Bible Discussion Thread Page 2

I'm confident, Jimbob, that the King James Version translators believed the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts they were using were the very Word of God, which indeed they were. This is why the KJV is superior to any English translation we have today and is exceptionally faithful to the original languages.

The original Hebrew and Greek CANNOT be questioned. But a translation, no matter how faithful, can be checked out against the original Hebrew and Greek. Anyone that claims to be a Theologian or Bible Teacher should be doing just that as they compare scripture with scripture using the rules for Bible interpretation that God has set forth in His Word, praying that God might open their understanding.

God has graciously provided tools to do that in the form of concordances and interlinears for the KJV.

We should all be earnestly desirous of never declaring "Thus saith the Lord" when the Lord has not said.

David0921 Thank you for your comment. I completely agree with you the KJB translators believed the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts they were using were the very Word of God. Yes that was the Word of God.

You said "The original Hebrew and Greek CANNOT be questioned. But a translation, no matter how faithful, can be checked out against the original Hebrew and Greek".

David how many modern version bibles are in such alignment with the original Hebrew and Greek languages?

The answer to that would be zero!

All modern versions have changed their words to remove that option.

Would the Inspired Word of God be faithful, and checkable as you say against the original Hebrew and Greek?

The answer to that would be Yes!

I have said being able to go back to the original languages for the True meaning of the words in Hebrew and Greek is like a second witness in the languages. You get the True meaning of the words.

All modern version bibles take that away.

Can anybody see taking that option away as being a good thing?

God breathed Scripture would be connected to the original Languages so much more than it would not be!

The Word of God is Alive!

Very good points David.

God Bless you.

Hello Jimbob,

(Part 1):

Yes, I did contradict myself in what I said. I'm sorry for confusing you. I actually noticed it after I posted and later re-read my post. The first thing that popped into my mind was that you would catch that, and sure enough, you caught it. I thought about deleting that part and re-posting but decided to leave it as is. But since it confused you, I can repost that part if you would like me to?

You're asking me that if the holy men of God were the prophets of old, the apostles, and a few others as you said, will I please provide Scripture as proof of that?

Jimbob, the proof is in the same verse that you continue to misapply ( 2 Peter 1:21). One thing that I notice in the words "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," are the words "spake" and "were." Peter is showing past tense, not future tense. So, it makes much more sense to believe that Peter was speaking of the prophets and apostles, not the King James translators. To say that Peter is speaking about the KJB translators in 2 Peter 1:21 is totally false.



I stand by my statement that the KJB was not written as a standard to be used to prove the validity of other Bible translations." So, your question to me is "What if the KJB is the True Inspired Word of God?"

I'll give you the same answer I have given you before. The true inspired word of God was already in existence long before the KJB was published. If you don't believe it was, what did the translators use to produce the KJB? It is a translation, so it had to be translated from something. What did the translators use? Did they use anything written before 1600?

Jesse thank you for your response and for the correction, no need for a repost. You said "One thing I notice in the words "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' are the words "spake" and "were". Peter is showing past tense, not future tense. So it makes more sense to believe that Peter was speaking of the prophets and the apostles, not the KJ translators.

I really don't understand your logic here Jesse.

These verses are prophecy that's why they are shown to be past tense. Also the book of Peter was written around 30 years BEFORE the book of Revelation was. There were still books of the Bible in the Greek language to be written when Peter wrote those words. So all the books of the New Testament were nowhere close to being put together as a complete book at that time.

When the book of Peter was written they had the Originals in the Hebrew manuscripts, but there was no New Testament until they were all translated into one book. As you said there were Bibles before the KJB. I wouldn't think those are the Inspired Word of God, for reason of the distribution of those Bibles. God is in control of His Word being spread throughout the world. The KJB is over 400 years old and popular worldwide. Those older versions are nowhere to be seen by ordinary people unless maybe you search for them.

You said "The true inspired word of God was already in existence when the KJB was published".

