was the New Testament UNTIL Erasmus placed God’s Word back into the Greek language (1466-1536 A.D.) eliminating the corrupt manuscripts. (This became known as the “Textus Receptus.”) Erasmus had a student named Martin Luther, who God called out and began the Reformation. During this time(1525-36 A.D.) Tynadle translated the Greek Text of Erasmus in English. By this time the printing press had been invented, allowing the Word of God to be placed back into the peoples hands. Since the Reformation until the King James Version, the Bible has been translated from the Textus Receptus.

    In 1870 A.D. Bible scholars in the Church of England decided that something should be done to bring the English reader nearer to the original Bible languages. (They are still trying!) Therefore they formed a Revision committee. This committee was joined by two individuals named, Westcott and Hort, who introduced two manuscripts that they claimed were older and more reliable than the King James Version. These two manuscripts were called, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. They claimed that Erasmus did not know about them. The fact is Erasmus did know and rejected them because they are two extant (i.e. still in existance) manuscripts from Constantines 50 offical Bibles. Nevertheless, the Revision committee gave place to Wescott and Hort and exalted these to have “the” authority over The Textus Receptus.

    I don’t want to argue in circles, I want to present the evidence, and this is addressing what you have wrote. ‘Yet the older texts tend to have less scribal errors because they have been copied fewer times.’ You say the older ones are more realiable, well, let’s investigate. Let’s see where these older manuscripts came from. Let’s see how they are different than other manuscripts. Do they compromise doctrine? Do they attack the Deity of Jesus Christ? His Virgin Birth? His ascension? His atonement? The way of Salvation? We should rightly divide the Word of Truth, and find out if these older manuscripts are realiable, just as we should the manuscripts the Authorized is based on, and every other translation, not just in english.

  34. mattdabbs says:

    I appreciate your response. Let me follow up on a couple of things. I will get to the rest of it when I get a couple of resources in front of me to make sure I am accurate in what I write.

    1) The website you mention has cherrypicked the chapters that are on a lower grade level in the KJV than other translations. You can do that with any translation and find a couple dozen chapters that work out on a lower grade level. Do you know what the grade level is of the entire KJV? 12th grade. The NIV is on an 8th grade level if my memory is correct. I will double check that tomorrow but I know for a fact that those who have analyzed it have found on the whole (not just select chapters) that the NIV is more easily understood than the KJV. That really shouldn’t be any surprise.

    As far as which translation I think is the “best,” in my post I said I thought the NRSV is the best translation out there and not the NIV. The first line of the post even says that the title is a bit strong.

    You wrote, “The subject here is manuscripts. The manuscripts that the NIV is based on are the Synaticus and Vaticanus, which ultimately come from Alexandria, Egypt, and if you read what the BIBLE says about Egypt, then it should be a red flag if you got a manuscript from there. If God didn’t want Israel to get horses from them, why should He want us to get bible from them?”

    – Did you read what I said about disliking Great Britain based on what happened in 1776? What God said about horses and Egypt in the Old Testament has NOTHING to do with the quality of 2nd or 3rd century AD manuscripts from Egypt. Tell me how you can logically connect in context the passage you site and deciding whether or not Alexandrian texts are reliable.

    You wrote, “You seem to be doubting God’s PROMISE to preserve His word, as I wrote earlier: “The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.” -Psalms 12:6-7 | Now that is a clear promise from God that He WILL preserve His Word FOR EVER.”

    – All texts, even those used by the KJV, have textual variants. It is a fact of life. Does that mean God didn’t keep his promise? Of course not.

    You close with, “Let’s see where these older manuscripts came from. Let’s see how they are different than other manuscripts. Do they compromise doctrine? Do they attack the Deity of Jesus Christ? His Virgin Birth? His ascension? His atonement? The way of Salvation? We should rightly divide the Word of Truth, and find out if these older manuscripts are realiable, just as we should the manuscripts the Authorized is based on, and every other translation, not just in English.”

    That is a tall order to try and do that with 5300+ texts. You may not be aware that the KJV has some severe doctrinal problems of its own.

  35. mattdabbs says:

    A couple of additional notes:

    The reason Constantine called the Council of Nicea was to keep the churches as “the glue” of the empire. It was politically motivated unity rather than theologically motivated unity. Constantine was no purist. After his “conversion” he worshiped and served as the high priest for pagan gods. He was baptized years later on his deathbed by an Arian bishop.

    According to your line of reasoning on Egypt – who would want to use manuscripts that were favored by a pagan emperor?

    The KJV translators were highly complimentary of Jerome and his work on the Vulgate in the preface of the 1611 KJV. You talk as if the KJV translators understood all of these issues or as if they were combating them. It was nothing of the sort.

    The KJV translators understood the importance of variations in the text and even originally had the significant variant readings they knew of in the margins. That has been left out of more current printings. Does that mean they thought God broke his promise of passing down his word to the generations (Psalm 12)? Of course not. Only 40 years after the KJV was published Kilburne claimed to have found 20,000 errors in the text. Additionally, by this time the KJV had over 24,000 variants in the English text across six versions (Jack Lewis KJV to NIV, p. 39). The KJV has been revised over and over again. If the KJV is the best translation, which one are we to use?

    Does the KJV compromise doctrine (again, thanks to Lewis for pointing these out)?
    – Calvinism (Acts 2:47, Gal 5:17, heb 6:6)
    – Perseverance of the saints (Heb 10:38)
    – Original sin (Rom 5:12 – marginal reading in the 1611)

    Lastly, you wrote Erasmus rejected Sinaiticus and Vaticanus because they were two of Constantine’s 50 “official bibles.” First of all Sinaiticus was discovered in 1859. Erasmus did his translation work in the 1500’s. I doubt he was able to consider a text that had not been discovered. Even if that were not the case, both of these manuscripts were of Egyptian/Alexandrian origin and not from Constantine.

  36. darqlyte says:

    ‘According to your line of reasoning on Egypt – who would want to use manuscripts that were favored by a pagan emperor?’ Apparently.. you? Constantine, who wasn’t a Christian to begin with, called for this counsel, for whichever reason, he ordered 50 Alexandrian ‘bibles’ made and sent to the churches to correct the problem, but the corruption was LEFT IN the Alexandrian ‘bibles’.

    This is the origin of the manuscripts used for just about every modern translation starting with the RSV in 1881, whose texts, the Sinaticus, discovered in a trash can of all places, and Vaticanus, in the library of the Vatican, were promoted by Westcott and Hort, who were not bible-believing Christians and who disbelieved key doctrines of the faith and were possibly involved in witchcraft.

    The NIV is based on these manuscripts, that is why it has words and whole verses MISSING. Not to mention the way it was translated and who had a part in it.

    ‘The KJV has been revised over and over again. If the KJV is the best translation, which one are we to use?’ These ‘revisions’ consisted of punctuation, spelling and other minor etymological corrections, the differences amounting to about 1/20th of 1% of the text. Overall is it still substantially the same. Current printings are from the 1769 edition, which was the last.

    ‘First of all Sinaiticus was discovered in 1859. Erasmus did his translation work in the 1500’s. I doubt he was able to consider a text that had not been discovered.’ The Sinaticus wasn’t discovered ’til around the 1800’s, in a trash can at a monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai. The Vaticanus was in the Vatican library, great place to get a bible, and it was first catalogued in 1475 I’m pretty sure. So still the Vaticanus would have been availible to Erasmus and the AV translators.

    Hopefully later I can post or give a reference for some more info in these two texts.

  37. mattdabbs says:

    Call me crazy but we will just have to disagree on this one. You aren’t going to change my mind on it and I am clearly not going to change yours. Thank you for your time and energy in clearly expressing your views. I appreciated re-thinking through some of this. It was healthy for me. Best wishes to you. I hope you stick around and continue to offer your insights. God bless,

    Matt

    P.S. I think if you do some looking you will see that Vaticanus was in the Vatican library but no one knew it was there at the time of Erasmus. Just wanted to point that out. Great thoughts. I think you did as best as someone could in defending the KJV. Take care.

  38. darqlyte says:

    I knew that odds are I wouldn’t convince you, my goal was to bring out more information on this topic, since I am very sure that most people do not know much about it and think it’s trivial, and it is in no wise trivial. This will be my last post, in it I would like to link to some sermons on the subject that better explain it than I can, and some other tidbits of information about the NIV and other translations.

    “He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.” -Psalm 18:13

    First, I will cite some sermons by several people, they all can be found on sermonaudio.com.

    Four Ways The King James Bible Is Superior, Dr. D. A. Waite
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=41101162927

    (The NASV was rejected by it’s co-founder!)
    Rejecting The American Standard Version, Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6260443325

    The Bible Version Controversy Explained
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8150514459

    (One Of A Series Of Three)
    Lucifer Is Not The Morning Star, Pastor Michael Slattery
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6290705924

    Here are some websites:

    Fighting Back! by James L. Melton
    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

    The New Eye Opener: 200 Changes Examined
    http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

    The World’s Fastest Bible Memory Plan (For The NIV Only)
    http://www.biblebelievers.com/knox/knox2.html

    And finally, I would like to share some tidbits of info about the NIV in particular that you may not know. Please, do NOT take my word for it, look this stuff up for yourself, and see if it’s true or not.

