Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by FCoulter, Jun 9, 2012.
Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
By far the best reply you have ever given...
Thank you, Sir
You really need some professional help.
Did you even read what I posted? Be honest.
I bet you just went into temper tantrum mode and started posting hate sites......
I am not angry. But, thanks for asking.
why wasn't the NIV edition quoted?
is there something about the NIV that offends the SDA?
don't know much about SDA, just curious.
The NIV is fine, however, it was translated from a different ancient text than most of the other translations.
Textus Vaticanus vs Textus Receptus with some reliance on the Latin Vulgate.
The Textus Receptus was the text used by all of the old time Christian Churches and was used for the translation of all of the older Protestant Bible versions.
The NIV is also not exactly a translation, it was translated using what is called "dynamic translation" which means the translators used their best understanding rather than literal translation. This makes the NIV somewhat of a paraphrase and somewhat biased by the translators. The translation loses accuracy and subtle clues as to the meaning with dynamic translation.
There are some places where this bias is very pronounced in the NIV. I think this is why many SDA's do not really like the NIV, but I know of some that prefer it.
"One of the primary flaws of the NIV translation is its reliance upon the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was the first standard interpretation of the Bible, but to rely on it solely as a source material leads to a poor translation. For instance, in Matthew 16:18, the Vulgate quotes Christ saying: you are "Petros" and on this "petra" I will build my church. Because the original Greek uses "Cephas" (rock) in both instances, this translation is accurate, for "petros" means a rock, and "petra" means bedrock. Because it would be improper to assign the feminine word "petra" to a man (Simon Peter), the Vulgate uses the masculine "Petros" instead. This meaning is lost in the NIV, however, for in it Christ is quoted as saying: you are "Peter" and on this "rock" etc. By relying solely on the Latin Vulgate, the crucial naming of Simon Peter, among other passages, is mishandled by the NIV."
Hope this answers your question.
I've always liked the NIV. This is because I want the information as clear and obvious as possible.
This is why I even though I dont agree with,respect Vic's responses more than well....
I give up. What really did happen in 1844?
A false prophet was exposed.
What was the name of that prophet? Was it Fred?
What was the prophecy about?
Are you saying that William Miller was a false prophet?
Yes, and others with him.
Including Fred Coulter?
Wow, I'm jealous. I don't have a hate site dedicated to me. You don't either, do you?
What are we doing wrong?
I know its asking ALOT of you but read the article I posted and you will see whom you seek.
Just because it is in writing doesn't make it either accurate or true. It is someone's opinion and everyone has one of those.
One of the things that was published in 1859 was "Origin of the Species" by Darwin.
William Miller was a Baptist minister. He made an error as to the event that was to happen in 1844. He never claimed to be a prophet so he couldn't be a false prophet. There is nothing wrong with making a sincere error. The fact is that the calculations of the time period were correct. It was the event that Miller got wrong.
The Adventists studied the Bible to see what the error was in Miller's understanding of the Bible.
When in doubt seek wisdom from the Bible. Nothing wrong with that.