But it was not put together in a book as we have today until the translations of the first Bibles were done.

You are close to being, if not a Greek scholar Jesse so the words in the Greek language are very important to you, Right?

Why do you ignore the word (perverted) in the Hebrew language meaning ((to change)) in ( Jer. 23:36) As someone is changing ((the words)) of the living God?

And as for me knowing what the KJB translators were thinking, you know I couldn't tell you that.

Maybe p2 tomorrow. Thank you, It is good to have these conversations.

God Bless you.

Jimbob,

It's nice to know that you agree that that there were bibles before the KJB. However, you say that you wouldn't think those are the Inspired Word of God. From what I have gathered from you to this point is that you believe any bible that is not inspired by God is a corrupt bible. Would that be correct? If so, why would King James charge the translators to heavily rely on the Geneva Bible during the translation process? Do you believe the Geneva Bible was corrupt?

You say you don't understand my logic, but then you go on to say "These verses are prophecy that's why they are shown to be past tense."

Whenever a prophet spoke prophecy, was he speaking past tense or future tense? Was he speaking of something that already happened or something that would happen in the future? Jimbob, I hope I'm just misunderstanding your statement?

I do apologize for asking those questions the way I did. You are correct in saying that you couldn't tell me what the translators were thinking. I mean, how could you?

But I do find it ironic that in one of your previous posts, you seemed to be telling me what I was thinking. I responded back and asked you to please don't tell me what I'm thinking because you have no way of knowing what I was thinking.

So with that, I suppose it was wrong of me to ask you what the KJB translators were thinking. I would like to ask the same questions but I will replace the word think with the word claim. That might be easier to answer that way. I would be more than happy to help you if you wish.

Here are the questions again:

Were the KJB translators King James Onlyists?

Did they (claim) that their translation alone was the word of God.

Did they (claim) that all previous translations were corrupt?

Did they (claim) that any translation written after theirs should be automatically discarded and labeled as being corrupt?

Blessings to you, Jimbob

Jesse Thats a lot of questions. (1) Yes I believe any Bible not Inspired by God is corrupt. (2) I'm not very familiar with the Geneva Bible but I believe whatever was used to translate the KJB was given to them by God, ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) does say they were (moved) by the Holy Ghost. That sounds like the Holy Ghost was in control of the translation not the men. v20 Says "that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". Being (moved) by the Holy Ghost sounds like it could be the Inspiration of God. (3) You asked "Were the KJB translators King James Onlyists"? I honestly don't think this is a serious question Jesse. (4) You asked " Did they (claim) that their translation alone was the Word of God"? They were (moved) by the Holy Ghost, God didn't come down from heaven and talk to them personally and tell every one of them they were translating the True Word of God.

(5) You asked "Did they (claim) that all previous translations were corrupt"? Why would they? Why would you expect them too?

(6) You asked "Did they (claim) that any translation written after theirs should be automatically discarded and labeled as being corrupt"? ( Jer. 23:36) ( 2 Cor. 2:17) ( Prov. 30:5-6)

Now will you Please answer the one question I asked you in my last comment to you that was ignored?

You are pretty much a Greek scholar Jesse, so getting the True meaning of the words from the Bible in the original language is very important to you and I completely understand why. It is very helpful in many different ways to get the True meaning of the words in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. Right?

Will you please answer this?

What is ( Jer. 23:36) telling us about the Word of the living God? The word (perverted) is #2015; it means ((to change))

This verse is saying they changed the words of the living God. All modern versions change the Words of the living God.

It is being spoken of pastors who are feeding God's people ( Jer. 23:1-2)

Truth matters.

Blessings

Jimbob,

Greetings, just go back form my trip and am catching up on posts here.

Not really wanting to jump full board back into this discussion but I would like to comment that the full text of the New

Testament was compiled in the first few centuries. In the 4th century (I believe) Jerome translated these manuscripts into Latin. Erasmus translated the Vulgate and the Greek text once again in 1300 A.D. (approximately). The Geneva Bible , Tyndale Bible, Wycliffe Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Great Bible, Martin Luther's German translation and others existed before the KJB.

