Recent Comments

Last Days Christian Messenger

This Is My Other Blog. Geared Towards Helping The Unsaved Find God

Click this link HOMEPAGE for the latest articles on this blog
Click this link MENU LIST to find an entire list of ALL Articles within this blog (as at 30 Nov 2011)
Click this link Articles Carrying Most Comments as at 30 November 2011 a league table of articles carrying the most comments.

Search this blog by entering KEY WORDS In box below

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Bible NIV 2011 Version ALERT

Edited 22 and 28 Jan 2011.  Please see addition at the bottom

Before reading this please familiarise yourselves with How The Bible Was Put Together and Proving Why It IS The Inspired Inerrant Word Of God  which shows that most of  the available Bible versions (up until 1984) were reliable and could be fully trusted.

NIV 2011 Version cannot be fully trusted
I often use as a valuable resource for searching specific scripture verses and copying/pasting the verses. I usually use NASB, KJV, NKJV and NIV in my research. Although NIV may not be the very best (although still a very good translation) I usually use it in my articles because it is easier to read or use.

What I didn't notice until now, is that the original NIV (1984 copyright) has been updated to 2011 copyright. Bible Gateway still list the version 1984 but it appears at the bottom of the list of versions, with 2011 version at the very top of the list. However, I will continue to use the 1984 version.

I checked out the 2011 version to see what the differences were because i could not understand why it needed to be updated as it was already easy enough to read and easily relevant in how we speak today. So why did they change it?

They changed it because they wanted the NIV to be more relevant to the 21st Century, ie they wanted it to be politically correct! WHAT?????

How dare they meddle with the Bible to make it more Politically correct, ie change it to conform to the way we think TODAY. The Bible says "do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. The Bible should change us FROM the world, not change the Bible! Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. WE MUST NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. Jesus and other scriptures warned of what would happen if we tamper with the Word of God.

So what changes have taken place? Well I noticed something immediately in the Book of James. It had this as a footnote:
"James 1:2 The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in verses 16 and 19; and in 2:1, 5, 14; 3:10, 12; 4:11; 5:7, 9, 10, 12, 19."

This is a fabrication of these authors and absolutely not accurate. So it is clear that this 2010 version replaces "brothers" with the words "brothers and sisters" throughout. The Greek word adelphoi DOES NOT mean believers (brothers and sisters) it is a masculine word. This is what I found:

"Strongs no. 80 Greek.  alpha (a connective particle) delpha (womb).
Thayers. Adelphos – from the same womb – a brother born of the same parents, or only one parent of mum or dad.

Vines a brother or near kinsman. Male / of the same nationality e.g Acts 3:17)

Vines shows all the variations of its use - Thayers agrees.
Brother, Brethren, Brotherhood, Brotherly:
denotes "a brother, or near kinsman;" in the plural, "a community based on identity of origin or life." It is used of:
(1) male children of the same parents, Matt 1:214:3;
(2) male descendants of the same parents, Act 7:2326Hbr 7:5;
(3) male children of the same mother, Mat 13:551Cr 9:5Gal 1:19;
(4) people of the same nationality, Act 3:1722Rom 9:3. With "men" (aner, "male"), prefixed, it is used in addresses only, Act 2:2937, etc.;
(5) any man, a neighbor, Luk 10:29Mat 5:227:3;
(6) persons united by a common interest, Mat 5:47;
(7) persons united by a common calling, Rev 22:9;
(8) mankind, Mat 25:40Hbr 2:17;
(9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Mat 28:10Jhn 20:17;
(10) believers, apart from sex, Mat 23:8Act 1:15Rom 1:131Th 1:4Rev 19:10 (the word "sisters" is used of believers, only in 1Ti 5:2);

(11) believers, with aner, "male," prefixed, and with "or sister" added, 1Cr 7:14 (RV), 15Jam 2:15, male as distinct from female, Act 1:1615:713, but not Act 6:3. * 

[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 32.]
(1) Associated words are adelphotes, primarily, "a brotherly relation," and so, the community possessed of this relation, "a brotherhood," 1Pe 2:17 (see 5:9, marg.); philadelphos, (phileo, "to love," and adelphos), "fond of one's brethren," 1Pe 3:8; "loving as brethren," RV; philadelphia, "brotherly love," Rom 12:101Th 4:9Hbr 13:1; "love of the brethren," 1Pe 1:222Pe 1:7, RV;pseudadelphos, "false brethren," 2Cr 11:26Gal 2:4.
(2) In Luk 6:16Act 1:13, the RV has "son," for AV, "brother."
(3) In Act 13:1, for suntrophos, see BRING, B, Note (6)."

