Say good-bye to the NIV Bible as we know it and say hello to the updated, gender-inclusive NIV Bible which debuts in stores this month.
Mega-publisher Zondervan printed 1.9 million copies of the updated NIV Bible in this first run, up from the original 1.4 million.
"This laydown of the NIV update is bigger than we imagined," said Chip Brown, senior vice president of Bibles for Zondervan, to The Christian Post. "A couple of retailers came in a little higher after seeing the marketing and products."...
This thread is about the new NIV "Bible", Jim. Do you claim that this new Bible is inerrant? Can you encourage anyone with the words, "Ah this Bible is inerrant."? Or do you regard all Bibles as errant? If the latter, ah......poor dab.
John, UK, the biggest cash cow for all Bible publishers is The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer, and its many flaws are well, known, e.g., Indisputable, universally recognized errors in the KJV, the AV is not the inerrant Word of God, but a bombastic unreadable Word!
Doug Kutilek wrote: ...let me say first, I do not think obscuring the Deity of Christ (as the KJV does at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1) and virtual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by repeatedly referring to Him as "it" are small matters. But beyond this, I affirm that anything--ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of the Word of God is wrong and evil.....
Jim Lincoln wrote: That's too bad, John UK, I have both a printed and computer 1984 version of the NIV, it would still be available at used bookstores, and the 2011 NIV may be quite good, but I'm not tied to one version!
What madness is this?
2001 NIV may be "quite good"?
Bit vague isn't it?
The question is this: "Is the 2011 NIV the inspired and inerrant word of God or not?"
Oh, and seeing as you love to talk about "errors", do you know of any "errors" in the 2011 NIV, or is this the final, modern version? Or is this "Bible" yet another example of how to make money out of gullible Christians, which makes it a contender for The Filthy Lucreists Bible of The Year Award?
That's too bad, John UK, I have both a printed and computer 1984 version of the NIV, it would still be available at used bookstores, and the 2011 NIV may be quite good, but I'm not tied to one version! The main point it has to be accurate and in modern English, you should have been noticing I have been using the New American Standard Bible -- I'm sure that IHCC would be happy to sell you copy!
But the ESV which seems to be taking England by storm, at least the Reformed Church members etc., is quite good as well. It's the bad versions I'm trying to steer people away from! \
Christopher Pope wrote: Translations Not Recommended
Advances in understanding the text of the New Testament, as well as changes in the English language,... made the... King James Version (KJV),...far obsolete. Their rating is lower for the fact that, while the most formally literal, none of them pay enough attention to the nuances of grammar and syntax.....
Too bad, Jim Lincoln, that you seem quite unable to make any sensible comment on this thread, which is all about the new, revised, up-to-date modern NIV, which has been brought in because the 1984 NIV is not regarded sufficiently accurate to sell to the Christian public, and has been relegated to the same place as the Dodo, namely extinct; unpublished now and forgotten, like a bad taste or toothache.
Of course, all these changes to the NIV make it the prime contender for introducing more religious texts found in The Sinaiticus, texts like the "Shepherd of Hermas". We may also even see the introduction into the canon of the "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" and the "Gospel of Thomas". This would not come as any great surprise to me, indeed I expect it. Plus the Vaticanus has apocryphal writings also.
The devil knows he cannot change the Bible too much at a time, so he is patient, having found his publishers who will do his bidding, and little by little he will ensure the modern versions are slowly changed until they become unrecognisable as the word of God.
Why does he do this?
It is to prevent the quickening word of God from doing its work in the hearts of lost souls.
Too bad, John UK, that "modern" Bible was The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer. Remember syncretic? the Anglicans had the greatest influence on this bad version of God's Word. The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV.
The NIV has pushed the AV into the background, let's hope the new version will make the necessary corrections to really put the AV on everyone's backshelves
Mike wrote: There is no need to feel sorry for them, John, for there is no requirement for someone who has an older NIV to exchange it for a newer one in the first place.
I can't help but feel sorry for them bro. There is a continual pressure put on Christians not to remain static, but to hearken to the latest and greatest arky oh logical discovery, which ends up with yet another better Bible, rendering your own Bible to be antiquated and in need of a facelift.
True, folks don't have to bow to peer pressure. I am one who does not. But those who bought a 1984 NIV have already bowed to the pressure, without investigating the issue fully, and so they will go along with the flow once again with this new version, especially when their church changes to it and replaces all the pew Bibles and force readers to read only from the official church Bible. A friend of mine has recently been told she couldn't teach in the Sunday School of her Baptist Church unless she used the NIV 1984 rather than the Authorised Version.
John UK wrote: Has anyone seen the text of this "new, shiny, better than ever, more accurate version of the Bible", which replaces the rejected 1984 NIV and the rejected 2005 TNIV? I feel sorry for all those who bought a 1984 NIV along with all the concordances, commentaries, and Bible helps, all of which will have to be replaced, along with their Bible (which no church will ever use again), seeing as the 1984 NIV has been rejected even by its publisher, not worthy of a place in the pew nor home, seeing as it is no longer held to be reliable, and will no more be published by the filthy lucreists who obvously are not content with the income it is generating, preferring to go down the route of "newer is better", much in the traditon of those who claim that when it comes to greek texts, it is "older is better", which,....etc. ---
There is no need to feel sorry for them, John, for there is no requirement for someone who has an older NIV to exchange it for a newer one in the first place.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I'm going to stick with the modern translations
Like this Jim; "America was not "prime-time ready" for a NIV feminist "gender inclusive" edition. So the NIVI was published solely in Great Britain by Hodder & Stoughton (Zondervan is exclusive NIV publisher in the U.S.). The NIVI is so drenched in feminist changes and so corrupt, it cannot legally be sold in America. The NIVI is a "bound and gagged book" in America. See 2Tim 2:9 (but the word of God is not bound"). According to Christianity Today, NIV copyright holder, International Bible Society (IBS) even requested that Hodder & Stoughton quit selling the embarrassing NIVI in liberal England.