    Publisher Of NIV Also Publishes “Satanic Bible”

    “In 1988, Zondervan became a division of HarperCollins, one of the world’s leading English-language publishers. HarperCollins is part of News America Publishing Group, a division of News Corporation. ”
    (Zondervan, Customer Support)

    If you visit online at Harpercollins.com, you will find some very discouraging and evil books for sale that are published by this company. There are number of PRO-HOMOSEXUAL titles. And amidst these evil books, we find the following advertisement from this same publishing company: “The foregoing is excerpted from ‘Satanic Bible’ by Anton La Vey. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced without written permission from HarperCollins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022”

    Notice that HarperCollins not only publishes homosexual books, they publish the “Satanic Bible”! And then, what else do we find offered from such a publisher of sleazy, God-forsaken books in these last days? Let’s read some more from their own web site: “‘The Holy Bible (Mass Market PB): New International Version,'”

    This leading publisher of homosexual books, and blatantly Satanic books, is also the publisher of the NIV!: James 3:12; “Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.”

    Zondervan is a subsidiary of HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He is one of the biggest produces of worldwide pornography on the planet. And his company, Zondervan, holds the exclusive distribution rights to the NIV. This conglomerate also publishes “Good News for Modern Man” and “The Amplified Version.”

    In these perilous, last days, pornography has evolved into a $10 billion per year industry! This is not surprising. Once we even begin to frown upon the landmarks and barriers set by former generations, we are sliding down a slippery slope: “The old ways are not good enough for our generation. The old paths are too narrow (Jer.6:16, Heb12:13). The Old Version is too restrictive. We want to wear what we please and view whatever we desire.” But once a knot is finally untied, the whole quickly unravels. Pornography never satisfies:

    Proverbs 27:20; “Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.”

    Those who view pornography become enslaved by it. They must become increasingly depraved as they demand things more perverse than before (Rom.1:26, Prov.1:19). Pornography breeds sodomy. And then sodomy breeds child molestation and other vile deeds. Therefore, a society given over to pornography under the guise of “free speech,” is a society that is exploding (or about to explode) with rapists, murderers, cannibals, adulterers, molesters, abusers, etc. The Word of God (and the experience of history) teaches that a nation or kingdom given over to such depravity will quickly self-destruct. The Bible predicts just such a state for the entire world in the coming Tribulation period:

    Revelation 9:21; “Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.”

    The Bible NEVER says we are to be gullible or simple! In fact, it clearly warns against these things:

    Philippians 1:9; “And this I pray, that your LOVE may abound yet more and more in KNOWLEDGE and in ALL JUDGMENT;”

    Proverbs 14:15; “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”

    Ephesians 5:11; “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather REPROVE them. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. ”

    2 Corinthians 2:11; “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are NOT IGNORANT of his devices.”

    If we believe in a literal Devil who is transformed into an angel of light
    (along with his ministers), do we really think that he will not attempt to corrupt the Word of God? My second question is, in what manner will he attempt to corrupt it? Will he launch an open attack or a SUBTIL attack? Did ye never read in the scriptures (Mt. 21:42, Gen. 3:1, 2 Cor.11:3)?

    Should these new bible publishers (owned by men making millions off of pornography) be trusted to provide you with the unadulterated Word of God? They live for money. Why is it that they are not afraid to promote the N.I.V.? Could it be that they know that these versions are so watered-down that they will not hurt their blossoming pornography business?

    Two people who were involved with the translation of the NIV were sodomites (homosexuals). Their names and roles were as follows:

    Dr. Marten Woudstra, tthe Chairman of OT Committee for the NIV, and,

    Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, who was a linguist/literary critic.

    Please, do not take my word for it, check it out for yourself. I pray that you will search these things out and evaluate what is the true Word of God.

    “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” -Psalm 11:3

  39. mattdabbs says:

    Re-read your above post with the reminder that King James was gay. He was certainly more closely connected to the translation than any homosexual off shoot of Zondervan would be to the NIV. So you can take your own advice and reprove the KJV as well. Once you remove all translations that have any connections to someone who has sinned which ones are you left with? Any suggestions?

    I am not trying to be smart with you. I am just saying that if you view the NIV as evil and vile because some other company connected with Zondervan puts out smut like that then you should be even handed with the KJV and its background. Just something to think about.

  40. darqlyte says:

    And I will try not to be smart with you, sir.

    ‘Re-read your above post with the reminder that King James was gay.’ You mean King James was happy? Well, I supose he was, most people are, not constantly, but perhaps you mean he has a joyful, happy nature about him. 🙂 I think the word you are looking for is ‘sodomite’ not ‘gay’, THAT word means: 1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful. ‘Belinda smiled, and all the world was gay.’ 2. Fine; showy; as a gay dress. 3. Inflamed or merry with liquor; intoxicated; a vulgar use of the word in America. | ‘sodomite’ means: 1. An inhabitant of Sodom. 2. One guilty of sodomy. | ‘sodomy’ being a person lying down with mankind as with womankind, which is an abomination according to God.

    Now that we have our words/definitions cleard up, do you have any proof of this? I didn’t see any offered. But I will post something on that, but first a few things. Even IF James was a sodomite, he did not play a part in the translation process, all he did was lay out the rules. Listen to Dr. Waite’s message for some more on that.

    I will post some more information on Dr. Woudstra and Mollenkott, since I have a sizable chunk to post. This is an excerpt taken from ‘The Answer Book’ by Samuel C. Gipp.

    QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true? ANSWER: No.

    EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen. Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

    At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James’ desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history’s most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

    James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled “Counterblast to Tobacco”,which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

    Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

    The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn’t true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God’s book to a more “modern” translation.

    It seems though, that Weldon’s false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
    It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.

    In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot’s victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.

    It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.

    Can you refute anything I said about Zondercan, HarperCollins, NewsCorp, or Rupert Murdoch and the NIV connection? If so, please state the information, correct me if I am wrong.

    “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” -Psalm 11:3

  41. mattdabbs says:

    I will address what you want me to address when you address the content of my previous comments. You haven’t touched 90% of the evidence I have brought up about the KJV. You haven’t talked about any of the doctrinal problems that plague the KJV. You haven’t refuted my point that you have taken the passage on Egypt of context. I would love to continue but not if the issues are not going to be addressed. Do you care to talk about any of that or is this conversation done?

    Respectfully,

    Matt

  42. darqlyte says:

    Whether you respond to what I wrote or I respond to what you wrote should not give the other excuse not to respond. Otherwise I could say the same thing, and ask you to respond to what I wrote before I do to yours, and then no one gets anywhere. So please sir, address what I wrote regardless, than way even if I don’t respond, you will be in the right, and can say I have no reason not to.

    ‘You haven’t touched 90% of the evidence I have brought up about the KJV.’ Well, I have I short term memory, so I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ you are refering to exactly, I probably should reread some stuff though. And I know I brought up the Authorized, but the topic of this discussion is really the NIV, though it does go into other versions. And I haven’t seen much of what I’ve brought up about the NIV answered or refuted, quite simply because, as you said to the NIV test, there is no answer, it’s just the plain facts about the NIV, it’s texts, translators, and association.

    ‘You haven’t refuted my point that you have taken the passage on Egypt of context’ Ok, let me try explaining it again, now mind you, I’m not saying JUST because the texts came from egypt it’s automaticly discarded, I am saying that, much along with the connections with Zondervan and Murdoch, it should serve as a red flag, it should make you think ‘maybe something’s wrong here’ and look into it more, just as if you found something questionable about the KJV, look it up, study it out, and show the differnce between the holy and profane.

    Anyways, back to my point. (1) The texts that the NIV is translator from are the Synaticus and Vaticanus, which were found in questionable places, and introduced by VERY questionable men (Westcott & Hort). Now these texts ultimately come from Alexandria Egpyt. (2) Ok, so we have some manuscripts of Egypt, hmm, I wonder what the Bible says about Egypt? Not very favourable things, I mean, it’s used as a type of the world in scripture, and God did not want His people getting horses from them (just as He does not want us going to the world for anything). (3) So, if God didn’t want them getting horses from Egypt, why in the world would He want us to look there for His preserved Word?

    ‘That is like saying we should not trust Great Britain today because of the Revolutionary War or that we cannot trust Rome today because of what happened to Christian under Nero.’ Ok, let me ask you something then; did God give any warning about Britain or Rome? Did he say not to get anything from then? Were they used as a type of the world in scripture? Egypt is something that scripture mentions and gives warning about. I don’t see many warning about Britain or Rome. So it’s not ‘silly’, I am seeing what scripture says about a particular country where these texts came from. Now again, I’m not saying JUST because they originate in Alexandria we should shun them, but we should see what God said about Alexandria and look into it more. The same can be said about Antioch and the things God said about them. They were favourable, and so we should also check those things out.

    ‘You haven’t talked about any of the doctrinal problems that plague the KJV. ‘ I assume you’re refering to this.

    ‘Does the KJV compromise doctrine?’
    -Calvinism -Acts 2:47; “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

    Gal. 5:17; “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”

    Heb. 6:6; “If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.”

    -Perseverance Of The Saints -Heb 10:38; “Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.”

    -Original Sin -Rom 5:12; “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (marginal reading in the 1611)

    For one, I’m not sure if you mean do they compromise those doctrines or do they teach these doctrienes, because Acts 2:47 seems to support Cavinism but Romans 5:12 seems to teach original sin, so please clarrify what you meant exactly. This post is gettinga bit lengthy so if you would be so kind as to clarrify what you mean by those verses, I would appreiciate it. I studied some of these out a bit trying to better understand it, and I admit I did not at first, and I don’t understand all of them, but I would like to share what I found, so thank you for mentionaning them, we should all study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman needing not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    Two last question; without using a dictionary or looking it up or asking anyone else, what do the words ’emasculate,’ ‘proconsul,’ and ‘terebinth,’ mean? And according to Micah 5:2 (in the NIV) did Jesus Christ have an origin? Thank you.