What Vines has done in that list, is give the usages of adelphos in the NT.  The endings indicate number, but its not straightforward as they change under various circumstances.!   adelphos is 'brother' singular.  Adelphoi is a plural - brother's there is nothing to suggest AND sister.  BUT  The Vines list of usage may show it is used in some passages where sisters are present? Therefore, (as ALWAYS) context is vital. Rather than showing the original meaning "brother" and leave it to the readers to work out the context, they have gone overboard and given their own interpretation - many times out of context, in order to be "poltically correct"

So those of you who use Bible Gateway be aware that they use NIV 2011 as the default so I advise that you choose the 1984 version instead and the same with those who are thinking about buying a new NIV,  DON'T, it cannot be trusted.

Addition 22 Jan 2011

I found this pdf file within BibleGateway,  which is an explanation by NIV 2010 Committee as to why they made the changes. I have partially read it through and cannot accept their reasonings as to the changes they have made.

For example, let us look at a change they made to Philippians 4:13

This is what they said within that pdf file about this change:

“And one shouldn’t be as easily able to misapply Philippians 4:13 now that it reads, ‟I can
do all this through him who gives me strength” (i.e., to be content in all circumstances,
whether in riches or in poverty), rather than ‟I can do everything through him who gives
me strength.” "

What??? Let us look at how the NIV 2010 now renders Phil 4:12-13

"I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength."

From NIV 1984 "I can do everything through him who gives me strength".

Let us consider the NKJV which says I can do ALL things through Christ who strengthens me”

They say that they haven't changed its original meaning but have tried to make it easier to read to prevent misinterpretation. THIS IS NOT TRUE!

The NIV 2011 is restricting us to whether we need to fast or lack material things. Paul ACTUALLY is making the point that WHATEVER situation we find ourselves in God gives us strength, not just for fasting or being homeless. ANY situation.

So here is one of (I am sure) many examples of the NIV 2011 version trying to empty the power of God's Word.

Addition 28 Jan 2011
Someone passed this link to me . Please choose message 07.

It is a video found on "Blue Letter Bible" entitled "which Bible is the best". I watched/listened through the full hour and was impressed by the evidence. I encourage you all to watch it, to become familiar with the issues, so that you can make better choices as to what Bible version you use.

I have to warn you that (although his deliverance is very easy on the ears) the first half is quite hard going. The first half is laying the foundation for the second half which became intriguing to listen to. I would say trudging through the 1st half is worth it because of what follows. I encourage you to stay with it until the end.


Anonymous said...

It is too even the very Word of God is being twisted not only in the pulpit but also in the text, just to appease the readers.

D said...

I'm glad you mentioned this... I noticed the new 2010 copyright as well, just recently...

While as of yet I haven't discovered any specific changes (though I'm pretty sure they are there...), one thing I have witnessed, several times now, is that when I went to search for particular verses which KNEW the exact wordings or phrases, the searches would come up blank...

Interesting to note that all of the searches dealt with spiritual warfare, sin, judgement, etc...

It's almost like they intentionally dumbed-down their internal search engine to elimate certain types of verses....

John Chingford said...

For those of you who get my automatic updates, to let you know that I have made an important addition to this article

D said...

Hmmmm, I have to say I have a hard time voicing outrage over the James 1:2 rendering...

If you were conducting a bible study in your home (with both men and women present) and reading James together, would you actually teach that these words from Paul are only directed to men? Should women Christians not consider trials as pure joy? Should women believers perservere in order to become mature and complete? Should they not ask God for wisdom?

I do hear your overall point, and I myself would probably argue that such a revision was not even necessary in the first place, as in the end it only serves to reinforce the idea that we need to revising the scriptures in order to conform to our culture...

John Chingford said...

Thanks D

I agree with you that in many places "brothers" may well be referring to "brothers and sisters". The point I am making is that we should leave it as it was and trust the "context, context, context" and the Holy Spirit to interpret whether it is addressed specifically to men or to both.

In some cases, the original was specifically talking to men (when you look at the contextt), in other cases not so clear. But with this new version they do not allow for us to decide because they have already decided what we should believe (ie to be politically correct).

Expected Imminently said...

What bothers me is Interpretation vs. Translation, as the Greek says brothers, then that's the translation, adding sisters is their interpretation - I don't like that - do they make it plain?

For example, Romans 16:1 commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea. Sister is adelphe a feminine noun.

