The Instigator
Esiar
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
kiwi.krab
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The NIV Is Not Accurate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Esiar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 68232
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Esiar

Pro

Put your first argument in Round 1.

NIV:
1. Jesus is the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16).
Lucifer is the Morning Star (Isaiah 14:12)

2. It removes 16 full verses.[1]

3. Jesus is the one and only Son of God (John 3:16).
Adam is the son of God (Luke 3:38).

[1] - http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net... & https://www.biblegateway.com...
kiwi.krab

Con

The NIV is just another version of the Bible nothing less. If you wish to prove your point then which verses are missing?
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Pro

I showed what verses were missing with links I put at the end of my opening post.
kiwi.krab

Con

Ha! Have you not learned nothing! Just because it is on the Internet does not mean it is true. I stand by what I said before, NIV is just a rewording of the Bible.
Debate Round No. 2
Esiar

Pro

I gave you a source the Biblegateway.com (The second link) and wrote every single verse down, and it shows they were all removed. If you go to any other Bible website that has the NIV available, they'll all show that those verses are removed.

I never said the NIV wasn't a rewording of the Bible: Just that it is inaccurate. I showed a contradiction in the NIV in my 3rd point of my opening statement, and I showed how the NIV equates Jesus and Lucifer by giving them the same title. Even if you could prove no verses were removed, you still have the contradictions and the Jesus/Lucifer thing...
kiwi.krab

Con

No one has any reason to go and reword a bible and leave part of it out. It could happen to any version of the bible. People are not perfect.
Debate Round No. 3
Esiar

Pro

"No one has any reason to go and reword a bible and leave part of it out."
In the NIV, It's easy to prove they've something like this.

Job 1:6 in the NIV says, "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.".

One of the footnote says that in the Hebrew in means "sons of God"[1]

In the translations, some of the verses are removed, thus making the context have a different meaning.

For example, Acts 8:36-38, in the King James Version, says, "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

The conversion would basically go like this:
Eunuch: What is preventing me from being baptized?
Philip: If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God with all your heart, you can get baptized.
Eunuch: I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the Son of God.
And Philip commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, and he baptized him.

The NIV, which removes verse 37, says, "As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?". And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him."

In the NIV, it would go like this:
Eunuch: What is preventing me from being baptized?
And Philip gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Mark 11:25-26 in the King James says, "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

In the NIV, which removes verse 26, says, "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.".

Matthew 17:20-21 in the KJV says, ", If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

The NIV, which removes verse 21, says, ""He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there," and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.'"
kiwi.krab

Con

When it comes to Bible translation, accuracy means getting as close to the original text as is possible in natural, contemporary English. It means translating with precision and clarity. Which is exactly what the NIV Bible does. Every NIV translator affirms this confession of faith from the original CBT charter: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written." Together, the NIV translators have hundreds of years" experience studying, teaching, and translating the ancient languages of the Bible. Their advanced knowledge of biblical languages and linguistics helps them to bring as much meaning as possible from the original into English. rst, no translation of the scriptures is without problems in some places. Translation is not an exact science. However, this does not mean no translation can be trusted. the NIV committee chose the path known as "dynamic equivalent (DE)." DE attempts to translate what the writer was thinking as opposed to what he accually wrote.

Biblical.com
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
I've heard the apologetics around the word "generation." I prefer to use my own thinking. It is clear in Mark 13, Jesus followers are thinking this applies to them. As they ask Jesus for clarification, Jesus gives no reason to think this is a far in the future event. Mark 13:4, Jesus followers, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the signs..." This is Judea 30 A.D. apprx. Jesus goes on to answer this question. He makes it clear it is an event, not the coming of the Christian religion. Mark 13:17, "woe to those who are with child..." Mark 13:33,35,37, Jesus "Be alert", used 3 times, once in each verse. Paul carries this message forward. 1 Corinth 7, Paul sees no need to marry and raise children. Why? Paul sees no future. Seems clear to me, the earliest writers expected a first century end. Your earlier point that the earliest writes would give us the clearest picture of events or expectations I agree with.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Just a discussion
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
That's up to him. I don't really mind debating or not (You're right, though: An actual debate would be better than doing it in the comments)
Posted by kiwi.krab 2 years ago
kiwi.krab
Instead of debating on the comments you could start another debate. Just an idea. Don't mean to be rude.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
1. It's too early to say they had to have made all of it up, especially the crucifixion (Most historians on that period agree Jesus existed and has crucified. While they could easily make it up to convince Jews, it would be hard to do from that time period, since one could say, "The tomb isn't empty!", or "My Grandpa said Jesus didn't fulfil so and so passage.". The Jews did expect a different Messiah (See Isaiah 2), but you need to take into account that interpretation isn't always correct (They also assumed there would be only one coming). But even then, it would be nearly impossible to fake Daniel 9:25.

