Try Answering These From Your NIV

By Rex L. Cobb

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the
following questions.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final
authority, you must take the answer from the Bible
verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

1.Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love
your enemies,__________ them that curse you,
______________ to them that hate you, and pray
for them that __________ and persecute you."

2.According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are
required to cast out this type of demon?

3.According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come
to earth?

4.According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's
first name?

5.In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers
parted His garments, they were fulfilling the
words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said
in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

6.In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to
cast out demons and to: ____________

7.According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to
be able to hear?

8.According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher,
prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last
name?

9.In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

10.In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to
do? According to this verse, what did He come to
do?

11.In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with
Jesus?

12.According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages
was the superscription written?

13.In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with
His fish?

14.John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the
deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus
spoke), where is the Son of man?

15.What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

16.In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus
come to Jesus?

17.In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for
baptism?

18.What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

19.Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts
15:34.

20.Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done
with Paul? What was the chief captain's name?
What did the chief captain command?

21.Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

22.First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in
the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ.
In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

23.In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do
they] speak of Christ? And, what do we
Christians do?

24.Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First
John 5:7?

25.Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse
that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of
this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________
and O___________, the _________ and the
_______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers,
but it's much more than needed. If you followed the
instructions above, you not only failed the test, you
receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do
you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to
date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact
score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized
(King James) Bible.

"Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine.
The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 46.
Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Mollenkott. 48."

Do you want to know more?
Visit: http://www.concernedmembers.com/library.htm#hit

Both the NIV and the KJV have MANY text notes. In fact, the KJV originally had so many text notes that the page was so cluttered that they were removed. Most of thee answers to these questions are right there in black and white in the text notes of the NIV. I don't particularly like the NIV better than other valid translations, but here are the answers to your test questions:

1. "Some late manuscripts 'enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you'" (NIV). Pray is the third blank and is in the text.

2. "Some manuscripts 'you. But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting'" (NIV)

3. "Some manuscripts 'heaven. The Son of Man came to save what was lost'" (NIV) also in Luke 19:9 (NIV)

4. Unknown

5. "A few late manuscripts 'lots that the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled: "They divided my garments among themselves and cats lots for my clothing" (Psalm 22:18)'" (NIV)

6. Unknown

7. "Some manuscripts '"unclean." If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.'" (NIV)

8. He was "John the Baptist" (vv. 20, 23, and 12 other occurences in the NIV)

9. "Some manuscripts 'them. And he said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." (NIV)

10. Ibid #9

11. Twelve (v. 3 NIV)

12. Unknown, but for extra credit, may I observe that Matt 27:37 claims that the sign said, "THIS THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS", and Mark 15:26 claims that the sign said, "THE KING OF THE JEWS", and Luke 23:38 claims that the sign said, "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (all references KJV)

13. Unknown

14. "Some manuscripts 'Man, who is in heaven.'" (NIV)

15. KJV says that "...an angel went down at a certain season..." NIV says "Some less important manuscripts '...From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters...'"

16. earlier (Gr). (Also, the name Jesus was added by the KJV writers (in Greek it says, 'him' instead of Jesus), as acknowledged fortunately by the KJV footnote)

17. "Some late manuscripts 'baptized?" Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (NIV)

18. Unknown

19. "Some manuscripts 'them, but Silas decided to remain there'" (NIV)

20. "Some manuscripts 'him and wanted to judge him according to our law. But the commander, Lysias, came and with the use of much force snatched him from our hands and ordered his accusers to come before you. By" (NIV)

21. "Some manuscripts 'their greetings. 24 May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen." (NIV)

22. "Some manuscripts 'God'" (NIV)

23. Unknown

24. "Late manuscripts of the Vulgate 'testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on the earth: the' (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)" (NIV)

25. Unknown

Most of these (thought not all) were answered correctly using the NIV. I am not a big proponent of the NIV; I generally prefer the KJV over it. However, I believe I have demonstrated that the NIV is not deficient, but deliberate in explaining why they chose to translate God's word how they did.