If James had meant to include the ‘sisters’, he could have added adelphe to make it plainer (if that is what he meant). If James, Paul etc is speaking to brothers, its for a reason and a purpose – The Lord did not choose to inspire Paul etc, to include adelphe for a reason.

Just because we don’t know why, isn’t a suitable reason to add women into the text. Can’t think what at present, but there is a reason, there must be. Adelphe is used to mean having the same mother AND a sister in Christ, so why didn’t Paul use that?

Sorry, I know this is muddly, but I don’t think we have any right to suppose what God meant, it is adding and subtracting in my opinion and the problem of the end times, which is all the more reason to be suspicious imo.

Generally, I know little about the NIV but it doesn't sit right with me so I normally don't bother with it. However, I have heard criticism of the NIV but I can't remember who said it.

John Chingford said...

Hi Andrew Bowman

I have not published your comments on those 2 articles because I feel they sidetrack or confuse the matter of this article.

You raise some very good points, but it seems you have misinterpreted the things I have written. I would rather have a dialogue with you personally by email, before publishing any of your thoughts.

You have my email address (shown on this blog), but I do not have yours, so cannot reply to you personally. So please email me (using your email account) directly to me. I promise I will not divulge your email address.


Anonymous D said...

All translations are exactly that, translations. Some are better than others. They all have varying differences when put next to a Koine Greek manuscript. I would suppose there are differences between Koine Greek and a Aramaic or Syriac Hebrew Bible as well. The NIV is avoided by some because it comes from the codex Alexandrius which they view as tainted because of where it came from. The Codex Alexandrius is the oldest Greek manuscript as opposed to the Textus Receptus. I study from an online source which is the Textus Receptus. Let’s face it…our English OT is a translation of Masoretic Hebrew which is often very inaccurate when put up next to a Greek Septuagint. There are not original Hebrew texts that have survived this many years, so the older OT versions are Septuagint Greek which the Israelites began using during their diaspera.

For example, look at AMOS 7:1; “Thus, [showed to me the LORD God; and behold a breed of locust coming in the early morning, and behold, [grasshopper one - Gog], the king.” (SEPTUAGINT GREEK)

“Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, [it was] the latter growth after the king’s mowings.” (KJV)

The Septuagint makes much more sense in the context of the Book of Amos. Although I appreciate what you are saying and that “brothers and sisters” although politically correct in our post modern Laodacean church, is a bad translation. But, in truth, all translations are simply that, translations. In truth, if I could get one new believer to read the 2010 NIV on a daily basis and become a disciple of the Word of God (JOHN 1:1) I would do it. I would also do the same concerning paraphrases. If they would be dedicated to reading the New Living Bible every day, I would be ecstatic. Personally, I really enjoy getting to the original codexes. As a Messianic Rabbi says, “reading a translation is oftentimes like kissing a bride through a veil.”

John Chingford said...

Hi Anonymous D

I understand your sentiments regarding unbelievers reading a paraphrase rather than no bible at all.

However, as you probably know one paraphrase “the message” is heavily influenced by new age teaching. See evidence of this on

So if we encourage unbelievers to get converted using "the message" – what sort of believer will they be?

Jesus said a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, so how can “new age” or “politically correct” and tampered Bibles be considered as “good fruit” or a book in which truly born-again believers arise?

Okay, I can accept that God can work miracles and save in spite of, but I should think that if God is calling that person to salvation He will call that one without the need of using a false version to do so. What do you think?

Anonymous D said...


I feel that an unbeliever who reads any translation is one who is teachable. Most Christians in mainstream denominations really don’t read the entire Book.

If I could get one new believer to read the entire Book from GEN TO REV, then they are teachable. Like I said, a translation is a translation.

I read different ones from year to year. If a new believer does no reading at all, then it is very difficult to have any kind of theological teaching with them. Worse yet, I have had teachers leading Bible studies who have told me, “well, I never read AMOS because I didn’t have any reason to.”

This is a problem. If my brother or sister will read the entire Bible in the message, I can take them to study and show them the differences in translations vs. original languages. Without any input on their part, it is very difficult. There are no original verssions around. Documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls give us a pretty good understanding.

Take into account all the different languages in the world and translations are the best we have. I still say, “anything is better than nothing.” Just my viewpoint though. Not a doctrine.

John Chingford said...

Thanks for your reply Anon D,

Please read my article on my blog about “the message” and why it is dangerous.

Remember paraphrases are NOT translations but one person’s interpretation which is heavily biassed by say (for example) his “seeker friendly, New age, ecumenical” background.

The message does not reflect the real truth of the original manuscripts in any way. Paraphrases don’t check up the manuscripts for accuracy but interpret based on TRANSLATIONS (versions) of the manuscripts.