  43. mattdabbs says:

    Here are a couple of things to read. This book has a good critique of both the KJV and the NIV and doesn’t hold any punches with either one. Here is the link to purchase it. I would strongly recommend reading it because it looks to me like you are getting fed a solid diet of one side of the debate but not the other. Here is the link – From the KJV to the NIV by Jack Lewis

    See also his book – Questions You’ve asked about bible translations.

    I have spent way more time on this post than I ever intended and a lot of it has been good but there comes a point in time you have to move on. I think I have reached that point. All I can say is I have read a dozen books on the topic have looked at the translations myself, have done translation, am aware of the history and would still pick the NIV over the KJV any day. Does it have it’s problems? Yes. Does the KJV have it’s problems? Yes. But I would take the NIV’s problems over the KJV’s any day. I would also feel sorry for any new 16 year old convert who could only study from the KJV. It just makes too many hurdles to jump through for the average 21st century younger person or even adult to have to jump over.

    Have a look at the above mentioned books, the first one especially. It will really round out your education on translations by a man who has a Ph.D. in Old and New Testament from Harvard and Hebrew Union. I have the utmost respect for Jack Lewis. Good luck in your studies. Thank you for making me think. God bless,

    Matt

  44. darqlyte says:

    You did not clarrify what you meant or answered my question, but I will share what I have found so far on those cited passages. And I appologize for the length of this, hopefully this will be by last post on this topic, and we can both leave it at that.

    – Calvinism – Acts 2:47; “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Now I assume you mean that the phrase ‘such as should be saved’ is taken to mean the elect, according to calvinists, the pre-chosen of God, and so, they should be saved because they are chosen. Now if you just read the verse, you may think that, I haven’t when I’ve read it, but here is what I have found.

    (1) Who was added to the church daily? ‘such as should be saved’

    (2) Ok. Now according to the bible, who should be saved? I cite these verses: “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” -John 3:7 | “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” -Acts 4:12 | Now Christ said ‘ye must be born again’ and this is one reason the ‘thees thous and thines’ are important, they preserve the particular distinction in who’s talking to who. Note he first said ‘thee’ talking to Nicodemus, then said ‘ye’ talking to everyone else, instead if just saying ‘you’ and ‘you’ which blurs the lines of who he is talking to.

    Anyways, Christ said ‘ye’ as in everyone else, so everyone else MUST be born again. And in Acts it says ‘whereby we must be saved’ note the same word, MUST be saved, so, when Acts 2:47 says ‘such as should be saved’ it’s talking about lost people, sinners who should be save, MUST be saved, and were added to the church, not as sinners, but as new creatures in Christ.

    Gal 5:17; “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” Personally, I’m not sure what you mean by this verse, it’s talking about the relationship between the old and new man, and that they are contrary one to another. Because we haven’t gotten our new bodies yet, we aren’t perfect, we still sin, but we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the only begotten of God. So I’m not sure how that teaches Calvinism.

    Heb 6:6; “If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.” This is a hard verse, I admit I don’t fuller understand it either, but you should read the context first and that will give a better understanding. Hebrews 1-3 is talking about going ‘unto perfection’ not sinless, mind you, but maturity in Christ as a Christian, and going on to other matters and not laying the foundations again of simple doctrines that are listed. Hebrews 4-6 is saying ‘For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened..If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;’ Hebrews 7-8 is talking about fruits, bearing the right fruits, and if the wrong fruits are borne the plant is rejected ‘whose end is to be burned.’ | I don’t entirely understand what that passage means, but just because a certain passage may be hard to understand does not mean it was mistranslated. Study it out more and pray and ask God to show you what His Word means.

    – Perseverance of the saints – Heb 10:38; “Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” From Hebrews 32 onwards he’s encouraging the hebrews not to give up, to endure the afflictions and the reproaches ‘knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.’ Verse 35 says: “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.” So he is urging these people not to draw back, to give up, but to press onward knowing the reward they have in heaven.

    I don’t know where you’re getting the idea of saints having to persevere for salvation, they should persevere not doubt, but I don’t see how you get salvation out of this passage, all it says is ‘my soul shall have -no pleasure- in him’ now God may not be pleased with you as a Christian, being rebellious and not doing as He has said, but if you’re really His son, he’ll chasten you as it says in Hebrews. All the verse says is if a man draws back God won’t have any pleasure in him, God will not be pleased. I don’t get how you get salvation from that.

    – Original sin – Rom 5:12; “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” – marginal reading in the 1611) I’m not sure what you mean by cicting it, again. So far as ‘original sin’ goes, well, the verse says what it says, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, and death by sin. So because we sin, we die. Seems pretty clear.

    ‘But I would take the NIV’s problems over the AV’s any day’ That is a rather strong statement, and that is your choice, which you think to be right. I don’t see how if you know that much about the NIV’s texts, translators, technique, doctrine (compromised), and associations you could still support it, but that’s me. And if you ask the same how I could support the AV, well, listen to Dr. Waite’s message, it covers for superiorities of the AV. And if you still think King James was a sodomite, here is a short article to consider with some excerts from stuff the king wrote himself: http://wayoflife.org/fbns/was-kingjames-homosexual.html
    And, Homosexuality & the NIV: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

    I have stated my case, everyone, please look into all these things yourselves, do not take my word for it, and trust me, God’s Word is THE foundation for our faith: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy WORD is truth.” -John 17:17 | “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall MAKE you free.” -John 8:32 | “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” -Psalm 11:3

    If we do not know the truth, how can we be made free? If the foundation of our faith, the bible, God’s Word, is destroyed, what can the we do?

  45. mattdabbs says:

    Thanks for the response and your investigation into those passages. That is what it is going to take on both of our parts is to do some seeking. The most even handed look at the translations I have seen is the book I mentioned above. It is an education in itself and is a must read for anyone who finds these issues important. I don’t cite it because it holds up the NIV and tears down the KJV. It cites problems of both. I cite it because it is very honest and straightforward and is worth a read.

  46. cody says:

    I use the kjv and alweays will how dare u say the kjv is out of date the niv stands for non inspired vershon the niv in isaiah 14 calls lucefer the morning star and in revelation 22 cals Jesus the morning star how can u call satin and Jesus the same thing?? what about all the verses missing in the niv?? try to read matthew 18:11 u cant its not there the kjv isnot out of date it dosent call satin and Jesus the same name and its not missing verses !!!
    the manuscrips for the niv were thrown out by the catholic church !!
    and an alesbein helped translate the niv I thoght that sodomey was an abomanation to God?? THe Bible is soposto be inerrot . say what u will do some reserch pray about it I believe the kjv is the only acuret bible in the english

  47. mattdabbs says:

    Cody,

    Thanks for your thoughts. I have looked at both. I have researched both. I have used both. I have read a dozen books on the subject and done translation and compared with both. I have looked at relevant manuscript issues and have come away with the NIV being a step up from the KJV. Sorry you don’t feel the same way. I am sure you will do quite fine with the KJV and I will be alright with the NIV.

  48. Wesley says:

    I would have to agree with Cody, although I would say most bibles translated from the majority texts are safe to read. The NIV has left so much out that it is more similar to the Jehovah’s witness bible than it is to the AV, just look at Westcott, Hort and Origens beliefs about Jesus and you soon see why so many verses were omitted or changed for the revised version.

  49. mattdabbs says:

    Wesley,

    I appreciate your opinion on this and I think it is important that we back up what we say rather than just toss out statements without any foundation or proof. You say that so much has been left out that it makes the NIV more like the Jehovah witnesses’ Bible, etc. How so? Which doctrines have been compromised by the NIV committee’s decision not to include several verses that are contained in the Majority text? Do you know why those verses are not included? Do you know the content of those verses? See this post for the text of the omitted verses.

    There are about 45 verses or portions of verses that have been left out of the NIV New Testament. There are no doctrines challenged or have a make or break status based on any of those verses. Have a look at that other post and let us know what you think. Also, please explain how the NIV’s doctrine has been formed more closely to the Jehovah Witnesses based on text selections. Blessings,

    Matt

  50. jim says:

    I have little Faith in the NIV-Pervision, yet I do beleive that Born Again Christians have the power, Gift of “decenment”, the ability to decern the Truth “in His name”. So! If one is a KJV, Spirit filled, reader of the WORD, of some time, I beleive he can decern what is lacking, missing or just gutted from the KJV, with 65,000 words,missing, and that is just the beginnig, I hear many, mostly young, new, unread Bible Christians rave about the NIV. Yet. When ask if about the years they have had in decernment of the KJV, they frown, get rebellious, or proceed to speak aqbout the NIV as the true Word of God. Yet. They have little or no experience with the KJV, which has brought billions to Salvation since 1611. Even the 1569 Geneva is preferable to me. This business of easy reading, progressive enlightenment, and a large amount of the English missing is disturbing. Recentle, I was discussing the NIV and KJV. He thought it was great because it was easy for his children due to the simple vocabulary. I stated, 60 years ago, we had no Strongs, Bible Dictionary or PC in my home, yet, we, poorly educated peiople had no problem reading and understanding. Our parents and Pastor read, decerned and filled us with the Spirit filled word of God with the concern for our learnimg so much, plus the English vocabulary. Yes. Thanks to Liberal Christians and Political Correct , Evil, “religions”, enemies of the Sons of God, Masaons, Illuminati, Masons and Jesuits, the Word of God has been in a steady downward spiral since the first New Age “religion”, Catholicism, wrote their demonic perversion of God’s word. The KJV of 1611 correted that , but the liberals, demons of perversions, keep cuuting away at the One True Word, the KJV. As a Bible student of many years, I can read, decern the discrepecies in the NIV and enjoy it to some degree. When you know the Truth, you know when you have a transilation of mis information in your hands……….Plese don’t take my thoughts on the subject of NIV vs KJV personal, or an attack. But, before one makes a full decission about the two, I suggest that you go to the Internet with the debate, finding a complete and clear explanation , and an honest clarification of both.
    Jesus is Lord. And He knows the difference between Man and Woman, and how many days it took God the complete His creation. And, you mihgt look on the net for “Why is the word sodomite missing from the NIV. Learn how many Sodomites help put the NIV together. And yes. It does matter. His WORD in a book of truth. Facts, in His name.