This test seems to have a bit of a divisive tone, and I'm not exactly sure why you decided to post this under the RICHLAND HILLS CHURCH OF CHRIST topic. Is that particular church promoting this particular translation?

Finally, and since so many concerned members seem to want to pick a fight over the KJV, let me comment that the Authorized (King James) Version did not come from Heaven--it came from England. The standard is not the King James Version, but the remaining manuscripts in the original languages. If we are going to judge the newer versions for taking away from the manuscripts, what do we say about the KJV that has MORE than the most reliable manuscripts?

The reason the issue of the NIV is important is this:

Most churches have begun using powerpoint presentations during the worship service. During the sermon and whenever scripture is read, the verse is projected on the screen. It is always (at least in my church) quoted from the NIV. My opinion is that this discourages the use of Bibles. Why look it up when it's right there on the screen?

Words to the hymns are also flashed on this screen, discouraging the use of hymnals. In my church, I noticed that they had changed the words to some of the hymns since I was following along in the hymnal. Not that big of a deal, but you can see the implications.

Now this point is relevant. Yes, many churches (that can afford it) have gone to an upscale overhead system where Bible text is displayed in sync with the sermon for convenience. I would agree that this over time probably has an adverse effect on an individual’s familiarity with the Bible, especially if he doesn’t have a personal Bible study habit and is not involved in a good Bible class or some sort of small group study that meets outside of regular assembly. I don’t think this has anything to do with the NIV—it’s just as easy to take a KJV verse out of context as a newer version, but your point is well taken.

I’m not as concerned about the words to hymns being displayed as you are, except that it has long bothered me when words are changed for “political” reasons. There is much good theology in some of the older hymns (I think of “My Hope Is Built”). Some of the writers have had deep and painful experiences with God that produced beautiful stanzas. And if the songs have bad theology, they shouldn’t be sung at all, even if the melody is nice and our grandparents sang them all the time (although I’m sure that if this post is here long enough, someone on this site will argue for the divine inspiration of “Songs of the Church”).

Did you read my post "Not all KJV are the same"? I believe I addressed all of your concerns there.

A. Deacon, there is too much information to include on the message board. Please read some of the links on Bible versions. Check them out and see if they are telling the truth then draw your own conclusions.

Also, information on Saddleback and Willow Creek is important as it provides background for the movement we find ourselves faced with. Changing the worship style is the most important aspect of this movement in order to have a "seeker service". It is all based on marketing principles and NOT the Bible. Is this of God or of man? They base success totally on numbers and contributions. Is this of God or of man? They target one specific group of people. Is this of God or of man? The change agents love to quote 1 Cor 9:22 "...I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some" yet they target one specific group of people to bring into their seeker services. You can draw your own conclusions.

This is a movement that makes changes very slowly, but with a definite goal in mind. Lynn Anderson stated that it took his church (Highland Church of Christ) fifteen (15) years to implement their changes. This is why we are so concerned with these seemingly minor changes. They are just the beginning.

In continuing prayer,

Kevin

The above message has 4 paragraph and contains 4 glaring and serious errors. Certainly not a record for this group but probably slightly above average.

At some point we will have to stop twisting facts and spreading half-truths and enter into an honest discussion about reaching souls in the 21st Century.

I believe that that might appeal to Christ.

if you will note what you believe the errors to be.

Prayerfully Onward,

Kevin

If you will read the links provided concerning the modern versions vs KJV you'll see the evidence that the manuscripts used for all modern versions were not the "most reliable manuscripts".

Prayerfully onward,

Kevin

Brothers, the blame for "changes" cannot be blamed on the NIV and using the KJV is not a mark of orthodoxy. Do you not find it intersting that nearly all cults demand using the KJV (if they acknowledge the Bible at all)!!!