When I first starting reading the Bible I really struggled with it, but through help by other believers and the encouragement to stick to the easier passages of the Bible, first (the milk), and then build up later once the milk has digested.

Of course a beginner should not start with Amos. Amos can be understood much later after the easier porions of scripture are understood.

Even though I was a bit dense in those days, I never needed a paraphrase and have never used one (although I breezed through some passages in "The Living Bible", as a young believer, to see what it was like), but praise God it never appealed to me.

The NIV 1984 version and NKJV's are perfectly easy to understand if beginners start on the gospels, moving through Acts etc to start with. If they are brought up on a paraphrase it will complicate things.

First impressions last a long time. If a beginner starts on a paraphrase, he/she will be too influenced by the author’s opinions and will find it VERY difficult to shake off later.

Paraphrases are possibly one of the reasons apostasy has been able to spread so quickly unchallenged because people DO NOT KNOW what reliable Bibles teach. Paraphrases are probably the reason that many are infected by new age teachings without recognising it and have become part of the massive ecumenical train.

Another reason I say these things is because I have first hand experience of the enormous problems caused by those who “came to faith” through “the message”. They cannot see or seem totally unwilling to recognise the clear differences once they have been absorbed in the paraphrase.

I feel powerless to point these things out because they seem to have decided what they believe (based on say “the message” and so arte immovable to change their views after showing them what the Bible ACTUALLY says.

By encouraging unbelievers to read “the message” we are contributing to the massive apostate problem within the church. REALLY!

Just to add, Paul wrote in 2 Cor 3:16 (another famous 3:16 verse.

“But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away”.

The requirement is to turn to the Lord.

So if someone truly turns to the Lord, they will not need a paraphrase because the “veil” will be removed. God, through the Holy Spirit will be their teacher and help them to read HIS word not Peterson’s etc words. Its all about discipleship.

However, todays new believers seem only capable to be spoon fed throughout their Christian life. They should be encouraged to learn how to feed themselves through reading proper transalations.

Just to prove that the verse above was not taken out of context, here are the previous 3 verses which prove it is talking about the Bible.

13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.

Expected Imminently said...

Hello John and all,

Please forgive me if this appears as ‘nit picking’. There is an important difference between the 'translation' of a word and the 'interpretation' of a word.

Translation is a word, phrase, or text in another language that has a meaning EQUIVALENT to that of the original.

Interpretation is an EXPLANATION or establishment of the meaning, or significance of something.

i.e. Translation is set, but interpretation is variable.

e.g. adelphoi – ‘brother’ is a translation. ‘Brothers and sister’s’ is an interpretation.

Sue :)

Anonymous D said...

I pretty much agree with you and when I give a Bible to somebody, it has always been a KJV or NIV.

“Paraphrases are possibly one of the reasons apostasy has been able to spread so quickly unchallenged because people DO NOT KNOW what reliable Bibles teach.” The problem is not so much the paraphrase, but the teachers. If somebody wants to study with me and they are reading a paraphrase, I can give them direction and guidance despite the written word they are reading. Heck, I have trouble now teaching precepts to people who are reading KJV or NIV. The Word has to be taken in its entirety in order to form a precept.

I appreciate your concern though and understand what you are saying. I just believe people go astray from bad teachers, not from stictly reading the Book.

John Chingford said...

Thanks Anon D

You are right that bad teachers are to blame. Especially if these teachers encourage beginners to read paraphrases.

We (as mature believers) are ALL called (according to Hebrews 5:12) to be teachers to the young in faith. Jesus said that we are to make DISCIPLES, not just believers.

It is our responsibility to go the whole way, from witnessing to discipling and should encourage to start off in the right way (like you do) with NIV, KJV, NASB or NKJV and NOT with a paraphrase.

As part of the discipleship process we need to teach them HOW to read and study the Bible. See my article

With this we need to teach them HOW to spend time alone with God and answer whatever questions they may have in the "growing" process and teach them how to teach and witness to others.

Although teaching in church is a requirement, we must be aware of these following verses:

1 John 2:26-27 says:

"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

Therefore, OUR teaching should be more geared to encouragement, warnings, corrections and exposition, but as a guide to showing beginners HOW to study exegetically for themselves.

Once a beginner (unsaved) becomes a believer, born again of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit WILL teach them from trustworthy Bibles.

As it says "you do not need anyone to teach you But as his anointing teaches you about all things". Once their eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit, and they have been born-again into God's Christian family, our job is not so much to teach but guide them.