So the full New and Old Testaments had been complied into one Bible during the millennium before the KJV was translated.

Jimbob,

(Part 2):

Jimbob, you have not used Scripture "over and over" showing me that modern versions are corrupt. What you have done is given me very little scripture and only mentioned the NIV, not "ALL" modern versions. Since you are saying ALL modern versions are corrupt, then you need to give proof to that, which you have not done. There are several modern versions out there, so unless you list them all out and show why each one of them individually is corrupt, I cannot agree with you that they are ALL corrupt.

Also, something else that should be taken into consideration, just because another translation is not exactly word for word identical to the KJB, that does not render the other translation as being corrupt. The KJB was not written as a standard to be used to prove the validity of other bible translations. If you want to determine whether or not a specific translation is corrupt, you shouldn't use the KJB as your source. Perhaps using the same source that King James Bible translators used to produce what you and I both read and study from would be the proper way to make that determination before saying that "ALL" translations are corrupt.

As for your statement that "God was in control of translating His pure Words, He is also in control of it being the most printed book of all time," I am assuming you are referring to the KJB? If you are specifically speaking of the KJB, not the bible in general (other translations included), can you provide numbers to show the KJB being the most printed book of all time?

Jimbob,

(Part 1):

Let me start off by saying that I believe all of God's word is true, so you don't have to ask me anymore if I believe certain verses are true. Yes, 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." The term inspiration of God is one Greek word that means God breathed. All scripture is God breathed. And yes, I agree that all scripture given by inspiration of God would be considered sound doctrine. But what we need to understand is that "sound doctrine" existed long before the King James Bible was written. The KJB didn't give us sound doctrine, we already had sound doctrine!

You say, "The KJB was translated by men who were called holy men of God who were moved by the Holy Ghost ( 2 Pet. 2:19-21) Which has said the same thing for more than 400 years." By the way, it's 2 Peter Chapter 1, not Chapter 2. But again, you are misapplying 2 Peter 1:21. Peter was not referring to the translators of the KJB as the holy men of God. Peter was referring to the prophets of old, the apostles, and a few others who gave us the complete inspired word of God (Completed around 95 AD). God inspired those men to give us the complete word in written form. The KJB is a translation into English of the preserved word of God that already existed. If we apply the words "holy men of God" used 2 Peter 1:21 to the translators of the KJB to show that the KJB is the ONLY pure word of God in existence today, then why wouldn't it apply to other bibles that have the same verse, word for word?

If we're still discussing Daniel 3:25 and trying to figure out which version (KJB/NIV) is sound doctrine, I would say that neither is considered sound doctrine. The book of Daniel is a book of history and prophecy, not doctrine. If we want doctrine, we need to look to Paul's writings (Romans through Philemon).

Jesse thank you for your response. I'm a little confused by your comments, you said "I believe all God's Word is true" you also said "And yes, I agree that all scripture given by inspiration of God would be considered sound doctrine".

Then later on you said speaking of ( Dan. 3:25) neither the KJB nor the Niv is considered sound doctrine. You even said the book of Daniel is not doctrine? The word (doctrine) is either #1319 or 1322 in Greek; 1319; means instruction (the function or the information) doctrine, learning, teaching. 1322; means instruction (the act or the matter) doctrine, hath been taught.

So (doctrine) is our instruction, what we learn from, what we teach from. Our doctrine is the Bible we use and get instruction from. The book of Daniel is doctrine, it has a lot of prophecy in it even for the Lastdays.

You have said several times that I keep "misapplying" ( 2 Pet. 1:21) This verse tells us "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"

The word (prophecy) is #4394; it means ("prophecy") prediction (scriptural or other). How much (prophecy) would you say is in the New Testament? The book of Daniel also has much (prophecy) wouldn't you say Jesse?

