New International PerVersion

[HisServant]

The INSERTION of the WORD "ISRAEL" in Ephesians 3:6 is perfect example of the fact that the NIV is NOT the Word of God.

The insertion of the entire pericope on adultery shows that the KJV is NOT the word of God but merely the work of Anglican Scholars.

But then again, since you have been brainwashed by your cult, I don't expect you to understand that.

Anyhow, the word of God is discerned through the Holy Spirit which will lead you into truth (if you had him)... words on a page are only a distraction if you don't have the Holy Spirit.

 

[intojoy]

Yes, glad you agree a paraphrase

 

[Interplanner]

The insertion of the entire pericope on adultery shows that the KJV is NOT the word of God but merely the work of Anglican Scholars.

But then again, since you have been brainwashed by your cult, I don't expect you to understand that.

Anyhow, the word of God is discerned through the Holy Spirit which will lead you into truth (if you had him)... words on a page are only a distraction if you don't have the Holy Spirit.

For both RightD and you,
So back to Eph 3, then there logically must not be any Israel in the Old Testament because Paul did not say Israel when talking about the things revealed in the past to the prophets in verses before 6. And there must not be anyone for the Gentiles to be co-sharers of in v6. Do you realize that 3 words in a row are adapted to have the co- prefix? With whom if not Jewish believers?

So I have to conclude that you have never digested Gal 3, because this material is really a condensation of that. The Spirit works through the Gospel of Christ which is that justification is offered to all who believe, and is the fulfillment of all that was promised to Israel, Acts 13's sermon main point.

 

[Right Divider]

The insertion of the entire pericope on adultery shows that the KJV is NOT the word of God but merely the work of Anglican Scholars.

But then again, since you have been brainwashed by your cult, I don't expect you to understand that.

Anyhow, the word of God is discerned through the Holy Spirit which will lead you into truth (if you had him)... words on a page are only a distraction if you don't have the Holy Spirit.

Childish insults are completely unnecessary.

 

[Right Divider]

For both RightD and you,
So back to Eph 3, then there logically must not be any Israel in the Old Testament because Paul did not say Israel when talking about the things revealed in the past to the prophets in verses before 6. And there must not be anyone for the Gentiles to be co-sharers of in v6. Do you realize that 3 words in a row are adapted to have the co- prefix? With whom if not Jewish believers?

So I have to conclude that you have never digested Gal 3, because this material is really a condensation of that. The Spirit works through the Gospel of Christ which is that justification is offered to all who believe, and is the fulfillment of all that was promised to Israel, Acts 13's sermon main point.

Not a single Greek manuscript contains the WORD ISRAEL in Eph 3:6, therefore its INSERTION is a PERVERSION.

 

[intojoy]

The majority of scholars who created the NIV were replacement theologians

Which can be seen in their paraphrase

It's a good paraphrase except when dealing with Israel. That's where it shows the doctrine of the transcribers instead of the actual translation

 

[exminister]

Intojoy,


NIV
6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

KJV
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


Yes, the word Israel is not in the Greek, but reading Ephesians I think it doesn't violate the context. Who are the heirs if not Israel? Ephesians 2:12-13 indicates Israel.

Is the issue that the translators decided to add it for contextual clarity which you think should not have been done or do you disagree with because it is not in agreement with your theology?

If not Israel, then who is it?

 

[intojoy]

Intojoy,





NIV

6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.



KJV

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:





Yes, the word Israel is not in the Greek, but reading Ephesians I think it doesn't violate the context. Who are the heirs if not Israel? Ephesians 2:12-13 indicates Israel.



Is the issue that the translators decided to add it for contextual clarity which you think should not have been done or do you disagree with because it is not in agreement with your theology?



If not Israel, then who is it?

“And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
**Galatians‬ *6:16‬ *KJV‬‬
http://bible.com/1/gal.6.16.kjv

“And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
**Galatians‬ *6:16‬ *ASV‬‬
http://bible.com/12/gal.6.16.asv

“Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.”
**Galatians‬ *6:16‬ *NIV‬‬
http://bible.com/111/gal.6.16.niv

As we can see, the translation committee chose their preconceived theological prejudice over a literal rendering. There are two groups of people, them (saved Gentiles) and the saved Jews (the Israel of God)

 

[lukecash12]

Do you consider the following verses that are absent from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus doctrinal?

Matt 18:11KJV Matt 6:13KJV (last part) and the ending of Mark 16?

1. We possess several manuscripts earlier than those two.
2. Let's say, hypothetically, that those two passages weren't in an autograph manuscript. The absence of either passage wouldn't do damage to those doctrines which are established in numerous passages elsewhere.