Of course there is a danger that a new believer could get into the flesh and be tempted by the evil one, to believe a lie.

Therefore, as part of discipling (our job as teachers) is to converse with them, asking them questions as to what God has been showing them through their Bible studies and then correct, warn them if they need to be corrected.

Problem is that most of our churches do not know how to disciple properly.

Either it becomes too heavy, like the restoration movement and its shepherding method, or the complete opposite, of keeping believers at arms length by preaching from a pulpit, without getting involved in the nitty gritty requirements of new believers. It is rare to see a middle ground.

John Chingford said...

Just to add, we should encourage believers to stay focussed on Jesus and NOT teachers. Teachers are fallible, Jesus IS NOT!!! The main reason for the apostasy surrounding us is because believers have been too focussed and dependant or BRAIN WASHED by “powerful personalities” soaking up EVERYTHING they say as if these leaders are God Himself.

Good shepherds/teachers will be those who inspire us to be Bereans, ie sending us back to the Bible and prayer (focussing on Jesus alone) to check out what we hear for ourselves. If we all did this, there would be lesser chance of apostasy. Do you agree?

Expected Imminently said...

Hello John

An observation that Anonymous D says the Septuagint makes ‘more sense’ of “Amos 7:1 Thus, [showed to me the LORD God; and behold a breed of locust coming in the early morning, and behold, [grasshopper one - Gog], the king.” (SEPTUAGINT GREEK)”

Yet interestingly Proverbs notes that the locusts do NOT have a king.

Proverbs 30:27The locusts have NO KING, yet go they forth all of them by bands;

Amos 7:1 ‘…the kings mowing’s…’ is ‘gez’ meaning ‘mowings’.

Geseninus says this signifies the firstfruits of the hay required by the king.

Surely the Septuagint translation of Amos 7:1 is a contradiction to the statement in Proverbs 30:27. ?


Expected Imminently said...

Hello John

The following selection is by David Guzik in the BLB commentary.

"a. Thus the Lord God showed me: The prophet Amos will relate a vision from the Lord. This was something he saw, something the Lord showed him.

b. He formed locust swarms at the beginning of the late crop: Late in the harvest, Amos sees a swarm of locusts coming to devour the crops of Israel. It came after the king’s mowings, so the royal court already took their taxes, so there is nothing left at all.

i. “If the first cutting went to the court and the second crop to the locusts, Israel would be left destitute indeed.” (Hubbard)

This interpretation of Amos7:1 is very clear, and does not show any contradiction such as the Septuagint gives with Proverbs 30:2

(The whole context involves God having no favourites when His judgment comes.)


Guzik, David. "Study Guide for Amos 7." Enduring Word. Blue Letter Bible. 7 Jul 2006. 2011. 28 Jan 2011.

John Chingford said...

Hi Everyone

I was concerned that I made a bit of a mess regarding the order in which the comments was placed because of an error by me.

Therefore, I decided to copy those comments into a safe place, delete the originals and then alter the previous sequence, into the right sequence (to avoid confusion and make it easier to read in consistency).

I will now repost those comments in the right sequence (after this comment has been published). Please reread as it will now make more sense.

God bless

Expected Imminently said...

1 John 2:26-27 says:

"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.

But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

Hello John
This isn’t to contradict you on your comment regarding these verses; rather an important observation made on another blog.

‘Gail’ was very proud to announce that she had rejected man’s teaching, and was learning ‘the truth’ all on her own with God. Her confidence in her interpretation was such that she declared those of us who did not believe as she did,‘false teachers’.

Her faulty understanding made my toes curl in embarrassment for her. I did write to try and correct this by explaining, among other things,the ONLY ‘false teacher’ she was in peril of at present, was herself. However the blog owner did not deem my caution suitable enough to be published – so in effect, she was left in her ignorance.

I do not refer to debatable ‘timings’, but her grasp of general Scripture, devoid of context and a complete inability to compare ‘Scripture with Scripture. Sadly, she knew the ‘jargon’ well enough, but nothing of correct Biblical interpretation.

Although she didn’t quote these verses, I suspect it was this that has led her, and others, to falsely assume she needs no direction – and this was not discouraged, thereby approved by the blog leader.

My understanding of these verses, within the whole context, is that these men were already well taught in the Scriptures and the anointing of The Truth remained in them, so when the counterfeit presented itself, they required no further teaching, and to remain in that Truth by the leading of the Holy Spirit?


1:40 PM, January 28, 2011

John Chingford said...