This (prophecy) is what the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The word (spake) is #2980; it means to talk, utter words, speak (after) to lay forth, (fig) relate in words (usually of systematic or set discourse) describe, put forth. Jesse if the holy men of God were the prophets of old, the apostles, and a few others as you said, will you please provide Scripture as proof of that?

You said I have not provided Scripture showing All modern versions are corrupt.

I have provided many verses but this one proves it Jesse. ( Jer. 23:36) The word (perverted) is #2015; it means (TO CHANGE) In context this verse is saying they changed the Words of the living God! ALL modern versions are guilty!

p2 soon. Blessings.

Well said, Jesse.

Jesse I'm sorry for another page here on this but I think this is really an important point for this subject and conversation.

IF ( Ps. 12:6-7) Is True and God preserved His Word for ever.

Say you wrote a letter to your wife, or a family member. That letter would be the (Original). It would (Always) be the Original. Even if it were re-written over and over by other people but ((the words remained the same)) it would still be the Original, that would only make those that are re-written, a copy of the Original. Right? If some people took your letter and starting making copies of it, but they were changing the words that you had written. Their letters would not be the same as your letter anymore, just changing one word ((could give a completely different meaning)) from ((what your intent was)) but they are changing many many words and even leaving some words and sentences completely out. (It would not be the same) If God preserved His Words for ever like He tells us in more than one verse, ( Titus. 1:2) and ( Heb. 6:18) Tells us God cannot lie! This is exactly what all modern version Bibles are doing to His Words. That makes ( Jer. 23:36) make perfect sense as the word (perverting) means ((to change)) the words of the living God.

( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) Would be how God used what v21 calls holy men of God to bring us the prophecy (Which is the Word of God) for this time period we live in now.

( 2 Tim. 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" The word (inspiration) is #2315; it means divinely breathed in.

It is God breathed.

I truly mean no offence Jesse, but I honestly don't see how anyone who is seeking the Truth could not see this as the Truth.

It is Truth.

Please don't be offended Jesse, but Please study on this if you don't see it. God Bless you Jesse.

Jimbob,

I also (as GiGi) understand where you are coming from. I also agree with her that we need to move on to other topics. Something Jema said made a lot of sense also where she said "I just wonder why, when there are so many awesome things, edifying and encouraging and comforting things that we could be posting on here, things that would potentially be helpful and comforting to others, our brothers and sisters in Christ, are any of us talking about a different translation on here. Have we really nothing better to post?"

You cherish the KJB, and I cannot fault you for that. As I said, it is my bible of choice. However, I am not a KJB only believer. There are a few other English translations that I believe to be very good translations, just like the King James is a good translation. I chose the King James because I believe it to be more accurate than other English translations. But it is not a perfect translation. What is most important to me is the salvation of others, not what bible translation they read. Whatever bible a person chooses to read from is between them and the Lord.

You are telling me that God used holy men of God to translate the KJB in 1611 ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21)? If that is what you are saying, then I would have to say that that is a complete misapplication of 2 Peter 1:21. The "holy men of God" in that verse has nothing to do with the men who translated the King James Bible.

I do like your analogy of the original letter always being the original. That is a great analogy with an emphasis on original. My question is: Did the men who gave us the KJB translation have the original letters when they were translating? Again, I agree with GiGi. Unless you can find someone that wishes to compare and discuss the KJB vs all other translations, I would move on to another topic.

Jesse I have to answer this, you pretty much said I was misapplying ( 2 Pet. 1:21) without given any explanation as to how you think I was doing that.

The subject in ( 2 Pet. 1:19) is a ((more sure word of prophecy)).

( 2 Pet. 1:20) Tells us "Knowing this first, that ((no prophecy of the scripture is of any (private) interpretation))".

The word (prophecy) is #4394; it means prediction, (scriptural or other)

The word (private) is #2398; it means pertaining to self, i.e. one's own, by implying private or separate.