This site (Concerned Members) promotes Gail Riplinger's material as if she were some kind of authority. Riplinger has engaged in nothing but misrepresentation, quoting folks out of context and simply has many of the facts completely wrong. Her work has been answere in some detail by:

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House, 1995)

This work is well written, easy to read and accurate. Another work, older, shorter and more scholarly is:

D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker)

both of these works are in print and available at Amazon . . . I highly recommend them. In our own brotherhood Dr. Jack Lewis at Harding Graduate School in Memphis has done some excellent writing in a book called:

Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations (Resource Publications, 1991)

This book can be ordered from the Gospel Advocate Bookstore or 21st Century Christian Bookstore. This book has a great deal of material on both the KJV and the NIV. Lewis has two Ph.Ds and is more than qualified to write on the subject.

Somebody noted that not all KJVs are the same. True! Most today are NOTHING like the original KJV. The original had the Apocrypha in it, had cross references to the Apocrypha (over 150 in the OT and 11 in the NT). The original had 20,000 printing errors in it.

The NIV is hands down a more accurate translation: not because the King's men were dumb but because Greek studies (like everything else) has progressed astronomically. The KJV was based on less than a dozen manuscripts (only 25 were even known at that time) . . . that is less than one percent of today! Hebrew was in its infancy in those days. Many of the differences between the NIV and the KJV result from this fact alone.

Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, J.W. McGarvey, Moses Lard, were all very critical of the KJV on numerous grounds but especially its Greek text and its translation errors. McGarvey had this to say in 1883 after the publication of the Revised Version:

"we must by all means use the best version. The Canterbury revision of the English Bible should now TOTALLY SUPPLANT THE KING JAMES VERSION, not only because it is a great improvement as a version, but because it is the only representative in English of the corrected Greek text. A MAN IS NOT SAFE VENTURING UPON EXEGESIS OF A SINGLE PASSAGE BY AID OF THE OLD VERSION UNTIL HE SHALL HAVE COMPARED IT CAREFULLY WITH THE NEW; and rather than be continually making these comparisions, it is better to at once adopt the new into exclusive use." (McGarvey, "Preacher's Methods" The Missouri Christian Lectures, 1883, p.93)

Riplinger would simply say McGarvey was part of the "New Age Conspiracy!!!!" But then again so would Campbell, Scott, Lipscomb, Lard, Jack Lewis, etc, etc.
It is absurd!

One can have confidence that the NIV and most modern versions are accurate and faithful to the original. Perhaps some changes are happening because now folks can actually understand what they are reading.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Bobby,

You and I both know that the 1611 version of the King James Version included the Apocrypha between the old testament and the new testament and was in no way considered part of Scripture. It was included as reference material only. You seem to infer that this somehow casts doubt on the original KJV.

You state that "The original had 20,000 printing errors in it" when referring to the KJV. Could you please explain what these errors were? Were they font changes or standardization of spelling?

You also stated that "The NIV is hands down a more accurate translation: not because the King's men were dumb but because Greek studies (like everything else) has progressed astronomically." What is your proof? You do realize that the NIV wasn’t even translated from "original" Greek texts, don't you? Since the KJV was a literal translation (word for word), wouldn't it be more accurate than one that presumed to translate the “meaning” of the text?

I don’t know where you got your information for your statement “The KJV was based on less than a dozen manuscripts (only 25 were even known at that time) . . . that is less than one percent of today!” There were thousands of manuscripts know at the time of the KJV translation and the KJV text was supported by 95% of them. On the other hand, the texts that the NIV is based on do not even agree with each other!

I don’t understand the following statements: “Hebrew was in its infancy in those days. Many of the differences between the NIV and the KJV result from this fact alone.” Are you saying that the Hebrew language was in its infancy or the translation of Hebrew was in its infancy? Again, where is your proof?

It must be understood that the Greek text that the modern versions are translated from is a different Greek text than the one used in translating the KJV. Even if it could be argued that the method of translation or the scholarship of the translators was better with the NIV (which I would argue they were not), it would not matter because the Greek text that underlies the modern versions is inferior to that used by the KJV translators!

Prayerfully Onward,

Kevin

I have started using the New Living Bible translation and actually like it better than the NIV. Easy to understand, accurate - great!