i gotta say ive always known the NIV to be satanic from a long time. its actually produced by a the same company that publishes the satanic bible and alot of homosexual books as well. now tell me why do millions of people read and uses the NIV bible. even on 3ABN they use it alot. how can the remnant church be using and teaching from a corrupted bible. and anyone who wanna post garbage trying to defend their beloved NIV, ESV, NLT, NKJV and all other corrupt bible versions need to watch the video before they make a comment.
Here is a 16th Tapestry of Unicorns. What happened in the 19th century does not compare. Further, if we are going to apply the Vulgate as the litmus for the King James version, then we must accept the Catholic Bible in full, including the books not included in the Protestant Bible.
So, it brings us full circle to the fact that the KJV is a flawed translation.
"if we are going to apply the Vulgate as the litmus for the King James version."
We are not talking vulgate anything. We are talking the English language which borrows from latin and greek. Most of us here are so dumbed down we can not even understand the writings of Ben Franklin or George Washington let alone the King Jame's English. That said, even as smart as these people were who translated the Geneva or the KJV probably never laid eyes on an African elephant let alone a rhino. Given that I think these men did a great job with what they had. I am not a KJV only kind of guy but if that version of the Bible did not exist or the Geneva Bible did not exist the world would be a much different place. Rather than be stuck on unicorn you should look into the history language we speak, how Gods hand was in on that translation, and how it standardized our English language. I have this wonderful thing called a computer and Iook at all kinds of translations so I get a true picture. If you were really serious about the Unicorn thing you would be interested in what the actual translation is supposed to be but I have seen nothing of that only silly pictures, and not only unicorns but other creatures. Since you hunt for instance is a duck or goose clean or not clean. I am not certain because of the translation maybe you should look into this since I doubt you will be shooting unicorns.
Bart, the video you presented claimed that "unicornus" came from the Latin Vulgate Bible. So, my point is, if you try to support the idea of unicorns in the KJV by relying on the Latin Vulgate, e.g. the Catholic Bible, then you have to accept all the trappings that go with it. Now, if you are being anachronistic and trying to apply the 19th Century to the 16th Century, then the argument falls apart like a house of cards.
So, back to my original argument. The KJV is a flawed version. People glom onto it based on tradition rather than reason.
It is surprising that there are people on AO defending certain translations and attacking KJV. Translation, as has been said, is hardly an exact science, but deliberate distortion or omission cannot be the hallmark of Bible versions we're being encouraged to use. Readers should look for HH Meyers study on Bible translations (The Battle of the Bibles/Bible Battle). For those defending NIV and attacking KJV, I've extracted some portions from Meyers' study. The first lines in quotation marks are from KJV, followed by other versions as indicated.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".
RSV "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son... "
The omission of the term: "begotten" is entirely consistent with the Gnostic philosophy of the RSV revisers who shunned the supernatural. "Only begotten" comes from two Greek words meaning "alone" and "I am born", thus signifying Christ's lack of an earthly father. That the omission is deliberate, there can be no doubt, as witness John 1:14,18; John 3:18 and 1 John 4:9.
JB "God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son".
NIV "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son ".
We see the Jerusalem Bible and the NIV pairing up, except that a note in the NIV admits the omission: "Or God's only begotten Son ".
1 Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory".
Douay "great is the mystery of Godliness, which was manifest in the flesh, was justified in the spirit... ".
RV "He who was manifested in the flesh... ".
RSV "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh... ".
JB "Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed. He was made visible in the flesh... ".
NIV "He appeared in a body... ".
All five versions fail to identify who or what appeared in the flesh. The NIV demolishes the doctrine of the incarnation by saying: "He appeared in a body ". We may well ask, who appeared a body? Don't we all! But how many gods have been "manifest in the flesh"?
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham".
It will be noted in the KJV that the words: "him the nature" have been supplied, indicating a problem with the Greek text. But whereas this translation makes sense within the context of verse seventeen, which outlines the credentials of a high priest, other translators have succeeded in making it meaningless.
Douay "For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold".
RV "For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham ".
RSV "For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham ".
NIV "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants ".
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost".
RV, RSV, JB and NIV The whole verse is missing because Westcott and Hort rejected it, but the Douay having preceded them got it right.
"And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God".
RV "Thou art the Holy One of God".
RSV, JB and NIV "You are the Holy One of God".
The translators of these four versions all avoid Peter's declaration that Jesus is "that Christ", the Son of the living God. The term "Christ" or "anointed one" is synonymous with the Hebrew "Messiah". Neither translation makes the sense specific (or plainer as most publishers of modern versions claim) because such titles as the "Holy One of God" have been bestowed upon a variety of religious leaders, such as gurus, lamas, mullahs and popes.
thank you for shedding more light on the matter brother. its good to see other Christians acknowledging this very serious matter. We need to remain vigilant in our walk and faith with God lest any man (or in this case Bible) let us stray from the truth.
and to Heisenberg, If you cannot bring any substantial points to this or any discussions on this board then i think the only right and respectful thing to do is simply read and observe brother. Were having a very important discussion here and you keep talking about unicorns, trying to make that one argument overshadow all the other numerous flaws that the NIV has. I dont mean to offend you but ive seen in alot of your posts you come off as a arrogant individual and before you talk about me being judgmental fact is fact brother and plus The apostle Paul said we should judge those that's in the church. but that's for another discussion i suppose.
I don't think he means based on the NIV, just where his focus seems to be directed
Logic, reason, a failure to have undirected fanaticism?
Do you mean judge or discern? I know we are to test
those in the church, but I don't remember it off-hand at the moment.
I will look it up but Paul was more critical of the church and the what
spirit was guiding them...
I see no discernment merely unfocused fanaticism.
I'm hoping not.