46 replies to this topic

[Quaker Reason]

I personally use the NIV but what do you guys use?

[ikester7579]

KJV and I sometimes use a Strong's concordance. But I have not opened that in a long time.

[Quaker Reason]

KJV and I sometimes use a Strong's concordance. But I have not opened that in a long time.

Ah, I haven't picked up a KJV in so long..

[ikester7579]

Do you believe that h*m*s*xuality is okay? And it's not off topic as I will soon show.

[Quaker Reason]

Do you believe that h*m*s*xuality is okay? And it's not off topic as I will soon show.

No I do not believe it is okay. However I am a little skeptical on the issue, because I'm curious as to why people are g*y. People don't wake up one day and say that they're going to be g*y.

[ikester7579]

No I do not believe it is okay. However I am a little skeptical on the issue, because I'm curious as to why people are g*y. People don't wake up one day and say that they're going to be g*y.

The reason I ask this question is because the NIV is tainted for the reason that h*m*s*xuals were on the translation committee.

http://www.lovethetruth.com/bible/NIV/homosexuals.htm

[Quaker Reason]

The reason I ask this question is because the NIV is tainted for the reason that h*m*s*xuals were on the translation committee.

http://www.lovethetr...h*m*sexuals.htm

I had just looked at that same article. I was not aware of this issue, but I trust the other 90 Doctorates of Theology did not obey the commands of these two.

[Chris]

For the pleasure of reading the elegant old language, a 1611 KJV is my favorite.

The 1769 KJV is next on the list, for the updated spelling and for discussion with folks who don't enjoy deciphering the 1611.

[JayShel]

I read NKJV and tend to quote from KJV when I can. Sometimes, KJV and even NKJV don't flow as well grammatically and I use the ESV (I have a Pocket New Testament of ESV, and audio ESV). Finally, I have a Amplified Bible + Strong's concordance online if I want to understand the meaning of a passage that is relatively confusing me at any given time. Elders are also a good source. When in doubt, dig dig and dig some more. h*m*s*xuality is one of those issues that is hard to present a Biblical view to our culture, but then again, so is having s@x before marriage. I don't look for an answer that culture would be satisfied with, or that I personally would be satisfied with, I look for what God has really said on the subject, and I pray to the Holy Spirit to reveal that truth to me.

[ikester7579]

I had just looked at that same article. I was not aware of this issue, but I trust the other 90 Doctorates of Theology did not obey the commands of these two.

So that they were even involved does not bother you? That the publisher also publishes the Satanic Bible does not bother you?

[MamaElephant]

I was taught the gospel by reading The Lving Bible paraphrased.

I now use the NKJV most of the time, or my daughter's ESV, sometimes getting out my American Bible (Catholic Study version). If I have questions I will compare my husband's bibles or biblebible.cc online. I also use a One Year Bible, which is the New Living Translation.

My husband uses the NASB and Amplified along with the KJV study Bible.

Out of all of these I would choose the NASB for accuracy.

Among these, we haven't found any discrepancies in translation that have worried us. The only thing that seems unclear is whether women are to wear a headcovering or not... the NIV makes it seem not, while the NKJV makes it seem so. I feel personally convicted to wear one should a time arise that I pray or prophesy in the church.

[Quaker Reason]

So that they were even involved does not bother you? That the publisher also publishes the Satanic Bible does not bother you?

Nope.

[JayShel]

So that they were even involved does not bother you? That the publisher also publishes the Satanic Bible does not bother you?

To be fair, some publishers will print whatever they get paid to print. The publisher is not necessarily Christian. Maybe the people getting it published should have avoided that publisher?

I might expect h*m*sexuals to skew the translation.

I know people who were saved through the NIV, so God's word is not returning void, but it is just a slippery slope, because when changing so many words, you can change doctrine. The allure of the new translations is that they flow better grammatically, but the NIV is the version of choice for most people attempting to refute core Christian doctrine such as the divinity of Christ. Some of this has to do with newer Christians having less understanding about core doctrine, and less certainty about importance of such things. I hear Jesus's blood atonement was removed from many newer versions. It is important to know the weaknesses of particular translations, potential biases. Also realize that by reading versions that have removed or confuse certain doctrine often, that poor doctrine can corrupt your understanding. So Bible versions used is quite an important issue. King James is hard to read, and some words no longer make sense in today's language but I refer to it and Strong's for important issues.

