Please leave me a comment if you see any videos missing in any posts, so I may replace them if I can. Thank you!

Saturday, September 11, 2010

New NIV Revision to Correct 'Mistakes'

The irony cannot be lost: that those who fight to keep what they deem to be "the inerrant word of God," such as "pastor" Billy Crone of NFBC, have this, another thorn on their side, to prove the INvalidity of the corrupt "bibles" they have in their pews!



And the TNIV states, unequivocally, in its "A Word to the Reader":

"There is a sense in which the work of translating the bible is never finished This very fact has prompted the committee to engage in an ongoing review of the text of the NIV with the assistance of many other scholars. The chief goal of this review has always been to bring the text of the NIV abreast of contemporary biblical scholarship and of shifts of English idiom and usage. Already in 1978 and again in 1984 various corrections and revisions to the NIV text were made. In the TNIV the committee offers to the reading public the latest fruits of its review."

Indeed, they have ensured themselves perpetual job security!! Just how low does one's IQ have to be to swallow this? After all, look at the dates of the publications that have come out:

1973 - 1978 - 1984 - 2010

We all know that in the NIV Matthew 17:21 is omitted, but found in its the footnotes;

but, in the TNIV Matthew 17:21 is nowhere to be found!!

Then, towards the end of the same "A Word to the Reader" it states:

"The Committee has again been reminded that every human effort is flawed-including this revision of the NIV. We trust, however, that many will find in it an improved representation of the word of God, through which they fear his call to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and service in his kingdom."


Ye blind guides,
which strain at a gnat,
and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:24 (KJB)


The King James Bible HAS NEVER HAD TO HAVE A TEXTUAL REVISION!! It will celebrate its 400th anniversary in 2011, and has produced Godly fruit throughout the centuries!

The King James Bible is not a "representation" of the word of God:

IT IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD

PRESERVED FOR US IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!



Battle Cry
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Share |


New NIV Revision to Correct 'Mistakes'
Issue Date: September/October 2010


The Biblica Bible Society (formerly International Bible Society) announced that it will release a revision of the New International Version of the Bible in 2011. Since the original release of the NIV in 1978 there have been several "revisions:" the Today's New International Version (TNIV) the New International Version Inclusive (NIVi) using gender neutral language, the New International Reader's Version (NIRV) and other variations such as the "Adventure Bible for Early Readers."


They claim that the mistakes were primarily in handling the public relations when they released the new versions. But the Committee on Bible Translations (CBT), responsible for "updating" the text, claims they have "1200 changes to the text" waiting to be incorporated into the 2011 release.


There are two basic "rules of the game" in Bible translating. One simply tries to find a word in the new language that means the same as the word in the original language. This is known as "literal equivalence."


Sometimes the two languages do not have identical words, so the translators may use more than one word to get the exact meaning across. However, their goal is still to get a translation that literally says what the original said.


To the average buyer of Bibles, this seems the way it "ought to be." He will assume he is going to get God's words. After all, the Bible is the Bible, isn't it??


Unfortunately, there is another philosophy of Bible translation that uses different rules. It is called "dynamic equivalence." Now, anything that is "dynamic" is something that moves around a lot. And when you take a close look at the dozens of new translations that have used this "dynamic" approach, it sure is a moving target. Instead of looking for a new word just like the one in the old translation, they form an opinion about what they think the old word means and then look for a way to explain it in "today's" words.


Trying to adapt the Bible language to "modern" words is like juggling. You better keep moving or your act will crash. The NIV's "dynamic" dance over the last 30 years proves the point. When writers of Sunday school and teaching material quote the NIV they have to include the version date or someone will think they misquoted it.


Wouldn't it be better to have a Bible that has not changed in 400 years? One you could memorize and be confident it won't change during your lifetime? One that doesn't need a standing "committee" to keep it up to date?


One translated by the most qualified men ever assembled for such a job? One that was the central inspiration for every significant revival in the Western World? One that guided America to become the most blessed nation ever known? One that has been translated into hundreds of native languages by thousands of missionaries?


But to have such a Bible, you must stretch your mind to learn a few hundred new words and face ridicule for believing that this "literal" Bible is exactly what God wanted English speaking people to know. But, you don't have to worry that your Bible will change wordings and meanings every few years.


Satan hates this Bible that has stood the test of time: the Authorized King James Version. To learn the less familiar words in the KJV, get a copy of David W. Daniel's little booklet, The King James Bible Companion.


To learn how to confound the critics, get copies of David W. Daniel's books, Answers to Your Bible Version Questions, Look What's Missing, and Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?


More Articles from Current Issue
Home Page

©1984-2010 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Some portions of www.chick.com are copyrighted by others and reproduced by permission,. as indicated by copyright notices on individual pages.

...


abdul rahman el assir

...

...


No comments:

Post a Comment