You may well be right. If you notice, this is why I wrote the caution (above) as follows:

Of course there is a danger that a new believer could get into the flesh and be tempted by the evil one, to believe a lie.

"Therefore, as part of discipling (our job as teachers) is to converse with them, asking them questions as to what God has been showing them through their Bible studies and then correct, warn them if they need to be corrected."

Anonymous D said...


I agree with shepherds inspiring us to be Bereans. BUT…if one only reads their Bible and does not have any teaching, they won’t get very far and will often go off on a tangent. Why does the Bible say; “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” (EPH 4:11)

“For faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”

Doesn’t this sound like a Christian should be using their ears to hear teaching in a “one teaching, one learning” situation?

That is not to say there is not a place for this exchange and dialogue we have now or in a small Bible study group, but there is also a place for a pastor teaching and a sheep listening.

The Holy Spirit will guide a person in what is true and false in a pastor-teacher or teacher’s doctrines. I don’t recommend paraphrases and I don’t give them out, but if a new member in the body has one, neither do I tell them that they can’t use it.

I want to use an example. I have a sister in Christ who has been reading the Bible for many years. I am not sure that she has read all the Books, but she comes to every and all Bible studies.

She has not learned ONE thing from the pastor, myself at ladies Bible study or another brother’s Bible study. She loves my Greek word by word Book by Book study which is awesome, but she cannot take all those Words and pull them together to form a precept.

Example; she cannot see the difference between the church and Israel. She does not get that from reading the Scriptures she claims. She says the word “covenant” only appears in the NT, therefore, there is no Palestinain covenant or Davidic covenant.

When I try to show her she gets upset and says she only needs to read the Bible, not hear what I am saying. It does not divide us. I love her and her committment to Christ and to serve in the body, but it is an example of why there is a need for true teaching, not just questioning, correcting or warning. Anyway, that is how I see it.

Thank you for great interraction. I love discussing theology and Scripture with other people.

Originally Written:
11:50 AM, January 29, 2011

John Chingford said...

Hi Anon D

I didn’t say that there shouldn’t be solid Bible Teaching. I actually said that there should be a middle ground of both public teaching and personal interaction with young believers.

The point I was trying to make, is that teaching should be done in a way that stimulates us to check the scriptures for ourselves, eg, by asking questions (occasionally, rather than giving all the answers) rather than be spoon fed from the pulpit. By being spoon fed too much it encourages laziness in not checking things out.

This was what I said earlier:

“Of course there is a danger that a new believer could get into the flesh and be tempted by the evil one, to believe a lie.

Therefore, as part of discipling (our job as teachers) is to converse with them, asking them questions as to what God has been showing them through their Bible studies and then correct, warn them if they need to be corrected.”

This was referring to the discipling process. Of course Ephesians tells us that there is the gift of teaching, which is equally required. But, if the Holy Spirit is our teacher and we are TRULY BORN-AGAIN (that is the key to all this) He will help us to discern truth from error.

If the focus is on personal Bible study then the Holy Spirit will be able to remind us of the scriptures we have read and help us discern whether a teacher is speaking truth or error.

Originally written:
11:52 AM, January 29, 2011

John Chingford said...

Hi Andrew

I have posted my replies to your comments on another article. Please see "Chronological Emergence Of The Apostate Church Over Last 100 Years" on link:

Originally Written:
12:36 PM, January 28, 2011

Andrew Bowman said...

I have read very carefully through the translator's notes that you linked to, and I have to say that I don't find anything objectionable.

In addition, the whole document comes across as the work of a dedicated group of people who see it as their spiritual duty to produce the very best possible translation of the Bible. I'd like to quote one paragraph in particular:

The committee today is as diverse as it has ever been, although it recognizes the need to diversify still further.

Our top priority is locating willing and able members with a high level of expertise in the Greek of the New Testament and/or the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament.

Usually this means scholars with Ph.D.s in one or the other sub-disciplines of biblical studies. Facility with writing in fluent English is also obviously a high priority.

As of August 2010, the committee was comprised of twelve American scholars, two British scholars and one Indian scholar. Of the fifteen committee members, thirteen are men and two are women.

Most of the major theological traditions of Protestant evangelicalism are represented. The committee prizes denominational diversity as well: Current members belong to Baptist, Presbyterian or Reformed, Anglican, Pentecostal, and independent denominations and churches.

If past committee members are included, this diversity becomes even greater. Here's a link to the committee members:

They're a very high-powered group, including some world-class figures in the theological world. I would hazard a guess that they're also all card-carrying evangelicals. And here's an interview with the chairman:

With respect, I think you should carefully consider whether it is appropriate for you to casually dismiss the work of people who have PhDs in Biblical Studies and have devoted their lives to studying and teaching the Bible at the highest level.