( 2 Pet. 1:21) Tells us "For (the prophecy) (came not in old time) (by the will of man): but holy men of God spake ((as they were moved by the Holy Ghost))".

The (prophecy) is the Word of God.

( Rev. 1:1-3) v3 Tells us "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this ((prophecy)) and keep those things which (are written therein): for the time is at hand.

They hear the words of this ((prophecy)) this verse also tells us "and keep those things ((which are written)) therein".

( Rev. 22:7) Tells us "blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book".

So that prophecy is written in a book. The prophecy in ( 2 Pet. 1:21) that came to us by holy men of God!

That is how we got the King James Bible.

Now you asked "Did the men who gave us the KJB translation have the original letters when they were translated?"

They spake as they were ((moved by the Holy Ghost)) so I would say God was in complete control of whatever was used to keep His Words pure. The Holy Ghost would have been the translator, using the men.

Jesse if the modern version bibles are the doctrines of devils in ( 1 Tim. 4:1) do you think it would be edifying, comforting, and helpful to get people to see that truth?

In ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) v3 tells us of the time (they will not endure sound doctrine). v4 Tells us "And they shall (turn away their ears from the truth), and shall be turned unto fables".

I'll end it with that. Reply only if you want to. Thanks Jesse, God Bless.

Very good point Jimbob , words are so very important . If we all thought about this I'm sure we could all remember an incident where things were totally misunderstood because some one used the wrong word . It happened to me very recently ! I am a married woman . One of my male neighbours always says hello to me and I to him . Just two days ago I was shopping in town and had bought a small side table and was carrying it around with me, it wasn't at all heavy but it was awkward . My male neighbour came up to me and said ' hello , are you on your own ' ? I replied yes , thinking that maybe he was going to offer to carry the table home for me . I was shocked into silence when he opened his wallet and took out a piece of paper and handed it to me saying ' give me a call sometime , we can go out to dinner ' ! I was flabbergasted ! The paper had his name and phone number on it ! What he really meant to ask me was are you single ! But that's not what he said ! When he asked me are you on your own I thought that he meant there and then ! Walking around shopping carying a small table ! Yes ! I was on my own then ! But not a single woman ! Things like this happen to all of us at some time in sure , words are very important , we all find this out for sure when the wrong one is used !

Jema thank you for your reply, your story shows us how important our words are, and also how easy it is to create confusion when the right words are not used. How much more important to us are the Words of the LORD? Every Word of God is pure and should never be changed. Thank you again Jema. God Bless you.

Jesse It is important to me what translation others use. I guess that's because I honestly, truly Believe God when He tells me in ( Ps. 12:6-7) that His Words are pure Words and He preserved His Words for ever. And in ( Proverbs. 30:5-6) And in ( 2 Tim. 3:16) He tells us "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". You said "Does it really matter what Bible version we read"? If God used holy men of God to translate the KJB in 1611 ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) Then yes it should definitely matter!

You also said "Are we going to stand before God one day and be denied because we chose the wrong translation"? Nobody on earth can answer that question Jesse. The Lord Jesus Christ is the one who will judge us, but I would like to think being obedient to His pure Word is a really good start, wouldn't you think so? ( 1 Pet. 1:25) ( Isaiah. 55:11) ( Titus. 1:9-11) ( Ps. 119:89) ( Jn. 1:1,14) ( Jn. 14:23) Then in ( Rev. 19:10) It tells us "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy". The word (testimony) is #3141; it means evidence given, record, report, witness.

Im sorry if this offends you Jesse but if we care more about being "sensitive" to others rather than showing the (Truth) to them then are we not letting them down? Jesus said in ( Jn. 14:6) "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me". The Truth matters!!



You said you do not believe the KJB is superior to all others.

In ( Dan. 3:25) The KJB says "the fourth is like the Son of God"

The Niv says "the fourth looks like a son of the gods"

Which version is superior here Jesse?