2. Christians then believed that they were in the last days in the same way Christians have always believed it. It's the interpretation of what was said, like the Desolation, and the "this generation shall not pass away.", and things like that. Early Christians thought Jerusalem's capture was the desolation, and that "this generation", was theirs, although you could easily interpret it as saying that 1) It was referring to two desolations, 2) and the "this generation" is referring to the generation in which Matthew 24's prophecy fits.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Esiar, the problem remains. The gospels were all written after Jesus death. They are all written in third person. Not once does any gospel writer say, "Jesus and I...," or "I was standing next to Jesus." It is all third person with no mention of author. The Jews are expecting a different type of messiah. They are expecting a Moses, David, Joshua type. To restore Israel's sovereignty. Jesus isn't that. Now think, if you are trying to convince the Jews Jesus was the messiah, writing after Jesus death (gospels were written after) all you have to do is write it to fulfill OT prophecy. You would have a desire to do this in order to sway the Jewish people. Mathew was written directed at a Jewish audience. The gentiles have no preconceived notion of a Jewish messiah. They buy the story. Psychology tells us people believe what they wish to believe. The reward of heaven is an enticing idea. People would like it. It was an easier sell to the gentiles. Read Mark 9:1, Mark 13, in context of time and place, turn to 1 Corinth Chpt 7. In Mark Jesus predicts a first century end. Paul tell the Corinithians it is best to remain as he is (without wife or child) since the end is near. He states only if the cannot suppress temptation should they marry. This only makes sense if Paul thinks the end is near. These are among the earliest text written and would give us the most accurate picture of what these early Christians were expecting.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
Even if Jesus did self-fulfill Zechariah 9:9, he couldn't possibly have control over the crucifixion (Psalm 22) and his birth date (Daniel 9:25).
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
I think the problem with that is that is you were a NT author you can write it in a way the conforms to OT prophecy. Example, OT claims the messiah will be riding a mule. It would be easy to write, the messiah entered the holy city riding a mule, true or not. It would be easy, lets say Jesus knows OT teachings, for Jesus to hop on a mule and say "hey look I'm the messiah, I'm entering the city riding a mule." And of course we have Jesus failed NT prophecy of a 1st century end. Prophecy isn't really a good case. Predictions/prophecy needs to be very accurate and free from interpretation. I find no compelling case that the Bible holds such a position.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
You can't really prove it from a historical perspective, but between the relationship between the Old Testament prophecy and the New Testament they are accurate.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Esiar, I'm skeptical of your last claim. I've read several books written by Biblical scholars, I've never heard one mention your last sentence. I would agree with the earliest is the most more likely to be the most accurate. Biblical scholars agree that it is Mark. I then took the 6 letters that are universally agreed to be Paul. 6 are questionable Paul and most likely not. Anyway, I read Mark and the 6 universally agreed to be Paul. A first century end was predicted by Jesus and expected by Paul, based on Mark and those 6 letters. But my larger point remains, you have the earliest text, how would one ever determine it's accuracy. If later writings have gotten off track, for whatever reason, how do you determine the earliest writes are correct. They may be "most likely to be accurate," but that doesn't mean they are accurate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Esiarkiwi.krabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a good debate. Pro opens with an argument. Con makes one single argument, but not until the final round. "They interpret what the writer was thinking not what they wrote." So they basically make things up. They would have no idea what the writer was thinking. Plain fraud IMO. Pro wins because he makes a few arguments, that is at least double what Con makes.