John Chingford said...

Hi Andrew

I strongly urge you to watch the video by David Hocking as shown on my addition to this article choose message 07

It shows strong evidence why we cannot trust the newer versions which are based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (which are Catholic influenced) rather than on the "received text" which KJV was translated from. The video shows the significance of this.

Here is a brief summary:

What is WRONG with Modern Bible Translations?

The Old Testament has been faithfully preserved by the Jews in what is known as the Masoretic Text. There are few translation problems with the Old Testament.

However, most modern translations, from the Revised Standard Version Bible (RSV) to the New International Version Bible (NIV), use as their source for the New Testament a Greek Text based upon the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century.

This text, publicized by Westcott and Hort, is also known as the Alexandrian Text. It originated in Egypt and has been massaged by "higher critics" down through the ages.

These manuscripts, used in the RSV, represent less than 5% of known Greek Biblical manuscripts, but are supposedly more authentic because they are "old."

The bulk of New Testament manuscripts were copied century after century from earlier ones as they wore out. Older copies did not survive because these texts were used until worn out.

This text, the so-called "Received Text" or "Byzantine Text" (also termed "Syrian", "Antioch", or Koine text) was used in the King James Version. Nearly 4,000 manuscripts of this Byzantine or Official Text agree almost perfectly with each other, and are a far better standard to go by than corrupt copies - no matter how early they were made.

Located primarily at Mt. Athos in Greece, copies of the official Greek Text give us a very reliable record of the New Testament scriptures.

Is there PROOF the Received Text is Correct? Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, states in his preface:

"The market-place is being glutted with new books which are being represented as VERSIONS of the Bible. Each one claims to be the very word of God, yet there are literally thousands of differences between them . . . . they all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully satisfying atonement.

"This is due to their decision to depend upon an Alexandrian [Egyptian] textbase, instead of that body of God's words which has been universally received and believed in for nineteen centuries, known to us as the Received Text.

"These new versions [such as the New International Version Bible, New Jerusalem Bible and others] are not only marked by additions, but also by subtractions, since some four whole pages of words, phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions. And these are words attested to as God's words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek manuscripts . . . .

For example: why does NIV (for example)omit the word Lucifer from Isaiah 14:12?

I think that is very telling!
I have written to NIV to ask them why. If I get a response I will let you know.

Originally Written:
12:26 PM, January 29, 2011

Expected Imminently said...

Just a thought John.

Should we ‘the great un-learned’ be challenging the great scholars with a Phd; after all, they understand the finer points of the original languages we don’t know?

Westcott and Hort were scholars of the very highest regard; as they scoffed at the KJ and the ‘Textus Receptus’. They had older therefore ‘better’ manuscripts from the library of Alexandria no less – you know, where the Gnostics held court and removed entire tracts of Scripture from the Bible! W&H manifested as heretics – eventually,

Thankfully The Lord revealed the ‘Dead Sea Scroll’s” which proved them wrong and slowly the modernisation of the Bible was rejected by realising that ‘older’ does not equal ‘better’.

BUT – it’s off again! The Devil works in ever decreasing circles coughing up the same old gnostic tricks to confuse and deceive the latest generation.

Respect Phd’s? NO WAY! I shall test, test, test, till I drop! :)

Originally Written:
12:42 PM, January 29, 2011

John Chingford said...

Hi Andrew

Part 2
Just because a (imperfect sinful) "MAN" or "WOMAN" is an expert in theology, does not mean they are necessarily born again, not nominal believers,not biassed towards their own selfish interests or objectives. Neither does it mean that they are perfect in their work.

As Proverbs states:

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding" Prov 9:10

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" Prov 1:6-8

Those who translate (as in times past) need to be filled with the Holy Spirit, with a Godly fear - not just to have theological qualifications.

So the most knowledgeable and discerning people are those who have the Holy Spirit helping and inspiring them. How do we know that NIV scholars are those filled with the Holy Spirit? How do we know that there ultimate objective was not to make money for themselves?

In days past, there was much more Godly fear of God's Word than there is in todays climate of apostasy. In times past the Bible was translated with no other objective than to make it available to the common man and was done in far greater reverence.

We are now living in days when even the translators are coming fom ecumenically, new age apostate influenced backgrounds. How can we trust these (if they are apostate) to be trustworthy from such a background?"