In ( Col. 1:14) The KJB says "In whom we have redemption (THROUGH HIS BLOOD), even the forgiveness of sins"

The Niv says "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" The Niv leaves out (THROUGH HIS BLOOD)

Which version is superior here Jesse?

( Luke. 4:4) the Niv leaves out the words "but by every word of God"

It should be important to you what translation others use if you see this Truth.

No offence, Blessings

Amen Brother Jesse.

It's God spirit that opens eyes and ears to scripture and also shuts them.

Everyone that holds the view that the king James

is the only inspired Bible doesn't agree on all doctrine with others that holds the King James as the only inspired Bible.

You may have to dig deeper with

Improper translation, and sometimes that's just a matter of turning a few pages!

Revelation of the word of God and its message is spreaded throughout the entire Bible.

When there is error, The scripture should straighten itself out.

If you tore John 3:16 out the Bible, In the body of the Bible "OT and NT" you doesn't loose the message. It's still there!

In biblical times everyone who spoke Greek or Hebrew didn't agree on all bases.

God bless.

S Spencer Do you think its ok to use a Bible if it is not inspired by God?

You said "You may have to dig deeper with Improper translation, and sometimes that's just a matter of turning a few pages".

If its a Improper translation then that would be what ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) is warning us about ((not being)) ((sound doctrine)) in the Lastdays!

That could also be what ( 1 Tim. 4:1) is warning us about "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that ((in the latter times)) some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and ((doctrines of devils))". If its a Improper translation that would mean its not God's Word, but could be, and more than likely would one of those doctrines of devils. Right?

You also said "Revelation of the word of God and its message is spreading throughout the entire Bible. When there is error, The scripture should straighten itself out".

Do you believe if a Bible version is one of the doctrines of devils in ( 1 Tim. 4:1) it would straighten itself out?

The word (doctrines) is #1319; it means instruction (the function or the information) doctrine, learning, teaching.

(So our doctrine today is whatever Bible we learn from or teach from. ((It is our Biblical instruction)), that means we will have some Bibles in the latter times (today) that are doctrines of devils. (It would seem these are created to deceive if its a doctrine of devils because it causes some to depart from the faith)

Where could these doctrines of devils possibly be today? Modern version Bibles is the answer to that question.

They change the Words of the living God ( Jer. 23:36) The word (perverted) means to change.

You said "when there is error"? A Bible with errors ((would be one of those doctrines of devils)) that change the Word of God. also what ( 1 Tim. 4:1) warns us about in the latter times?

There are no errors in the KJB it is the pure, preserved Word of God.

Please don't be offended Spencer. ( Eph. 4:25) ( Gal. 6:1) ( Proverbs. 27:17)

God Bless you Spencer.

Hi Jimbob.

again, thanks for your reply and no it's there's no reason for me to get upset over this misunderstanding.

I haven't put much time towards the site of recent and haven't followed the original thread.

Let's be clear, I use the KJV.

However to answer a few of your questions,

I would say any false literature or added literature to intentionally change the word of God in a way to loose the virtue intended yes that is what one may call leaven and yes perhaps demonic.

However false or demonic "doctrine" comes from the interpreter or teacher from any Bible, as well as the king James.

Doctrine is what you build out of the scripture whether it's faulty scripture or not. "A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group."

What I was saying in regards to Brother Jesse's post was that I wouldn't go to the extreme of denying anyone's access to a Church unless they possessed a King James Bible.

I believe God planned well ahead of Satan's traps and schemes. He gave us the Holyspirit to teach us and spread his message to us abroad.

Isaiah 28:9-10 "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; HERE A LITTLE, AND THERE A LITTLE:

There are groups out there that change the bible they use completely to fit their Doctrine. "New World Translation" is one.

God's word is perfect.

Translations imperfect.

A fruitless false teacher is worst, no matter what Bible he has.

Because the Doctrine he adhere to haven't brought fruit in his life.

You shall know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15-16.

It doesn't say you shall know them by their Bible.