  51. mattdabbs says:

    Jim,

    Thank you for presenting a dissenting viewpoint. This is something I have read a considerable amount of literature about. I have read the debates and I have formed my own conclusions. This is one area I think we are free to differ and not think the other person is going to hell. I think someone can study the word of God from the KJV or the NIV and get an accurate picture of Jesus Christ and God’s intention of the key points of scripture.

    This issue will pretty much be dead in 25 years so I hope you don’t think all Christians who use versions than the NIV are going to hell because if that is true I am going to hell and pretty much 95% of future Christians will be too. Like you said don’t take this personal. This is just my take on it and I appreciate the fact that you took so much time to type such a lengthy and well thought out response.

  52. patrick says:

    jim,

    It’s that type of attitude that is turning people AWAY from Christ, not TOWARDS Him. I’ve been an agnostic/seeker for many years and without fail, every time I start to feel the pull of Christ I run across people like you (either in person, on tv, or on the ‘net) and it’s like the wind has been taken out of my sails. But I’m slowly learning that those who are so angry and vehement about the evils around them are usually struggling with those same evils within themselves.

    ——————————————————————————-
    Matt,

    I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful responses and that my purchase of a NIV New Testament tonight was a good choice, all things considered.

    I came across this site via Google search “why i use niv” and am glad that I did. I just finished reading Yancey’s “The Jesus I Never Knew” and it was very inspirational and really helped put some things into perspective for me (hence my desire to purchase a NT). If you haven’t read it I recommend it highly.

    I look forward to reading the rest of your blog.

    Shalom,

    Patrick

  53. Aaron says:

    If anyone knows the KJV was actually translated before the dead sea scrolls where discovered and many other transcripts and most uneducated people will tell you that verses have been taken or changed in the NIV and New American Standard version and NLT. but infact when the NIV and New American Standard version when being translated it was noticed the the verses changed where actually added to the KJV and there where a few latest transcripts that had those verses in them, but the originals and majority of the transcripts did not so all this talk is silly it doesn’t change our faith or mission at all. I have many more facts but i would rather not continue on i just wish to clarify the major argument against God’s word. Get into the word whatever version you like and take all your questions to god honestly and earnestly and you will get an answer.

  54. Colin says:

    Many of the new bibles, including the NIV, were based on changes applied by people who didn’t believe the miracles of Jesus. Westcott and Hort are just 2 of those people who influenced the new versions in A BIG WAY. Westcott and Hort didn’t believe that normal people could actually see Christ because he was of a higher spirit…WE ARE WARNED OF THIS IN 1 JOHN 4:1-3 he who does not believe that Jesus came in the flesh IS OF THE ANTICHRIST…””PLAIN”” and extremely simple to “”READ””.

    Just read about these people who had their hand in the creation of the new bibles…It as also been disproved that the scripts used for the new translation have more basis…they don’t. You need to do some reading and research…Why would you want to study from a bible which those of the antichrist have had a hand in creating?

    I know they have failed and yes you can still get the idea of the plan that God and Jesus have given us in all versions BUT we must endevour to keep to the correct teachings. If you actually study what as been changed in the new versions you will see that it is subtle changes that go against the teaching of God…it is like they have done it to satisfy their own perversions. Please…look into it do not just say that the NIV is “easier” to read. The actual Thee’s, Thou’s and other words ACTUALLY HAVE MEANING that is required to use those words so that the scripturural translations could be followed more closely.

    That said I love you all, you are my brothers and sisters and we must not get into heated arguments but we must, we must, follow the Word of God and we must be mindful of how Satan will work…remember Genesis…the “subtle” serpent…this is how some of the new bibles have been changed. Remember not everyone who goes to church will be saved and not everyone who doesn’t go to church will be damned. Do not believe in everything that is said to you…challenge everything…we are all “failed again christians”…we are all sinners that is why Jesus had to save us. Love the lord with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love others as you would love yourself. Peace be with and may God show you His Word.

  55. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    Thanks for your thoughts. I have a couple of questions for you.

    – Can you give a reference of W & H’s beliefs about Jesus?

    – Can you give some specific and direct examples where those beliefs directly impacted his work and the newer versions? I am asking for specific glosses and definitions of words and specific texts you think have been corrupted based on their theology.

    – Do you believe the KJV and/or NKJV is the only “authorized” version of the Bible?

    Also, why do you believe that is has “been disproved that the scripts used for the new translation have more basis.” Please don’t say because they are Alexandrian…we have gone round and round about that in the comments above.

    I appreciate your attitude and spirit in your above comment and hope we can dialogue more on this. God bless

  56. Colin says:

    Hi mattdabbs

    Here are some words from their own book where they specifically say that christ did not appear in his physical form after the resurrection so please can you ask me how Thomas placed his hand in the side wound, from the spear, of Jesus?

    ———–
    “The Revelation (of the Resurrection) was a Revelation to believers…That which is of the earth can perceive only that which is of the earth. Our senses can only grasp that which is kindred to themselves…the world could not see Christ, and Christ could not-there is a Divine impossiblility-shew Himself to the world. To have proved by incontestable evidence that Christ rose again as Lazarus rose again, would have been not to confirm our faith but to destroy it irretrievably”
    “The Resurrection, to set the matter in another light, was not an isolated event. It was and is an abiding fact. It was the beginning of a new and living relation between the Lord and His People.” (The Gospel of Life, New York; Macmillan & Co., 1892, p.35
    ——————————–

    There you have it in their own words. Now if they don’t believe KJV and also what the NIV says then can you trust that the NIV as not been altered? Can you seriously say that you can trust the NIV. Also notice the posts above where LUCIFER has been equaled to Jesus when speaking of the Morning Start which clearly states in Revelations that Jesus is the morning star yet in the NIV version it as been altered (See how Lucifer at isaiah 14:12 is called the morning star in the NIV yet in Revelations 22:16 Jesus clearly states that He is the morning star. Now to the casual christian you can read the NIV and get [some] truths BUT NOT ALL…When you see passages that try and say the Lucifer is equal to Jesus then you know that is of the AntiChrist this is why the pope actually believes he can say who can and cannot go to heaven. Come on, please…open your eyes…this is THE ONLY evidence you need to see that the NIV has been altered…Why do you need more evidence…just look up what I have just shown you.

    You don’t need to compare which texts they use just look at what I have just shown in the NIV where it is actually stating that Lucifer is the morning star in other words it is *in a subtle way* trying to say that Lucifer is the Christ….this is how the devil works….Can you not see that…give me your explanation for the above ISAIAH passage and the change why did they get this SO WRONG? Its not a simple mistake its a grave error bordering on tampering…please give me your answer…I am quoting from scripture…do remember that the NIV and the KJV both agree in revelation that Jesus is the morning star but the NIV changes the ISAIAH passage to state that Lucifier is the morning star…tell me which one is it because the NIV cannot make up its own mind!?!?

  57. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    I am very much able to compare the KJV and the NIV to the Greek texts. The KJV has just as many questionable translations as the NIV does. Any and every translation has problems. None are without errors. Some very serious in both the NIV and the KJV. So it is pretty much a wash and it is good to be aware of what the issues are with whatever translation you decide is best to use. I can list some if you like (some are listed above).

  58. mattdabbs says:

    and thanks for that quotation. that was helpful.

  59. Colin says:

    Hi mattdabbs, and hi to all readers…I am not going to apologise for the length of this message because if I had to write till the ends of this earth then so be it. I love all my brothers and sisters so much that I find I must lay down the truth to you…look and read…

    I have just quoted from scripture and then shown with Westcott and Horts own words were they are fullfilling that scripture of the antichrist, yet it doesn’t seem to sway you. The very words passed from God, to Jesus and then by the Holy Ghost written into 1 John 4:3 and even that cannot persuade you.

    Remember brothers and sisters, I will not post something on here that I cannot backup from scripture. Now, mattdabbs, why do you not answer the question concerning the NIV on the quotation from ISAIAH 14:12 were the word Lucifer has been replaced with Morning Star and then in Revelations 22:16 Jesus explicitly states that he is the Morning Star. You can check this in both a 1611 King James version and then the NIV….The NIV first tells you that lucifier is the Morning Star and then in Revelations it states that Jesus is the Morning Star….This IS blasphemous and in NO WAY would it be missed by those truely interpretting the greek texts that is why the texts are poured over and over again by many eyes. IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE you just cannot get this wrong. Read ISAIAH 14 in its entire context and then read Revelations 22 how can they get this so wrong…A child can see that this is different…IT WAS DELIBERATE….and ISAIAH 14 actually gives you the answer to why it was deliberate…I am going to quote it so that the readers can see the words so that they don’t have to look them up…From the KJV…(this is why it was done because of the MADNESS of Lucifer)

    ISAIAH 14:

    12: 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!
    13: For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God : I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    14: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; [I will be like the most high]

    I have placed [ and ] around the words to show that he wants to be equal with God and this is why this text was changed because this very text in the NIV reads like this

    NIV version

    12: How you have fallen from heaven, [O morning star], son of the dawn….