Here is an example of what I found out this morning from a brief look on the the NIV translators site (If I studied it I am sure that I would find out many more things):

Q. Was the goal with the NIV update to make this version more gender inclusive?

A. The CBT’s mandate under the NIV charter is to maintain the NIV as an articulation of God’s unchanging Word in contemporary English. To the extent that gender inclusive language is an established part of contemporary English and that its use enhances comprehension for readers, it clearly was an important factor in decisions made by the translators.

You see that: "it clearly was an important factor in decisions made by the translators."

it goes on:
.......every single gender-related change made from the 1984 NIV to the TNIV was reconsidered. Some were preserved, some were rescinded in favor of the 1984 rendering, and many were re-worded in a third, still different way.

Okay, so they decided when to use brothers and sisters and when to just use "brothers". THEY decided what we should read without trusting us to check the CONTEXT.

How about this section that explains why they reverted back to "flesh" instead of "sinful nature":

....... The updated NIV® uses "flesh" as the translation in many places where it is important for readers to decide for themselves from the context whether one or both of these uses of sarx is present

My statement:
Why do they allow context to decide re flesh (sinful nature) but do not allow us to decide context re gender?

There is inconsistency in their approach here! I have to ask why? What is their hidden agenda?

Originally written:
12:46 PM, January 29, 2011

Expected Imminently said...

Hi John, Andrew

Just to back up what John said about knowledge, wisdom.

John6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

14. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

16.For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?"…

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

20.Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Originally written:
12:50 PM, January 29, 2011

Nathan Jones said...

Thanks so much, John! is my right hand in ministry and one of my homepages always open.

I became aware of the update to the NIV when our Bible Drill kids got a verse to memorize that was different to how I had memorized it in the 1984 NIV. My first concern was that Lifeway had switched to the NIrV or tNIV, but discovered it was the 2010 version.

It's understandable to keep the language modern, but the gender neutral issue is what killed the tNIV sales for Zondervan, so why they repeated the same mistake is beyond me.

I wish Biblegateway didn't keep defaulting to the 2010, which today says 2011.

Originally written:
8:16 PM, January 28, 2011

Expected Imminently said...

NATHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Kudos! :D
Big hug X

Originally written:
8:48 PM, January 28, 2011

Tommy said...

Just about everybody knows the word "Lucifer" as another name for satan. The word "Lucifer" is found once in the King James Bible.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

But what about the NIV? The word "Lucifer" is clean, bald-headed gone and now this creature is identified as the "morning star". Lucifer is the "morning star" in the NIV.

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

So we know that in the NIV the "morning star" is a negative, evil figure. Right? He was fallen from heaven. He was cast down to the earth. Can we find the "morning star" anywhere else in the NIV? Yes! The following passages in the NIV show the "morning star" as Jesus Christ! But the NIV just called the fallen creature of Isaiah 14:12 "morning star". Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV! Lord have mercy, Jesus! Help me, Lord.

NIV: Revelation 22:16,
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

NIV: 2 Peter 1:19,
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

NIV: Revelation 2:28--
I will also give him the morning star.

John Chingford said...

Thanks Tommy. Very interesting.

I looked into the word "Lucifer". It means "light bearer". The scriptures mention the angels as "stars". Each one was created as light bearers or "angels of light". Before a third of the "stars" or angels fell, they were all very beautiful, but Lucifer the most beautiful of all. Lucifer through his pride believed himself to be equal with God. He actually thought that through his flattery he could seduce the angels to overthrow God in Heaven.

From that moment he received a new name "satan" which means "adversary" and was thrown out of heaven.

I notice that it is only the KJV and New KJV which use the word Lucifer. All other translations (including NASB) use "day star" or "morning star". As stars are "light bearers" and Lucifer means "light bearer" it is fair to assume that even "morning star" is referring to satan as an angelic apparition.

Remember, Lucifer (before he was named satan ie before he sinned) was a beautiful star (angel) of Heaven.

It is true that Jesus is known as "the bright and morning star". He is also known as "the SUN of righteousness .....". I am unsure why He is described as the morning star, bearing in mind that Lucifer was also termed "morning star" but I really don't think the NIV is trying to link Jesus with satan. There may be an explanation somewhere that explains the significance of the term "morning star" and maybe shows how ONLY Jesus has totally fulfilled that title. Maybe someone (out there) can advise me?

However,I do question the intents of the authors behind the 2010/2011 version. They may well have been influenced by the apostate (catholic influenced ecumenic) age we are living in and influenced by the New Age "message".

But because other "trusted" versions also use "bright star" (morning or day star) I feel the NIV authors of 1984 and earlier were not being at all sinister and were trying to be accurate.