 

[George Affleck]

1. We possess several manuscripts earlier than those two.
2. Let's say, hypothetically, that those two passages weren't in an autograph manuscript. The absence of either passage wouldn't do damage to those doctrines which are established in numerous passages elsewhere.

The question you are asking is; "How much of the Bible can we theoretically do without"? My answer is - we are not in a position to make that judgement and the question should not be asked in the first place.

My definition of a variant that does not affect doctrine are minor discrepancies that do not address or include any theological issue. But even then, if our major interpretive principle is to compare scripture with scripture, any deletion or addition weakens that principle.

 

[Right Divider]

Intojoy,


NIV
6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

KJV
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


Yes, the word Israel is not in the Greek, but reading Ephesians I think it doesn't violate the context. Who are the heirs if not Israel? Ephesians 2:12-13 indicates Israel.

Is the issue that the translators decided to add it for contextual clarity which you think should not have been done or do you disagree with because it is not in agreement with your theology?

If not Israel, then who is it?

With Christ Himself.

Rom 8:17 KJV And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
​

 

[Hawkins]

To me, both versions are not original but still legitimate.

God left us with 2 legitimate copies for us to cross reference to reach the truth. At the same time we can't rely completely on contexts. They can only be original when you are with the original author.

An analogy is that you got 2 copies of copies of a book, with inconsistencies in contexts. Instead of linguistically drill deep into the contexts of those copies of copies, you actually need to contact the original author to get to what is intended to say.

The current focus of the translators however, is to examine into great details of the Greek interpretation on a word by word basis, instead of focusing on relying on God to keep the spiritual meaning intact.

In my opinion, the NIV 2011 edition is no better than its older version.

 

[intojoy]

A pure translation of the original texts is impossible due to the cultural and linguistic differences... a dynamic equivalent approach is the best possible way to translate from language to language.

Transliteration is what you prefer vs a translation of the words in order to fit your philosophical prejudice

Your opinion betokens unworthy scholarship

 

[HisServant]

Transliteration is what you prefer vs a translation of the words in order to fit your philosophical prejudice

Your opinion betokens unworthy scholarship

The question is what manuscript are you translationing to what and for what purpose.

The purpose of the KJV has already been proven to be illegitimate as far as non-anglican Christians are concerned.

And since I have been warned not to use a particular word... I'll just post a link to an article that shows the issues I have with KJV-Onlyists and why it is extremely dangerous for Christians.

http://www.whatisacult.com/king-james-onlyism.html

 

[exminister]

With Christ Himself.

Rom 8:17 KJV And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
​

Ephesians 3:6 says Jews and Gentiles share in Christ.
Not familiar with this issue.

 

[Sherman]

I am familiar with the Bible versions debate. My brother-in-law is KJVO. Personally I think it is petty and even destructive. I see Christians calling each other nasty names in this thread. That shouldn't be.

The easier to read translations are useful with kids. I have a personal preference of the King James for copy pasting because it doesn't have all those confounded footnotes I have to remove.

 

[Sherman]

The question is what manuscript are you translationing to what and for what purpose.

The purpose of the KJV has already been proven to be illegitimate as far as non-anglican Christians are concerned.

And since I have been warned not to use a particular word... I'll just post a link to an article that shows the issues I have with KJV-Onlyists and why it is extremely dangerous for Christians.

http://www.whatisacult.com/king-james-onlyism.html

I still would not use that word. There are quite a few denominations that have branches to them that get off on tangents. The independent Baptists are one. Another denomination prone to getting off on tangents is the non denominational Christian Church.

It may be an unhealthy habit to get narrowly focused like this, but I would not use the word cult on a group of believers. That word is reserved for churches that alter the definition of Jesus, the Trinity or God.

 

[George Affleck]

Another denomination prone to getting off on tangents is the non denominational Christian Church.

Ha ha ha

Post of the week!!

 

[intojoy]

The question is what manuscript are you translationing to what and for what purpose.

The purpose of the KJV has already been proven to be illegitimate as far as non-anglican Christians are concerned.

And since I have been warned not to use a particular word... I'll just post a link to an article that shows the issues I have with KJV-Onlyists and why it is extremely dangerous for Christians.

http://www.whatisacult.com/king-james-onlyism.html

Asv 1901 is the closest word for word translation available today

The NIV is not a translation, it's a paraphrase

 

[patrick jane]

Asv 1901 is the closest word for word translation available today

The NIV is not a translation, it's a paraphrase

The PJ Slang Version - PJSV, is the best one I found -