    Can you see the subtle change it replaces Lucifer with [O morning star] and through this the devil is stating that he is the saviour. If you then read revelations you will see that Jesus is the morning star so out of pure trickery and perversion you can see why this passage WAS CHANGED.

    To the casual reader you just wouldn’t notice this ABSOLUTE blasphemous act and to some christians they would, even now after seeing the change with their own eyes, say that this is not a problem…

    FEAR THE LORD…for Fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom…do you think that God will let this pass by…NO…

    Here again I show you the differences, less we forget in our vain hearts. The very differences showing tampering of these verses. O how subtle satan works is evil among this world.

    ———————————
    ISAIAH 14:12

    KJV
    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!

    NIV
    How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

    Rev 22:16

    KJV
    I Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches, I am the root and the off-spring of David, and the bright and morning star.

    NIV
    I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

    ———————————

    REMEMBER lest we all forget in our vain hearts

    Revelations 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    REMEMBER I am not speaking and writing of my words I am quoting DIRECTLY from THE WORD OF GOD. If you don’t believe what I am writing here then its because you are unable to READ THE WORD OF GOD…THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS BUT GODS WORDS that I have written above. YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGES WITH YOUR OWN EYES AND COMPARE THEM YOURSELF with the words GIVEN DIRECTLY FROM GOD…DIRECTLY….FROM….GOD hear me and read above and take it to heart.

    Daniel also repeated this message from a vision shown to him by God.

    Daniel 8
    [25] And through [[his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand;]] and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

    I have placed [[ and ]] so you can see that Daniel was for warned of the trickery that would occur through Lucifers hands and you can see this very vision coming true above with the changes in the NIV as he magnifies himself in his heart…ITS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE TO READ…ITS AS GOOD AS DNA AT A CRIME SCENE if you want to put it in laymans terms

    What do these new revisions bring? I will repeat what the cofounder of the NASV said, Dr Logsdon. He greatly regrets bringing out that version and truly repents what he did. He we go…

    1. Confusion! Proved by the countless websites with this very argument being waged continuously.

    2. The ability to stop memorisation. How can we quote from scriptures if the scriptures differ. If I quote from the KJV to the congregation who hold the NIV in their hand they read different words. To some this is confusing and it stops them memorising the word. WHICH ONE DO THEY MEMORISE FROM!?

    3.It obfuscates the word. It moves some of the verses away entirely or it moves them to the bottom of the page as a foot note. If you look up the word obfuscate in a dictionary you get something along the lines of : To render indistinct [or dim; darken.]. You know what my 10 year old daugher asked me before I wrote this reply. I haven’t even told her about this conversation that I am having with you and she asked me “Dad why do the bibles differ so much?”. O how a child holds nothing back. She hit the nail directly on the head!

    4. It provides doorways for the devil to change the word because there are so many different meanings given for the same verse that the reader can become confused. You can see this in action when you go to some bible lessons because you get everyone trying to compare meanings in different bibles. Would I tell one of you to sing song 12, another song 5 and another song 20 at the same time from a hymn book? NO because it would sound like DRABBLE. You all have to work from the same hymn sheet. Can you imagine a conductor giving out different music scores to the orchestra…same thing here…you must work from the same book…a book which doesn’t contradict itself (like the NIV does…as I have proved above with the verses)

    5. All of the above make teaching the bible difficult. How can you teach from a bible which contradicts itself on something “SO FUNDAMENTAL TO AS WHO LUCIFER IS”.

    Why would you want to teach your son or daughter from a book which actually states in its own pages that Lucifer is the morning star that appears at the end times as the saviour…WHY!?? Read it for yourselves above as I have pointed out to you…the words speak for themselves…Its plain for all to see.

    Brothers and Sisters, lets not be blind when before our eyes Lucifer shows his trickery and the Lord shows him to us. I love you and we are all sinners. Thank you God for sending your only son Jesus Christ our Saviour. Forgive me Lord and I pray that we may enter into true peace and love.

  60. Colin says:

    Hi mattdabbs,

    Do you believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh?

  61. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    I certainly do believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. To believe anything short of that would be unchristian.

    I appreciate the amount of work you put into your comment. Let me address what your concerns are if I may.

    The problem you are running into here is that you have connected some unconnected verses with little to no exegesis/interpretation. You have to consider a couple of things here in order to understand any passage of scripture (especially these!).

    Let’s look at two similar examples that would cause problems if you just look at the text without really exegeting it (considering context, audience, and original languages).

    Psalm 82:6 – “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (KJV).

    Scripture is clear that there is only one God (Deut 6:4). So how can the psalmist say we are gods? Jesus gives us some insights on this verse in John 10:34-35 by saying those who received God’s word (Israelites referred to in Psalm 82:6) could be called gods. The word used in psalm 82:6 is also not the divine name it is elohim.

    So on the surface Psalm 82:6 seems to be a contradiction of scripture by calling men gods but when you look a little closer there is more to it than on face value. By your method of interpretation in Isa 14 this couldn’t work because you would have to say you cannot call both God and man the same thing – gods. The psalmist is not saying God’s people are on the same level as God. He is saying that they have received revelation from God and can then be referred to as elohims.

    Another example – Psalm 68:4 – “Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.” (KJV)

    The psalmist calls God the one who rides on the heavens (literally the one who rides on the clouds). Canaanite pagan literature in the couple hundred years prior called Baal, who was believed to be the storm god, the rider of the clouds. (See the story of Anat I.ii at the very end as well as The Story of Aqhat C.i) which says, “For seven years Ba’al will disappear, for eight the Rider of the Clouds will dispatch no dew, no rain, not one flood, not a single thunder shower…”

    Is that problematic that the Bible would give the same title to God that the pagans gave to their “gods”? By your method of interpretation that just wouldn’t work. But it is right there in scripture. So how do we work that out? It is not problematic if you understand what the psalmist was doing. He was saying Jehovah is THE rider on the clouds. Not Ba’al and not any of the false gods. There is only one God of the Storm and his name is Yahweh. So here is an instance where God is given the same title as a pagan deity right there in the pages of scripture but I don’t see a problem with it because the psalmist is setting the record straight of who the real rider on the clouds is.

    Now to your example. You are contending that the NIV is basically of the anti-Christ because it gives the same title to Jesus as it does to the devil (Isa 14:12, Rev 22:16). Let’s look at this a little closer.

    KJV – “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!”

    What is even more important is the Hebrew. The word translated Lucifer by the KJV and “Morning Star” by the NIV is the word הֵילֵל (heilel). That word literally means “shining one” as the verb form means “to shine.” It is not a word that means satan or the devil in Hebrew. The word Lucifer is how the Latin Vulgate translated this word, which the KJV adopted. Lucifer in Latin is a combination of two words Lux = light and ferous = “to bear” or “to carry” which would make Lucifer = bearer of light in Latin.

    Context in Isa 14:
    The Hebrew word heilel was an epithet or title for the king of Babylon. Look back at Isa 13:1 – “An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw.” (NIV). Isaiah 13 speaks of the destruction of Babylon (see especially 13:19). Chapter 14 continues this message. 14:1-3 is about the return from exile back to Israel. Then notice 14:4 – “You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:” The taunt seems to go from 14:4b-8. Then 14:9 talks about the grave meeting them at their coming. Meeting who? The same people the taunt was against – Babylon. Then 14:11-23 is more about Babylon – your pomp has been brought down, maggots are spread out beneath you, worms cover you….how you have fallen from heaven shining one, son of the dawn.” When you look at this in context, understanding it from Hebrew and not the Latin Vulgate’s interpretation (which was colored by several hundred years of Christian interpretation of his passage as being about Satan) you begin to see that it is really about the king of Assyria and not Satan or Lucifer. You find similar language against the king of Tyre in Ezek 28. This passage is about a real situation – the oppression and exile of God’s people and their oppression by the Babylonian rulers. God is calling for their fall. Isaiah calls him “son of the dawn.” It is a parallel to a star that rises high and bright in the sky at morning but then disappears quickly. That is what the king of Babylon will be like. It was early Christian writers who associated this passage with Satan, not anyone in scripture.

    This is the problem with word study – it strips words out of contexts and ends up at meanings that were never intended. You do a word study on Lucifer in the KJV with a concordance and you see Lucifer and Jesus have the same titles. That is a translation problem with the Latin Vulgate and the KJV and not with the NIV. The NIV translated the Hebrew word in a much more literal way than the KJV even though the KJV is often the one touted to be so literal.

    I could go on but let’s see if this is making sense so far.

  62. Colin says:

    mattdabbs

    Please refer to John 10:29-38 for an explanation of god’s used in psalm. Jesus gives you the explanation. and you know what its a relative to what we are talking about. Jesus says this…

    John 10
    34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
    35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    The ones called gods are those whom the word of God came to…the prophets. Also notice that gods is not God.

    Thankyou for that.

    Okay…

    Psalm 68:4 does not say clouds it says heavens the rest that follows in your message is stating that verse says clouds when it clearly does not so we can ignore that rest of your paragraphs talking about the god of the clouds. That said the true God of the clouds is God and God is the God of all Creation since only one God created us and that is what is said in the first commandment.

