Well this is interesting, as many more are noticing the danger as the NIV does further changes, which are not for the better...

'I know many people who read, memorize, and love their NIV Bibles. Unfortunately a revision to this particular translation that has been in the works now for years will make it one of the more inaccurate and confusing translations available. This is perhaps why the Sothern Baptist Convention passed a resolution opposing it.

The most important difference that NIV users will see will be the acceptance of gender neutral language in many instances. There is a shift from terms like “he/him/his/himself” to more neutral (and less accurate) terms like “anyone” or “whoever.” There are also instances where terms like “son” or “father” have been exchanged with “child” and “parent.” NIV users will notice many similarities to the TNIV gender neutral language that was rejected by so many upon its publication (The TNIV will no longer be distributed).'

http://desiringvirtue.com/2011/06/disturbing-changes-to-the-niv/

'The updated NIV Bible has gained another critic: the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. In a recent report, a panel of Lutherans cautioned against use of the new NIV over gender-related issues.

"The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind," the Commission on Theology and Church Relations Executive Staff stated in an August report.

"Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church."
..Critics include the Committee on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Southern Baptist Convention, which officially rejected the revised NIV last year, saying it "alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language."

..The Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS has long recognized that language evolves. It also acknowledged the intent of the Committee on Bible Translation to try to communicate the meaning of the Bible's texts in English as it is used today.

But the commission took issue with some of the substitutions for masculine singular pronouns.

"While there may be many examples in which such substitution does not change the sense or inherent intent of the passage," the commission reported, the approach is advised against because "of its potential to alter significantly the meaning of passages."

Among the changes made in the updated NIV is the substitution of "he," "him," and "his" for "they," "their," and "them."

The commission provided two significant examples where such a revision proved to affect the meaning of Scripture "adversely."

Example one:

Genesis 1:26-27 in NIV 2011 reads: "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in our image, in our likeness, so that they [the plural pronoun is in the original] may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] in his own image, in the image of God he created them [plural pronoun substitution for "him"]; male and female he created them."

In the first substitution of "mankind" for "man," the particularity of the first man is made unclear. The rationale for this would seem to be the desire to emphasize that all humanity is created in God's image, but the original text itself had made that abundantly clear already by paralleling "man" in the first clause of verse 26 with "they" in the following clause. In verse 27, the second substitution of "mankind" for "man" again undermines the particularity of Adam's creation. Moreover, when coupled with the substitution of "them" for "him" as the verse continues, the progression of the verse is obfuscated. The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam-the one man who is father of all creation, created in God's image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)-to the male and female, which is paralleled to him. The original text then preserves both the particularity and universality which NIV 2011 undermines.

Example two:

Psalm 8:4-5 in NIV 2011 reads: "What is mankind [collective noun substitution for "man"] that you are mindful of them [plural substitution for "him"], Human beings [plural noun substitution for "son of man"] that you care for them [plural substitution for "him"]? You have made them [plural substitution for "him"] a little lower than the angels and crowned them [plural substitution for "him"] with glory and honor."

Once again, the rationale for the translation changes seems to be the desire to emphasize a universal truth about all humanity-that humankind has received glory and honor as the crown of creation. The translation decisions, however, obfuscate other things. First, and most importantly, the decision to use plurals here vitiates the Messianic meaning of this psalm, its particular application to Christ. Hebrews 2:5-9 quotes Ps 8:4-5 and notes that these verses testify to our Lord Jesus. He is the Man to whom the Lord gives all glory and honor; the Son of Man to whom all creation is subject. He is the One who exceeds the angels in glory and honor, even though he was made to be lower than them for our salvation.

Second, we should note that the substitution of a generic term like "human being" or "human beings" for "son of man" (a consistent pattern in NIV 2011), impoverishes the understanding of "Son of Man" as the self-designation our Lord uses throughout the Gospels. Jesus uses a term (a particular idiom, "son of man") from the Old Testament that indicates full humanity and refers it to himself. This is of great importance, especially when it is seen in the light of Daniel 7:13-14. There that same term, "son of man," is used in a prophecy of our Savior's incarnation, where "one like a son of man" is "given dominion and glory and a kingdom" in which all nations are included under a rule that shall never be destroyed.'

http://www.christianpost.com/news/luther...language-81060/

Never thought about that, but yes, they are creating or taking out doctrines by footnotes, not keeping the words given by inspiration.

I see this as your best way of responding to an "inconvenient truth." Instead of admitting the light you've laid eyes upon, you trivialize it away, making a joke of the light giver.

May the Lord open your eyes.



Mrs. White never spoke against Jesus' words regarding fasting in this situation, but rather upholds them. How can you claim Jesus meant something else?

Does it matter whether the fasting was necessary on account of unbelief, or pride, or selfishness, or sin? Would it matter if it were needful on account of jealousy, evil surmisings, or gossip? Would it matter if it were lust, adultery, or pornography?

