David J. Stewart #fundie

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were eviscerated (disemboweled) from the Bible by the NIV authors? Hundreds of words, phrases, and even entire Bible verses were removed from the Word of God by the NIV butchers. Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV either. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, et cetera. One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the "only BEGOTTEN Son of God." Yes, that's right, the NIV butchers removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of truth and justice could any professed Christian use the New International Version? Yet, it's the most popular bible version sold on the market today. If I had a billion dollars, I'd make an offer to churches all across America. I'd exchange brand new King James Bibles for their perverted NIVs. I'd give them new Bibles for their old corrupt bibles. They would first have to give me their NIVs so I could BURN THEM! I'd burn every NIV I could find.

66 comments

old comment by NonProphet

Hey, Dave? Define "propitiation" for me, without looking it up in a dictionary.

Now that your brain is overheating, try to comprehend WHY the newer versions would use simpler, easier-to-understand words. And why they would remove words that were redundant, unnecessary, or (in the case of mercyseat) NOT REAL WORDS.
Maybe it's so readers can understand it better, without needing some preacher telling them what HE thinks it means. Maybe it's because the KJV is such a poor translation, with so many changes and additions not in the original texts, that they wanted to avoid the same mistake.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's because they realized that the MESSAGE is more important than the wording.

Face it, you're worshipping a book. I'm pretty sure that counts as an idol.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING!"

Or maybe not enough pics of little girls for you to fap to eh, Davey-boy, you paedo nonce?

"They would first have to give me their NIVs so I could BURN THEM!"

Several years ago, a local Baptist church closed due to lack of interest (it's now a pub. Go figure). Outside such, in a skip (along with pews etc) were several KJV Bibles. I 'liberated' these, so's could recycle them. I wish every fundie would have to give up their KJVs, so that more people - like I do (whenever I run out of bog roll) - could wipe their arses on them.

Hey, it's not my fault if the people who print Bibles use a grade of paper that's sooooo absorbent! >:D

...oh, and that KJV, Davey-boy?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_I_of_England

Gay king, thus Gay Bible. Ergo, Gay God. Q.E. and D., bitch.

old comment by Anon

>>David J. Stewart: In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: ..., Messiah, ...<<

Ahem:

New International Version (NIV)

Matthew 1
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Matthew 2
The Magi Visit the Messiah
1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.

Your Argument Is Invalid

>>Dr. Shrinker

KJV, NIV, Andy Schafly's version, it doesn't matter. <<

Now, that's going too far. Schafly is excising everything from the Bible that doesn't correspond to what he thinks should be in the Bible. The translators of the KJV and the NIV had the integrity to try and convey the source material as accurately as they could. Of course their efforts were affected by their own biases, but right intention counts for a lot.

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

@ Anon

"Schafly is excising everything from the Bible that doesn't correspond to what he thinks should be in the Bible."

Doesn't everybody? If a particular passage doesn't support the point that the preacher is trying to make, the preacher just ignores it. If some one points out the offending passage, the preacher accuses them of being a "cafeteria Christian." Then all groupies who agree with the preacher follow suit. As far as preachers are concerned (yes, ALL preachers) if a passage of the bible doesn't agree with their prejudices, it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense.

Besides, Luther was ready to cut Esther, Revelation and the Epistle to James from the bible. As it is, he just cut out the apocrypha. If Luther can cut offending parts the bible out, why not Andy? Heck, why not you, me or anyone else who feels like it?

old comment by Anon

>>Dr. Shrinker

@ Anon

"Schafly is excising everything from the Bible that doesn't correspond to what he thinks should be in the Bible."

Doesn't everybody?<<

There is a difference between reading the text and deciding that you don't agree with something (or that it doesn't apply anymore or means something other than the most obvious interpretation) and removing the material entirely. And some forms of removal are fine while others are not.

Irrespective of the particulars of the material that he is retaining/adding, what Schafly is doing is worse than what Luther did, or what Jefferson did, or the original selection of material for the Bible. He is asserting, without evidence, that large sections of the text were deliberately and maliciously added, and that he knows the intention of the original writers better than those writers themselves. To use the language of Wikipedia, he does not Assume Good Faith.

Writing your own personal version of the Bible isn't a problem (I happen to like Jefferson's bible). But claiming that your version is the original is a big problem. I think that it would be called "bearing false witness".

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

@ Anon

"...claiming that your version is the original is a big problem."

No, it isn't. It seems that every scribe who produces a version of the bible is ready to insist that their version is a perfect reflection of the original texts. There is no way to counter this assertion because, we do not have the original material of the bible; not one single original manuscript for one single book. That situation will remain until the original manuscripts are revealed and verified (highly unlikely) or god itself steps in to provide an official version (slightly less likely).

So how do you know that the KJV, or the NIV, or Schafly's version is or is not a perfect recreation of the original texts? You can't, no one can. All we have to go on is the assurance of the scribe that their work was guided by god itself. Schafly seems to be as confidant in that regard as every other scribe for the past 2,000 years seems to be.

So, we are left with one of two choices. We can either assume that all versions are equally likely to be reflections of the original manuscripts. Or, we can acknowledge that the bible is a mass of superstition, contradictions and bad moral advice and throw all of the various versions out entirely.

I choose the second option.