    The word you are talking about is “light bearer”. If I carry a torch I am also a light bearer but I am no more a Morning Star than a candle is in the dark. Show me the hebrew word for “star” in that verse. Also if that is your argument why did they then using morning star in Revelations 22 … wouldn’t they, if using your logic, have put Lucifer in there…NO…because the 2 or completely different. God does not confuse us here…he gives the description of Lucifer in the ISAIAH 14 verses and he also describes Jesus…they are not the same.

    An you say that is the problem with word studies. The Word of God is unchanging why does the NIV change so much why do the new versions differ, obfuscate and confuse.

    I too can count numerous problems with the NIV but I have already shown just one and you haven’t explained why the NIV doesn’t distinguish between the Jesus Christ the Morning Star and Lucifer. Lucifer, using your own argument, is the correct word to use in ISAIAH 14 but instead the NIV uses words, that scholars fully know means Jesus Christ our Saviour.

    And as for westcott and hort, who followers of the NIV love to promote, How can you explain this away. Remember the passage given to us by Jesus Good Fruit comes from the rightious. Westcott and Hort didn’t even believe in the miracles of Jesus so how can one of their bibles be of good fruit!

    You don’t believe…I do…I believe that the authorised version based on the correct text from the original early bibles, may I add the early bibles that came before the text that the NIV is based, is the true word of God…and I believe through proof above that the NIV and other “new” bibles have been corrupted by mans own thoughts.

    The KJV does not remove verses. The NIV does and continues to. Also do notice that the KJV IS A TRANSLATION of text. The NIV is not just a translation of some of the text, but it changes, subverts and incerts mans interpretations. WE DONOT NEED TO REVISE THE WORD OF GOD WE JUST TRANSLATE INTO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES…Why does the NIV feel that it needs to change the verses given to us in the original texts with MANS own interpretations? Why?

  63. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    I don’t believe? I am sorry but do I know you? It would be beneficial to you to try to listen before you call people apostate. If you are willing to jump to that so quickly to harsh judgment and condemnation when you clearly still misunderstand what I am trying to say here then it makes it really hard to discuss things with you.

    Psalm 68:4 – KJV says “heaven.” So you assume that here the Bible says “heaven” in Hebrew. It does not. The word for heaven in Hebrew is not the word found in Psalm 68:4. The word here is the word for “cloud” or even “dark cloud.” I have studied Hebrew and have doubled checked this and it lines up. That is what it says – rider on the clouds. That is hard to read if you are relying on the KJV and not the original texts/Hebrew. In this verse the NIV gets it right and the KJV is close but not quite on the money. So your dismissal of my point is unwarranted. It is a valid point.

    The word “star” in Isa 14 it is not there and neither is Lucifer. Lucifer is a proper name. This verse is referencing an arrogant shining one who is about to be brought to destruction (king of Babylon – Isa 13-14 says it and I am just passing that on to you. I would suggest you read those two chapters together to get to Isa 14:12 and not just read 14:12 all by itself).

    So if your point is the NIV adds words, so does the KJV in this verse. The word in Hebrew is not a proper name as you keep saying it is. You just cannot escape that. I gave the literal translation above. It means shining one, referring the king of Babylon. I know it is hard to hear tone when reading what someone is typing but I say all this in love and not in a condescending or arrogant way. I am just trying to make my point.

    You still haven’t addressed my points about the context being clear that this is about the king of Babylon (14:4 and all of chapter 13). What do you think about that?

    Why is it different in Isa 14 and Rev 22? One is Greek and one is Hebrew. The phrasing of Rev 22 is not even close to the same as Isa 14:12, which is a point you correctly made. In Revelation 22:16 (not 22:19) it does have the word star. It literally reads “the star bright morning” or “The bright morning star.”

    So lets get to it. Isa 14:12 says “The shining one son of the dawn”

    Rev 22:16 says “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright shining star.”

    Your whole point is the NIV calls Lucifer Jesus in Isa 14. The only commonality between these verses is the concept of someone being luminous (shining one vs bright shining star). The NIV is not trying to pass Lucifer off as Jesus. The NIV recognizes the context of these verses, which you apparently still do not recognize, that Isa 13-14 is about Babylon and not Lucifer/Satan.

    Hope that helps.

  64. Colin says:

    mattdabbs you have misunderstood me…I am not calling you a none believer I was saying that I disagree with you and I apologise for the misunderstanding on this brother.

    Which hebrew and greek texts are you taking the translations from?

    The Ben Chayyim Masoretic, as you know, is what is used for the KJV. This as been poured over for the last 400 years and they have never thought that heaven needed to be changed to cloud. No doubt you are aware of some Hebrew texts which have been assembled from -corrupted- text…Ben Asher hebrew texts to be more precise. Which version of the Hebrew are you working from?

    Also be aware that the the NIV has been translated from the Alexandrian texts and then translated back into Hebrew…so…The original texts where taken into Egypt came out as the Alexandrian text (changed from the originals)…brought into the NIV and then translated back into Hebrew from the Alexandrian. I am quoting my knowledge from those who have exaustedly gone through the source text for the NIV and the source text of the KJV from here.

    http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-1.html

    Why do people, who are promoters of the new version bibles, feel the need to translate the Alexandrian text back into Hebrew…why did they not just quote their Hebrew version which the text was supposedly taken from? Why translate from -> too -> and back to the original language from the translated version? Thats just absurd and most ludicrous?

    Lets physically look at this also so by using simple, logical reasoning. If 20 peopls say, for arguments sake, write down 20 versions of a true account of history that is to be the same history and from that account 18 agree and 2 do not, which account would you believe in…you go with the 18 because they validate their accounts because of the Majority. The King James Version of the bible uses not only this logic but it also bases agrees with the earliest recorded bibles, WHICH ARE OLDER than the 2 main sources of text that the NIV is based on.

    Both the Sinaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts that the NIV and so many other New versions are based on where “found” in the 14th century and “claim” to be “the best” versions for basing bible translation even though the wildly differ from versions of the bible which were dated earlier and also wildly differ from the true MAJORITY texts ie the 18 against the 2 theory. Lets also remember, using an argument that I think stands up, that both of these scripts Sinaticus and Vaticanus are in imaculate condition…I don’t know but if a book is that good then it should have been read over and over again…these look like they haven’t been touched.

    And also lets remember…

    1. The Sinaticus was found in a trash can.
    2. The Vaticanus was “lost” in the Vatican Library? The very guys who charge themselves with documenting the history of our religion “lost” this most important document that is now used as basis for fact for Gods word.

    It just doesn’t add up…The majority of documents used corroborate KJV because their translations match. however they do not match with the other 2 Sinaticus/Vaticanus manuscripts…In fact they remove vast amounts of the original majority texts (remove) and translate (wildly) from the originals.

    I can’t believe them? Why would you. Jesus said that good fruit comes from the rightious and the bad vine withers away. Westcott and Hort (who loved the Sinaticus/Vaticanus versions) didn’t even believe in the miracles of Jesus Christ….who would you believe. These 2 men who denounce Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ himself….why do you fail to see this simple truth. Brother mattdabbs. I love you brother but I love the Word of God more. I can trust in Him and only him. I wouldn’t trust Westcott and Hort to edit my bible? Would you?

    Peace and love to all brothers and sisters.

  65. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding. That makes me feel a lot better. I appreciate the tone of your post and your willingness to do your homework. I have studied this at length and you can read plenty of my thoughts on this matter. Some of my thoughts are in the comments of this post in my dialogue with darqlyte. I have read extensively enough to know why you hold the position you do on the Alexandrian texts and we are just going to have to disagree on their validity.

    The Hebrew text I am working from is Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia, which is the standard text used by most OT scholars.

    Back to the word for “cloud” and “heavens” in the Hebrew text – which word does the text you are using (BCM) use in that verse?

    I also don’t understand how people can study how the KJV was translated and be comfortable with it. I think the KJV is a decent translation but you have to remember that it was based on only a handful of manuscripts that were only a couple hundred years old at the time. Whether or not you think Sin. and Vat are any good there are hundreds of other older fragments and texts that corroborate them than those used by the KJV.

    One of the problems I have had over and over again in trying to discuss these issues with people is that they keep running through a bunch of thoughts and ask a bunch of questions. I respond to your questions and ask my own questions but I never seem to be able to get any answers to legitimate questions that are essential to the conversation – like the context of Isa 13-14 and the impact of it being a curse on Babylon and even the king of Babylon being singled out in in 14:4…that is clearly who is being talked about in 14:12. I still haven’t heard your response to that. Can you humor me and try out a few of my above questions?

    I don’t base my faith on W & H. I do base it on the Bible and it is essential that we go back to the most reliable manuscripts possible in making these decisions. Thanks for your dialog.

  66. Colin says:

    mattdabs

    I have pulled the following from a website who have looked into the issues that we are discussing

    ——————————————————————–

    A corrupt manuscript or corrupt Bible is a text which follows or depends upon:

    1. The UBS (United Bible Societies/German Bible Society) Text of the

    Greek New Testament/Nestle-Aland-Metzger-Martini version(s)

    [which is based mostly upon a. Tischendorf and

    b. Westcott & Hort]

    2.The UBS (United Bible Societies/German Bible Society) Text of the

    Hebrew Old Testament which – in turn – is based upon:

    a. Any Old Testament text or translation from Either

    Rudolph Kittel

    {Occultist/Jew-hater/anti-semitic} or Gerhard Kittel {Occultist/Nazi War Criminal – Nuremberg}

    b. Any Old Testament text or translation which uses or relies

    on the corrupt translations or manuscripts written by

    Ben Asher

    This would include the UBS Hebrew Texts Biblia Hebraica and/or

    Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

    —————————————————————–

    I will leave it to the readers to do their own research on why these texts can be considered not biblical.