The first line of defense is knowing the core doctrine, the importance of each, and how to recognize heresy (corruptions of the core doctrine). The best teaching of the core Christian doctrine I know of is from Pastor Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church. http://marshill.com/media/doctrine
It is a long sermon series but it gave me a firm foundation on doctrine ,and how to recognize heresy. He also turned it into a book, so you can check that out.

[ikester7579]

Nope.

Would you approve of those same h*m*s*xuals coming to your church to preach and teach with the NIV?

[ikester7579]

To be fair, some publishers will print whatever they get paid to print. The publisher is not necessarily Christian. Maybe the people getting it published should have avoided that publisher?

I might expect h*m*sexuals to skew the translation.

When a person respects God's word like they should they also respect it enough to make sure every aspect of it is done right. But what would one expect from h*m*s*xuals?

I know people who were saved through the NIV, so God's word is not returning void, but it is just a slippery slope, because when changing so many words, you can change doctrine. The allure of the new translations is that they flow better grammatically, but the NIV is the version of choice for most people attempting to refute core Christian doctrine such as the divinity of Christ. Some of this has to do with newer Christians having less understanding about core doctrine, and less certainty about importance of such things. I hear Jesus's blood atonement was removed from many newer versions. It is important to know the weaknesses of particular translations, potential biases. Also realize that by reading versions that have removed or confuse certain doctrine often, that poor doctrine can corrupt your understanding. So Bible versions used is quite an important issue. King James is hard to read, and some words no longer make sense in today's language but I refer to it and Strong's for important issues.

The first line of defense is knowing the core doctrine, and the importance of each

And since the NIV is okay then this is okay as well?



This is basically what QR and you are implying here. Do I really need to list verses about what God says about this? This is the reason the NIV omits them. This is what they want.

[JayShel]

No that is what I am warning against. Corrupted doctrine.

[ikester7579]

No that is what I am warning against. Corrupted doctrine.

Okay, no problem. How about you QR, do you think that this is okay?

[Chris]

I grew up reading an NIV because that's what I was given ...though even as a young child I was enchanted with the KJV. My favorite book was Howard Pyle's King Arthur and his Knights. To my little ears, the two sounded remarkably similar, and I instinctively went for the KJV whenever possible.

While I'm certainly not trying to use that as a justification for my preference, it makes me smile to remember being totally carefree and loving a book for the sheer beauty of the language. Now that I'm older and have read a bit more, it's the KJV I prefer for reading and study.

[JayShel]

In the NKJV I actually understood the passages more clearly, but I am sure that I would get used to it if I read it. To be honest, I don't own a copy of KJV still , though I can look it up online and often do for research on doctrine. Somehow it isn't the same as reading through it as a whole. I have been thinking about getting a KJV for awhile, but never made the commitment. I can't give specific examples, but there were certain words that confused me by their usage.
I don't know if the one I was reading so long ago (my mom's) was 1611 or 1769. At the time the only Bible I had was The Message, and I threw it away when I found out how corrupted it was. The Horror! Needless to say I didn't return to the church that had handed it out to me.

[MamaElephant]

In the NKJV I actually understood the passages more clearly, but I am sure that I would get used to it if I read it. To be honest, I don't own a copy of KJV still , though I can look it up online and often do for research on doctrine. Somehow it isn't the same as reading through it as a whole. I have been thinking about getting a KJV for awhile, but never made the commitment. I can't give specific examples, but there were certain words that confused me by their usage.
I don't know if the one I was reading so long ago (my mom's) was 1611 or 1769. At the time the only Bible I had was The Message, and I threw it away when I found out how corrupted it was. The Horror! Needless to say I didn't return to the church that had handed it out to me.

The KJV was written in a language that I don't know. IMO, the Bible is more powerful if I can read pages at at time without stopping to look up words, so I typically do not use the KJV for reading. I will use it when I have a question on a particular verse that I was reading elsewhere.

I don't like using the NIV because it does seem to be different in that one area. I trust the KJV and NASB over it.