There are tares amongst us and their Bible is just like ours! They attempt to lure one away from the truth which is Christ.

GBU.

S Spencer thank you for your response. I would like to ask you something Spencer from your last comment.

You said "I would say any false literature or added literature to intentionally change the word of God in a way to loose the virtue intended yes that is what one may call leaven and ye perhaps demonic"

I'm not sure if you saw the examples comparing a few verses in the KJB and the Niv in one of my comments to Jesse so here's a couple of them.

In the KJB ( Dan. 3:25) It tells us "the fourth is like the Son of God"

In the Niv the same verse says "the fourth looks like a son of the gods"

(Do you think the Niv looses the virtue intended by saying (the fourth looks like a son of the gods)? It was truly the Son of God!

(This to me sounds like intentional deception rather than a translation problem!)

In the KJB ( Col. 1:14) It tells us "In whom we have redemption, THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins".

In the Niv the same verse says "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins".

The Niv leaves out the words (THROUGH HIS BLOOD).

(Do you think the Niv looses the virtue intended by leaving out the words (through his blood)?

In the KJB ( Luke. 4:4) It tells us "It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God".

In the Niv the same verse says "Jesus answered, It is written: Man does not live by bread alone".

The Niv leaves out the words (but by every word of God)

Jesus Christ tells us that we should live by ((EVERY WORD OF GOD)). And the Niv takes that away.

( Proverbs. 30:5-6) Tells us "Every word of God is pure".

Do you think these intentional changes in the Niv are loosing the virtue intended by God?

Do you think these changes would fall in that category as being demonic?

I would say YES to both questions!

The Niv bible is not Inspired by God, these changes alone should prove that!

How many more changes like these could there possibly be in the whole Niv to deceive people?

Thank you Spencer. God Bless you.

Jimbob,

I think we both agree that the atoning blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ is very important. I was drawn to your comparison of Colossians 1:14 between the NIV and the KJB. I do not own an NIV but I have a few bible software programs that give me access to multiple bibles.

Anyway, I looked this up for myself. You are correct. But was it the intent of the NIV to eliminate or diminish the blood sacrifice? I don't believe so. I read a little further down in the same chapter (Verse 20) which reads, "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross"

If it was the intent of the NIV to leave out the words "through His blood," why would it be mentioned in other places, especially in Ephesians 1:7 (NIV) which reads, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins."

You would think that if the NIV was intentionally trying to remove the blood sacrifice, then it would not be found in any other place.

Is there any reason why you fail to mention other verses in the NIV such as Romans 3:25 that says "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood," 1 Peter 1:18-19 which mentions the precious blood of Christ, Ephesians 2:13 which says we have been brought near by the blood of Christ," Hebrews 9:14, "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" or Revelation 1:5 which says "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood."

It doesn't seem fair to only bring up Colossians 1:14 without mentioning these other verses, especially Ephesians 1:7.

I am not defending the NIV, but I'm also not condemning it either.

Blessings to you in Christ Jesus!

Hi Jimbob.

I was intended to research the NIV in the same manner Brother Jesse did!

Praise God that he did so because I was just going to search the surrounding verses around the text you provided.

I wasn't going to lift out other scriptures.

That settles it for me.

We don't know the intentions of the translators!

My focus is on the interpreter.

"Does he have an blood tipped ear?"

This is the reason why we must be careful in our study of the Word of God, that we not run ahead of the Spirit of God, but that we let Him be our teacher. If you have a blood-tipped ear, He wants you to hear what He has to say.

Only the Spirit of God can make the Word of God real to you.

It seems that others decided to exit this discussion,

I believe you guys covered a lot so I will leave this one alone.

God bless you.

Hi Jimbob.

No I haven't read it, though I don't know their intention for this However you do have ve a point.

I will when I get home I will read it.

And yes those verses loses virtu of the intended message.

Hi Jimbob.

Thanks for the reply.

I will get back to you at the end of the work day.

God bless