Matthew 1:17—So all the generations from (the generation of) Abraham to (the generation of) David [are] fourteen generations; and from (the generation of) David until the (generation of the) carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the (generation of the) carrying away unto Babylon unto (the generation of) Christ [are] fourteen generations.
Starting with King David they were all periods of 70 yrs (70 yrs x 7 Weeks of Feast).
I have many friends who use the NIV Bible and it worries me that they do. There is so much wrong with this translation and it’s clear to see if you look for it. I tried to tell my friends not to use this Bible but they just thought I was crazy. I was even so bold a couple of times to tell them to throw it away. I’m sure they thought I was being quite arrogant but when something strikes me in the heart I can’t help myself. Needless to say I’m sure they are all still using it. Since my efforts were void of fruits maybe someone else will convince them of the dangers surrounding this book and God willing through this message there will be those who will be convinced to stop using the NIV.
The owner of this blog did not create this video and does not claim any rights to it. It is being used for educational purposes only.
The following was added to article on 6/15/13
After making this post I had a friend point out to me that
the two men who recorded the videos (one has been removed) above are NOT good
teachers both have been arrested for one thing or another and are heretics. I
did not know this when I posted them. The reason for posting these videos is
because they explain that there were two Greek translations: one has many
copies and the other was copied only a few times. The video that is still posted is not a gospel teaching but rather a history teaching on the Bible so I felt confident in leaving it posted. My friend also scolded me for
being so harsh about the NIV when I said that it should be thrown away. The
following is a few things I found while researching the NIV a little more that
shows the differences in the two translations and why I reject the NIV on a
personal level and advocate not using it.
think it is fine to change the way the Bible is written by changing the
structure of the words. For example just about every time “eth” is used like in
the words maketh and killeth it usually means that there should be an “s” at
the end of the word. However to change the whole arrangement of a passage in my
opinion is dangerous. It is like the dispensationalist teachings: it is so
similar to the true teachings of the Bible that it is hard to tell them apart
but we know that one is the truth and the other is not. We must distinguish the
two and throw the other one out once it is proved contrary in any way.
men of the Reformation rejected the very books the NIV is translated from and embraced
what is called “The Majority Text” these are the texts the King James was
translated from. The Majority Text is also called Traditional Text,
Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text.
The other texts from which the NIV is translated from is mainly from Roman
descent i.e. the Catholic Church. There are many sources that say these texts
are distorted. If the church father’s that rejected dispensationalism rejected
these writings then shouldn’t we?
friend also pointed out an article written by a man named Gary Shogren. In this
writing Mr. Shogren is comparing the NIV to the newer NIV (2011); in this
writing Shogren comments on 1 Cor. 7:36, “The NIV 2011 is fine, but trades one
“possible” meaning for another (Gary Shogren). I believe this is where the NIV falters even
in the old translations. It uses different definitions of a word when it should
be using different words with the same meaning: synonyms. It seems Shogren backs
me up by agreeing that the NIV trades one definition for another. In some cases
this may be fine but is it acceptable to “trade one meaning for
another” in all cases?
a word is used in a sentence that word may have several meanings but that does
not mean every definition of that word will fit in a particular sentence. It
has to fit into the context of what has been written. The word fornication
means idol worship in many places of the Bible but we couldn’t use that
definition in 1 Cr. 7:1-2 because of the context (see below); clearly
worshipping idols would not be avoidable by getting married.
Cr. 7:1-2 is a good example of the NIV people putting what they wanted to in
place of the word “nevertheless” and it changes the whole context of the two
1 Cr. 7:1—Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [it is] good for
a man not to touch a woman.
1 Cr. 7:2—Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Cr. 7:2—But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have
sexual relation with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
the NIV is saying to me is that “since” (in view of the fact) people are
sinning sexually a man needs to marry a woman and a woman needs to marry a
man. In my way of thinking the NIV is saying something totally different
than the King James; one says to avoid sexual sinning get married and the other
says because sexual sin is occurring get married. Do you see a
Rev. 6:16—And said to the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the
face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.
Rev. 6:17—For the great day of HIS wrath is come; and who shall be able to
Rev. 6:16—They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us
from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb”!
Rev. 6:17—For the great day of THEIR wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”
there any doubt that the wrath belongs to the Lamb and that the word “His”
belongs there. HIS and THEIR are two totally different words: one is plural and
the other is singular. Although they are both definitions for the Greek word autos does
that mean either will fit? Itself, herself, and themselves, are all definitions
of that word why couldn’t we just put her there instead of their?
bishop and leading New Testament scholar N. T. Wright (born in1948) says the
NIV translation is certainly not a standalone work to understanding the
teachings of Paul. Wikipedia states “Bishop Wright has been praised by
many scholars of varying views.” And to further his credibility I might add
that he is critical of dispensationalist doctrine of the rapture (Wikipedia). The following is what he has to
say about the NIV in his words:
the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who
hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was
determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra
paraphrasing or interpretative glosses.... Disillusionment set in over the next
two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul's letters,
not least Galatians and Romans. Again
and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I
discovered that the translators had another principle, considerably higher than
the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant
and evangelical tradition said he said.... [I]f a church only, or
mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was
Rev. 5:9-10—And they sung a new song, saying, thou art worthy to take the book,
and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and
hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the
Rev. 5:9-10—And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the
scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you
purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our
God, and they will reign on the earth.
the King James all people are included. In the NIV there is a separation of us
and them. In this case the NIV changes the dynamics of the verse. In the
KJV the living creatures and the elders are singing a song in praise of Jesus
for not only saving them from all nations and tribes but for saving others
also: hast made US unto our God kings and priests and WE shall reign on the earth.
In the NIV it says Jesus has made THEM kings and priests and THEY shall reign
on the earth. It is my belief that at least twelve of the twenty four elders
are the apostles. If that is the case then they would certainly be saying US
and not THEM? This is another case of changing one definition for another when
it doesn’t fit the context. In my opinion it is wrong to do that and I just
feel safer with the KJV.
is not that I reject all other Bibles because there are good translations I
just don’t think the NIV is even close to the real thing and I reject it and
all other translations like it. I personally will always stick with the KJV and
urge other to do the same. The NIV changes too much in my opinion and therefore
cancels it out as the true word of God. Considering the examples I’ve given
wouldn’t you agree that God’s word either says: us and we or it says them and
their? I am no scholar but I know that it cannot be both.