A little known "secret" that also appeared in 1996 was concerning Zondervanâs, the New International Readers Version [NIrV]. According to Zondervan, the NIrV was, "a thorough, scholarly simplification of the NIV, the NIrV was specifically designed to help young children [ages 2-10] and new readers understand the Bible for themselves."
But the "dirty little secret" was the childrenâs NIrV was soaking in "gender inclusive" feminist language. There was nothing in the Preface, nor any hint anywhere that the innocent childrenâs NIrV was flooded with "gender inclusive" lingo" (T.Watkins)
Has anyone seen the text of this "new, shiny, better than ever, more accurate version of the Bible", which replaces the rejected 1984 NIV and the rejected 2005 TNIV?
I feel sorry for all those who bought a 1984 NIV along with all the concordances, commentaries, and Bible helps, all of which will have to be replaced, along with their Bible (which no church will ever use again), seeing as the 1984 NIV has been rejected even by its publisher, not worthy of a place in the pew nor home, seeing as it is no longer held to be reliable, and will no more be published by the filthy lucreists who obvously are not content with the income it is generating, preferring to go down the route of "newer is better", much in the traditon of those who claim that when it comes to greek texts, it is "older is better", which, if they applied to the English Bible, might find their way back home to something with a bit more stability to it.
Just another heretical "bible" version to ignore in the growing line-up of the new and improved. KJV 1611 Pure Cambridge Edition; a work of God and free to all (no copyright and fully on the web). One can read the work of the infidels, Wescott and Hort, if you are so mislead but I will stick to God's true Word instead.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Doug Kutilek wrote: "My challenge is this: âWhich ONE KJV edition is the infallible ONE?â There is no âwiggle roomâ here. We are told by the KJVO faction that âGod wrote only one Bibleâ and that âthings which differ are not the same.â So, tell me straight out: which one KJV edition is the infallible one."
The one God ordained for use during the last four centuries, together with the Textus Receptus. Thus did God authorise it's use!
Note God did not and does not relegate the King James Bible to history, simply because man has decided to manufacture a new Greek text and a different english (bad) grammar version.
The politically correct gender bender NIV is typical of the modern versions venture into Liberalism and changes in doctrines.
What the Lord has been doing for four centuries He can and will continue to do with the King James Bible, without man's help or input. That is to teach His wisdom and doctrine to the elect and build His Church on earth.
Jim Lincoln wrote: By the way, the [AV]......kjv-1611a...... the KJV 1611..... AV publisher .........AV publishers..... the King James Bible .......version to rest...... KJV /King+James+Version..... King James Version..... (KJV..... KJV .....the AV .... The Ryrie KJV
By the way, this thread is about the demise, the death, the dodo-lookalike, the passing, the end of, the extinction, the rejection, the unwanted, the pathetic, the Roman Catholic inspired, the soon to be unavailable 1984 NIV, and the introduction of its successor, which will soon go the same direction.
What's up Jim, got too much egg on your face to comment on the thread topic? Too pink due to blushing with embarrassment? Too disheartened and disillusioned? Too annoyed with the publishers to even make a little comment? Is this why you use diversionary tactics to cause people to think only about the AV 1611, rather than have their eyes opened to the truth about the 1984 NIV.
Doug Kutilek wrote: I have repeatedly challenged those who claim to have âthe final authorityâ in their hand and mock the very idea of the âoriginal authorityâ view. My challenge is this: âWhich ONE KJV edition is the infallible ONE?â There is no âwiggle roomâ here. We are told by the KJVO faction that âGod wrote only one Bibleâ and that âthings which differ are not the same.â So, tell me straight out: which one KJV edition is the infallible one. It must be only one (if any at all), not two or three, or the KJV editions taken collectively. It must be just one. Until you can with certainty identify it for us, the objections raised against those who appeal to the "originalsâ as their final authority is entirely discredited.
"The only real purpose for this is the fact that Zondervan is a secular owned company and profits are the bottom line."
Yet another pietistic "conservative" attack on the profit motive. Just try & find employees who'll work for nothing, whether at printing Bibles or anything else. Not many object to pastors earning a salary, so why single out Bible publishers?
Now the KJV was not promulgated for the profit motive, but by a king with a philosophical agenda - Divine Right. Does this make it better somehow?
Mike wrote: Philippians 1:18 "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." Perhaps AV's published even by Nelson may be used in the saving of souls. If so, they are no less worthy that those from TBS. What thinkest thou?
The sovereign Lord may use just what and how he pleases Mike. Some folks have been converted even while members of the Roman Catholic Church, singing the Latin, smelling the smells and ringing the bells. There is no limit to God's reach.
But it is a simple fact that modern publishers have been altering even the text of the AV without informing the retailer, namely Cambridge University Press, once a reputable, sound printer. The TBS have been so disappointed with this publisher, that they immediately took steps to print their own Bibles, and I believe now do so.
You see Mike how subtle is the devil in his attempts to corrupt the word of God, when even the TBS were recently supplying one of their Bibles without knowing of any changes made to the text by Cambridge.