    How can we compare hebrew and greek texts when you are comparing the translations from the above documents, which have been detested by many scholars…we can go on and on over and over but we would never reach a conclusion because we are using different text.

    I encourage the readers to do their own research into this

    And to your answer of Lucifer. I will answer it with reason and logic. By your own admission the word lucifer translates to “shining one” so why does the NIV translate this to “morning star”? Ask yourself that. If you was sitting on the council of translators for the NIV would you not, by your own admission, have translated this to “shining one”? Why would the translators of the NIV translate this to “Morning star”. I quote your own words in the following verse.

    “The word “star” in Isa 14 it is not there and neither is Lucifer”

    You are right that the word star is not there but I would disagree that the word Lucifer is not there because if you look up the word Lucifer you find that it can be translated as “light bearer”. So by your own admission you actually agree that the NIV is wrong and that KJV is correct.

    But it goes deeper than this. You see if someone is reading the bible, and you ask most people today, who they think Lucifer is they will say to you Satan or the devil.

    Lets look at the meaning of Lucifer in the dictionaries. When I search the askoxford website for an explanation of Lucifer I get 2 entries back…Lucifer and Satan…

    Here is my link that I used.

    http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=lucifer&branch=&textsearchtype=exact

    so for someone casually looking for the meaning of Lucifer they would link Lucifer with Satan (from this website)

    If I click on the returned link Lucifer from the above page what do we get? We get the following.
    ——————————–
    noun 1 the Devil. 2 literary the planet Venus in the morning. 3 (lucifer) archaic a match.

    — ORIGIN Latin, ‘light-bringing, morning star’.
    ———————————

    So first we are told its the Devil then we see the word light-bringing (which matches with the KJV from your own admission that from your version of the hebrew you see “shining one”) but hold on we also see “morning star”. And by your own admision ;

    The word “star” in Isa 14 it is not there

    So where does the dictionary get the translation for morning star…lets look into this further. One source “dictionary.com” quotes the following

    The name Lucifer, which means “bearer of light” or “morning star,” refers to his former splendor as the greatest of the angels.

    Notice again the word “bearer of light” which is what you translated it to “shining one” but also notice “morning star” and you yourself contradict this because the word star does not appear. However Son of the morning, translated in the KJV would actually translate to Venus, which is sometimes called the morning star by astronomers. Where are the dictionaries getting their translation of “morning star” could they be mixing this up with “son of the morning” translated by KJV translators…it would be easy for them to do. However when KJV talks of “the morning star” in reference to Jesus Christ they do translate this to “morning star”. They never would have translated this to “Lucifer” the babylonian king who was against GOD, and therefor Jesus.

    Now if you lookup Lucifer in all of the dictionaries you will see that they link this to Satan/Devil, every dictionary which contains Lucifer links it with Satan and the devil.

    The babylonian king was against GOD and if you are against GOD your are against Jesus Christ.

    Matt 12
    [30] He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

    These are the words of Jesus Christ directly from GOD.

    The King James translators would never have put “morning star” in this translation because

    1. They know it would cause confusion. (Look at the dictionary definitions).
    2. It isn’t in the translation (so where did the NIV get it from?)

    So you see…you actually agree with the King James translation and by your own words you disagree with the NIV translation. Which if you lookup Lucifer in all the laymans dictionaries of today you will find equates it with Satan. They know that the Isaiah verses are talking of the ways of the devil. The KJV translaters actually translated this perfectly, because by your own admision “star” is not in that verse so they did not use it there but “light-bearer” is so they used Lucifer and this you also agree with “shining one”…your own translation. your own words.

  67. Colin says:

    mattdabbs,

    As a brother I love you, as a scholar I disagree with you. which is why I feel compelled to point out certain things. The NIV is doing what it was created to do…it is causing confusion.

    Brother I love you.

  68. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    You make some good points and I wish I had time today to address them all. I will have to get to some of them later. The reason the NIV used “morning star” is because they believe in a dynamic equivalence translation. They believe this verse is being used symbolically with the analogy of the planet venus that shines bright but cannot rise very high into the sky and disappears quickly. That is what will happen to the king of Babylon. Hope that helps. There is nothing to do with the devil or Jesus in this verse.

    You can argue that my manuscripts are corrupt. That is fine. I disagree but that is another matter. It is just very convenient for you that any time you find something you disagree with you just say that the texts of my translation are corrupt. That is such an easy out.

    So here is what we need to do. We need to find Isa 14:12 in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic and see if it is any different than the text I am using (BHS). I doubt there is any difference in this verse. If they are the same, then there is no longer a way to shrug off my comments as due to my using corrupted texts. I will see what I can do.

  69. mattdabbs says:

    By the way, I don’t wholeheartedly agree with everything in the NIV just like I don’t 100% agree with the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, Message, New Living, and any other translation I have ever used. They all have problems. So I am not here to defend the NIV. I am trying to have an honest discussion of what this passage is all about and I appreciate what you are bringing to the table in this discussion.

  70. Colin says:

    mattdabbs

    what are you saying here…I quote…
    ————————–
    The reason the NIV used “morning star” is because they believe in a dynamic equivalence translation. They believe this verse is being used symbolically with the analogy of the planet venus that shines bright but cannot rise very high into the sky and disappears quickly….
    —————————

    When you say they believe…who are you talking about…who believes what about this verse. So what you are saying is that …

    “shining one”

    translates to …

    “planet venus that shines bright but cannot rise very high into the sky and disappears quiclky”

    Are you saying that “man believes” excuse me but I thought that the bible was “The Word Of GOD” not what man believes. Which is why the KJV ** translated ** the text and the NIV ** added and subverted ** the meaning of the text.

    then you say and I quote

    —————————————-
    It is just very convenient for you that any time you find something you disagree with you just say that the texts of my translation are corrupt. That is such an easy out.
    —————————————–

    It is not me who said they are corrupt but many scholars who have poured over the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The KJV translaters refused to touch it because it was not corroborated enough it was the TRUE majority text (many manuuscripts) which corroburated with the what the KJV translated to. This is why I said IT IS UPTO THE READERS to investigate this and if and when they do they will see that what I speak of is the majority of learned scholars who have looked into it.

    and I quote you again…

    ———————————————
    So here is what we need to do. We need to find Isa 14:12 in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic and see if it is any different than the text I am using (BHS). I doubt there is any difference in this verse. If they are the same, then there is no longer a way to shrug off my comments as due to my using corrupted texts. I will see what I can do.
    ———————————————-

    No mattdabbs I don’t have to do anything. You are taking it out of context from the original argument which was that the NIV replaces “Lucifer” with “Morning Star” and even you yourself have just said that star doesn;t exist so you actually agree with KJV because “Lucifer” can mean “light bearer” .. It is YOU alone who needs to find a version of the biblical hebrew text that translates “shining one” into “morning star”. If the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text (KJV based on) states the “shining one” and we know that the BHS states “shining one” then that ** strengthens ** my reasoning and it also ** strengthens** the translation of KJV because KJV translates “shinging ones” to “Lucifer” which in turn can be translated to “light bearer” which has much more equality than “Morning star”. SO the NIV has a corrupted translation because, by your words not mine, “”they believe”” that the words of GOD actually mean moring star, which we both know is wrong!

    Excuse me mattdabbs but forgive me if you seem to be making excuses for what you have written. It is you, by your own words, that has corrected yourself by agreeing with the KJV. All I did was state that the NIV was wrong within that translation and you agree with me on that, don’t you?? Or do you now disagree with yourself on that?? Is it because you are confused with you text that you just cannot answer me. IS THIS WHAT THE NIV IS ALL ABOUT, CONFUSION!

    The words of the NIV, which you condone, are now your own witness against your error.

    I think you need to change the title to

    Why everyone should stay away from the NIV.

    And your second post corroborates everything. Because you actually don’t agree with ANY bible. You are now saying that all bibles have problems.

    You see that is where I differ because I believe that the words of the KJV are “The words of GOD” translated to English for the English speaking people because that is what it is…a translation…

    1. no changes…
    2. no “I believe this should actually mean this”…

    because it is not upto us to place other words in there. I am not shrugging of your translation because “shining one” translates to Lucifer and we agree on that…If you are going to start comparing the BHS text with the Ben Chayyim Masoretic then you had better start from the beginning because there are a lot more changes than the one we have been arguing about.

  71. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    The KJV does not translate this word properly either. They use a proper name, Lucifer in place of “shining one”. They equate this verse with Satan. It says in Hebrew shining one. By your own standard why didn’t the KJV just translate it to “shining one”? Lucifer can mean that but Lucifer also means a lot more. So both the KJV and NIV mess up this verse. I agree that it is not up to us to place words in there…the NIV and KJV both do a poor job here…how about that? It should say “shining one.”

    If you believe the KJV is the perfect translation you need to do a bit more studying of the KJV, the texts that were used to translate it, and the doctrinal errors and poor translations that run throughout. It is an extraordinary translation and I have respect for it because it has done a lot of good but it, like all other translations, are far from perfect. If you have ever translated from Hebrew to English or Greek to English you understand just how hard it is to do the work of translation. I have wrestled with it, studied it, and done translation and know just how difficult it is. Then take several hundred years of language development and change as culture and definitions shift and it makes the KJV even more difficult.