No. The NIV translators are basing their claim to a "contention" on the words based on a Catholic edited family of manuscripts that represents between 3% and 5% of the total body of Bible manuscripts we have. The Majority Text is quite consistent on these things, and there is no question as to what Christ said. If there were, Ellen White reiterated the truth for us.

Either you accept the doctrine of fasting, or you reject it. Your choice.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And EGW often quoted from the marginal notes. Why? Why not quote the "inspired" words?

Is it not interesting that EGW on a number of occasions corrected the KJV? Places in the book of Daniel being one. John 12:32 being another. The KJV reads, John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Red being the words of Christ, and grey italics being a word that is supplied by the translators. What? And uninspired word in the text? Yes. EGW does quote the this version and at times included the word "men", at least it is in the text of her writing. But when it really counted, she did NOT quote the word.

"Now is the judgment of this world," Christ continued; "now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me. This He said, signifying what death He should die." This is the crisis of the world. If I become the propitiation for the sins of men, the world will be lighted up. Satan's hold upon the souls of men will be broken. The defaced image of God will be restored in humanity, and a family of believing saints will finally inherit the heavenly home. This is the result of Christ's death. The Saviour is lost in contemplation of the scene of triumph called up before Him. He sees the cross, the cruel, ignominious cross, with all its attending horrors, blazing with glory. {DA 625.4}

But the work of human redemption is not all that is accomplished by the cross. The love of God is manifested to the universe. The prince of this world is cast out. The accusations which Satan has brought against God are refuted. The reproach which he has cast upon heaven is forever removed. Angels as well as men are drawn to the Redeemer. "I, if I be lifted up from the earth," He said, "will draw all unto Me." {DA 626.1}

The word MEN, is left out. It is not an inspired word. Does this negate the KJV? Not at all!

Green - you started this discourse speaking about casting out devils, then going off on fasting in general. The "in general" part was not relevant to your initial question. And IF you read EGW in context, the reason that the disciples could not cast out the demon was because of their lack of connection with God, they jealousy and murmuring. To teach, you must fast and pray, without giving the meaning why you must fast and pray, leaves one empty.

APL,

Those who will not face the truth when it runs counter to cherished opinion will not be convinced though given the words of Christ Himself. That is amply evident here. Enjoy your opinion.

It is further evident that the NIV disregards the words of Christ Himself, and does not report them all to us. Enjoy your NIV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - there are many other versions. ESV, RV, RSV, NRSV, AAT, JBP, FBV, AKJV, YLT, NASB, LEB, TEV, NLT, ASV, CJB, ABP, ANT, WEB, The Scriptures, NKJV, NET, NCV, Lamsa, EMTV, Brenton's (1851 English translation of the Septuagint). I also have TCW and (shutter) NWT, CEV, ERV, MLV and LITV. I often read and compare these. The one I personally mark up is the AKJV most of time, but also in others when the sense is clear and unambiguous (to me). I have all of these both on my PC and my phone, all with a number of dictionaries including the SDABD, and the SDABC fully integrated with all these versions in one program! And a number of other Bible commentaries. Oh, thats right, you don't like the SDABC. Some versions has verses which are just so well put. Some have verses which are completely wrong! And this included the KJV in places. So please, enjoy your opinion. I know people who will not read the KJV. They would rather read the Bible in English! And guess what? You can still get the truth from many of these versions. You (well, I don't know about you, you probably never open anything but the KJV), can prove the divinity of Christ from the NWT to JWs. Are they going to read the KJV? I'm sure you never open a Douay. The same program I have all of EGW's published books and many of periodicals and other published texts. And the program itself is free on the PC! (I have all of EGW's published material via the CD and phone app). Oh yeah, I have the NIV84 and NIV2011 too.

Who is it that has cherished opinions?

When it negates, diminishes or sets aside a core biblical truth, it is changing Gods Word and in my opinion not acceptable for those who truly spiritually see and hear and follow God.

When it dims the truth to whose perception? Many times verses left out of modern versions, make no change overall as the same thought is expressed in other locations. And we are speaking about in this thread only ENGLISH. There are many many other languages. It is interesting that In the 1800's after publishing of the RV, that a number of Adventist writers pointed out the benefits of the changes, clearing up of the sense. EGW used the ASV and RV, and not once that I know of ever warn anyone about the newer versions. That is not to say to approach the subject with a blind eye, but also note that the KJV is also flawed in places.

Rick, it doesn't appear you answered APL. In fact, it appears that you objected to APL and EGW for leaving out "men". And how do you decide on "core biblical truths"? Is it based upon what the KJV says? Or is it based upon what you say?

Rick, what is stopping you from following your own advice of it not being a bad idea of only quoting from the Hebrew and Greek?