    It is a translation. You treat the KJV like it IS the original text in the original language. It is not. If you have a problem with dynamic equivalence translation you have to understand that both the NIV and KJV do that with this verse. It doesn’t say Lucifer…that is a proper name for the devil, right? Can you tell me why they chose to translate it “Lucifer” and not the literal translation “shining one”? If you are going to try to poke holes in the NIV’s handling of this verse then it is good to be honest about what the KJV did with this verse as well. You keep saying it has to be translated what it means and yet the KJV has the same problem in this verse because Lucifer has a lot more meaning packed into it than just shining one.

  72. Colin says:

    O mattdabbs,

    Lucifer = “light bearer” = “shining one”
    Dictionary lookup finds that Lucifer means Satan “too many people” as well as light bearer but in this context KJV leaves it as Lucifer because in context of the rest of ISAIAH that is what it means…it also can mean the babylonian king who was against God and Jesus Christ. That is why they use lucifer.

    Morning star relates to Jesus Christ through out the Bible. See Peter and Revelations whenever we speak of Morning Star we mean Jesus Christ…

    So why does the NIV use Morning Star instead of Lucifer/light bearer/shining one?

    Lets have a look at one of the other “New” bibles shall we?

    New Century Version ***Publisher Thomas Nelson the same publishers of the NIV***

    Lets compare them from KJV translation to NCV so we do one verse at a time… Each line of the NCB will start with NCB and KJV for the King James. and after each translation is given I will write a comment of the changes…which no doubt will be in plain site anyway. Here the Lord is speaking to Ezekiel.

    Ezekiel 33
    Ezekiel Is Watchman for Israel

    Verse 1
    NCB : The Lord spoke his word to me, saying:
    KJV : Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

    Not too many changes here

    Verse 2
    NCB: “Human, speak to your people and say to them: ‘Suppose I bring a war against a land. The people of the land may choose one of their men and make him their watchman.

    KJV: Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:

    Hold right there…notice that now “Son of man” is a Human in the NCB … what is it a woman, child what! No its a human…wierd! Also notice how in the NCB that the Lord is stating that suppose He brings a war on the land. In the original text God doesn’t suppose anything. The KJV sets this right with “When I bring the sword upon a land” and its prophesing of a future event. The NCB is trying to say that this is figurative. The KJV tells it for what it is…a future event…

    Verse 3.
    NCB : When he sees the enemy coming to attack the land, he will blow the trumpet and warn the people.

    KJV : If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;

    And again the NCB is now saying “enemy” instead of “sword from GOD”. Do you know what the trumpet is? I will answer that later.

    Verse 4

    NCB : If they hear the sound of the trumpet but do nothing, the enemy will come and kill them. They will be responsible for their own deaths.

    KJV : Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

    Very similiar you may think but the NCB text is constantly removing the sword sent by GOD and replacing it with “the enemy”. its watering down the prophesy! Remember this is a future event. its not something that is supposingly going to happen as stated by the NCB!

    Verse 5.
    NCB :They heard the sound of the trumpet but didn’t do anything. So they are to blame for their own deaths. If they had done something, they would have saved their own lives.

    KJV : He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

    Still sounds kind of the same but look…the last sentence of the NCB talks of saving their own life. The KJV speaks of deliverance! REMEMBER deliverance, trumpet, sword what does this all mean…we will get to that later.

    Verse 6

    NCB: But if the watchman sees the enemy coming to attack and does not blow the trumpet, the people will not be warned. Then if the enemy comes and kills any of them, they have died because of their own sin. But I will punish the watchman for their deaths.’

    KJV : But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

    Again the “sword sent by God” is replaced with “enemy”

    These passages have powerful meanings which reverberate through history and the future events that it describes…Whenever I read these verses I am left breathless with the Glory of God that shines through these words.

    The sword of God is the judgment of God but you don’t see this in the NCB because it constantly refers to the Judgement of GOD as “the enemy”. Thats wrong isn’t it. How do I know its the Judgment of God? Well further down at verse 20 the KJV

    KJV [20] Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways

    even the NCB states

    20 You still say: ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Israel, I will judge all of you by your own ways.”

    So that chapter states that “The Sword” is “The Judgement of GOD. and everyone of us will be judged for we are all sinners on the face of the earth.

    What is the trumpet? The Trumpet is the word of GOD who do we know as the word of GOD? Jesus Christ is the word of GOD

    John 12:
    [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father
    which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I
    should say, and what I should speak.
    [50] And I know that his commandment is life
    everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the
    Father said unto me, so I speak.

    The watchmen are those charged with delivering the word of God to his people. They are our bishops, priests and vicars…our preachers who must pass on the word of God for they have been charged with it by his own people. If they are charged with passing on the word…and they do not pass on the word of God, then they have failed in their duty and they not only die in their sins but also they cause many others to not be delivered.

    Remember
    [50] And I know that his commandment is life
    everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the
    Father said unto me, so I speak.

    We are delivered through Jesus who was sacrificed for our sins and Jesus also tells us that GODs commandments is life everlasting. You see when God Judges your physical body may already be dead by through faith in Jesus Christ our saviour who died for our sins and the word of God you are saved and will live for ever in the new kindom. You don’t get this from the NCB because it has been removed! The judgements of GOD become the enemy and the word deliverance is removed altogether. You don’t get the ringing, if I may use that phrase, of the winds which link to the Gospel and the teachings of the true Prophets.

    I will continue.

    If our charged deliverers of the word, deliver the true word of GOD and we do not hear it then we die in our own blood. We are solely to blame for ignoring the word of God. So can you see how important it is that you get the correct bible text?

    Readers….go and look at the NCB and then compare it with the KJV…see how it alters the text and turns the prophecy of this true event, OUR DELIVERANCE, into something that it supposes might happen? Where does the word “suppose” every occur when talking of prophecy. This event is talking about our future deliverance, or not, depending on whether we take the word of GOD to heart and live by the commandments of GOD and believe in His son Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins and his our Saviour…to give us our deliverance. NCB removes all of that meaning…it removes it…its blaspemous!

    Now I know that the NCB is not the NIV but both are based on the same text and the same publishers who brandish the same copyrights and control over the text.

    Look at me a simple man who can compare the text and see the word of God removed from those so called New Version bibles. Shame on you who can see these changes more clearly but say nothing. Are you not like the watchmen who hide the word of the Lord?

  73. Colin says:

    Sorry the word winds… in this paragraph in my last post.

    —————
    You don’t get the ringing, if I may use that phrase, of the winds which link to the Gospel and the teachings of the true Prophets.
    —————

    should read “words”. Sorry for that.

  74. Colin says:

    Oh by the way…they pick and chose truth and lies in the new versions….which is why they differ so much. Also the NKJV is NOT the KJV make sure if you want to get a KJV that you get the correct version…better still go and look round the old book stores and charity shops were you might find an old version which hasn’t passed through the hands of certain publishers.

  75. Colin says:

    Matt,

    Let us not call each other sinners, let us not judge each other better than the other, let us not cause grief between us, let us not look at the thorn in each of our eyes and miss the Log in our own eyes

    For brother … “I love you Matt” as if you were my only brother left on this earth I love you from the bottom of my heart and I truly mean that.

    Let us not continue this discussion less we one another begin to blame…for what do we know! Let us look to the word of God and hope in salvation in Jesus Christ our Saviour and give Glory to the one True God the Father in Heaven….Glory and praise from my heart goes out to God and blessed is our Saviour who sacrificed himself for our sins, Jesus Christ.

    Amen

  76. mattdabbs says:

    Colin,

    I certainly don’t fault you for having a different view on this than I do. I understand where you get it from and how you make the connection. It doesn’t make me love you any less because we disagree on this issue. I really do appreciate and love you as well and I am glad to see we can discuss our differences. God bless,

    Matt

  77. Colin says:

    Just like to point out that some of the messages have been removed between me and mattdabs…I don’t know why…but if you want to see the full transcript then I have kept a copy. Just email me.

  78. Colin says:

    Ignore my last post…it was the IE cache!…Sorry about that.

  79. I’ve been reading some of these posts from a couple of years ago. Just wanted to add for Isaiah 14:12, beside “Lucifer,” the original 1611 King James translator’s marginal note says, “or, daystar.” So 400 years ago they knew that this was a possible way to translate the word! Kind of shoots down the KJV-Only Lucifer argument, IMHO!

    I wonder how you feel about the NIV update? I’ve memorized much scripture in the 1984 NIV, and wondering if I want to stay with it or not.

    • mattdabbs says:

      John, thanks for pointing that out. I don’t remember hearing that before. As far as the new NIV you may want to search around on Claude Marriotini’s blog. He has brought it up on occasion.

  80. Tim sturm says:

    In ISAIAH, THE NIV CALLS SLUCIFER, THE MORNING STAR. IF YOU CAN READ IN REVELATIONS,. THE MORNING STAR IS JESUS CHRIST. ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD RECCOMEND THE NIV.

  81. best voip phone system says:

    Does your site have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an email. I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.

  82. Ben says:

    There are 909 changes made from original scripture in the NIV. The deity of Jesus is just about stripped from Him. Some of these changes are extremely radical. I can not believe that this could be allowed by people who claim to be God fearing. This bible will help the cause of a huge “falling away” as prophesied by Jesus…

  83. Blake says:

    Great article! That is the kind of information that should be shared around the web.
    Shame on the seek engines for not positioning this publish higher!

    Come on over and consult with my website . Thank you =)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow

Follow this blog

Email address