Quantcast

Did you know the NIV bible was written by the people who wrote the satanic bible?

ladyshellie-Child -of- God 2009/12/22 10:33:01
no i didnt know-oh my gosh
so who cares
i knew the NIV was wrote by satanic people
yeah i know that because i read the satanic&NIV bible
other(comment)
You!
Add Photos & Videos
ye not be tempted to read the false bible but the true one Father of Lights wrote! ye tempted read false bible true father lights wrote

Read More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyQs4Y6nfVw

Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Joseph Kim 2014/02/19 04:11:28
    i knew the NIV was wrote by satanic people
    Joseph Kim
    NO!!! They weren't!!!
  • Brian 2012/09/04 15:05:48 (edited)
    other(comment)
    Brian
    the NIV need to be stopped .. http://www.christianpost.com/... look at psalms 85.8 in your bible then look at niv... they are grossly manipulating the holy book... may god have mercy on them..
  • WGN Brian 2012/10/29 01:15:07
  • debbie 2011/04/03 23:06:58
    so who cares
    debbie
    +1
    who are the satanic people who wrot the niv
  • Dolly debbie 2012/10/28 17:17:57
  • FREED Speaks Up 2010/01/21 16:47:27
    other(comment)
    FREED Speaks Up
    +1
    As you been asked, What is your source for this statement? You've had time to respond. Have you no answer?
  • Ron–Born from Above 2010/01/21 04:21:57
    other(comment)
    Ron–Born from Above
    +1
    What is your source for this claim?
  • Tw!stəd_S!stər 2010/01/08 04:16:44
    other(comment)
    Tw!stəd_S!stər
    +1
    Same Publisher not same writers. The one who wrote the Satanic Bible was Anton LaVey in 1969. The guy who looks like The Emperor Ming from Flash Gordon movie. The writers of the NIV Bible died centuries ago.
    But it's true that the translators of the new version changed and took off words and removed chapters.
  • Talavar Tw!stəd... 2011/09/28 02:41:03
    Talavar
    Work on the NIV bible started in 1965 and continued on from there.. your assertion that the people who wrote it have been "Dead for centuries" is not only a total fallacy, its also impossible.
  • WGN 2009/12/22 23:52:24
    other(comment)
    WGN
    +1
    And just which of the currently available 46 versions is the true bible?
    All were translated by somebody!! And it that lies the problem.
  • Talavar WGN 2011/09/28 02:42:42
    Talavar
    The Original King James version actually matches what the dead sea scrolls have written in them. So no changes from the original writing in all these years. GWG.
  • WGN Talavar 2011/09/28 12:00:38
    WGN
    +1
    Wrong, and wrong again. One translation of the scrolls matches. But that has been contradicted by scholars for 100's of years. My KJV has what Jesus supposedly said written in red. The problem is that all of that was hear say, because no one wrote down what he said when he said it. It is all conjecture based on bits and pieces of anecdotal material, as the writers of the NT never met Jesus, talked to him, or heard him speak.
    A good course on the history of the bible is what you need!

    "Early manuscript evidence as well internal inconsistencies indicate that the Bible manuscripts of the early Christians were edited and revised by the church. The Church Testament actually preserves a wide array of conflicting doctrines and ideological outlooks, and the differences between the gospels is pronounced. The evidence indicates that the purpose of the revisions was an attempt to harmonize the gospel accounts and lessen the conflicts in doctrine found on the pages of the Church Testament, or for the purpose of emphasizing ‘similarities' between gospel accounts, and down playing the marked differences, by ‘sharing' parables between manuscripts.
    Some of the tens of thousands of variant readings of copies of the church manuscripts are the result of the work of copyists who were not part...

    Wrong, and wrong again. One translation of the scrolls matches. But that has been contradicted by scholars for 100's of years. My KJV has what Jesus supposedly said written in red. The problem is that all of that was hear say, because no one wrote down what he said when he said it. It is all conjecture based on bits and pieces of anecdotal material, as the writers of the NT never met Jesus, talked to him, or heard him speak.
    A good course on the history of the bible is what you need!

    "Early manuscript evidence as well internal inconsistencies indicate that the Bible manuscripts of the early Christians were edited and revised by the church. The Church Testament actually preserves a wide array of conflicting doctrines and ideological outlooks, and the differences between the gospels is pronounced. The evidence indicates that the purpose of the revisions was an attempt to harmonize the gospel accounts and lessen the conflicts in doctrine found on the pages of the Church Testament, or for the purpose of emphasizing ‘similarities' between gospel accounts, and down playing the marked differences, by ‘sharing' parables between manuscripts.
    Some of the tens of thousands of variant readings of copies of the church manuscripts are the result of the work of copyists who were not particularly concerned with precision, often paraphrasing or making small errors (manuscripts were copied by hand before the invention of the printing press). Other variants are due to poor translation. But there still remain a number of revisions and variants that were deliberately included in the manuscripts for the purpose of either harmonizing the inconsistent doctrinal positions of gospels and letters or harmonizing the church documents with the developments that took place in Christian theology over the first few centuries of the existence of the church.
    Not all the revisions of the church manuscripts can simply be blamed on copyist error. As perfectly good example of this is found in the opening line of the gospel of Mark. The line reads, ‘The beginning of the gospel of Joshua Messiah, the son of God. The phrase ‘the son of God' is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is hard to imagine a scribe becoming so exhausted after copying the very first line of Mark's gospel that an inadvertent error, a notorious slip of the copyists pen took place, and the phrase ‘the son of God' was omitted. Furthermore, the phrase ‘the Son of God' is so central to Christian theology is impossible to imagine it being omitted from earlier manuscripts. It is obvious in this case that the phrase was added later, by the church, in order to harmonize Mark's gospel with developments in later Christology, as well as to bring terminology in Mark's gospel into ‘harmony' with that employed with other gospel narratives. (Mark was heavily influenced by apocalyptic imagery in the book of Daniel, as his explicit reference to Daniel's gospel in his ‘mini-apocalypse' indicates. Throughout the gospel Mark uses Daniel's term ‘the son of humanity' to refer to Joshua. The phrase ‘the son of God' was a later harmonization by the church.)
    The gospel of Mark, in its earliest form, ends with the discovery of the empty tomb in chapter sixteen. The remainder of the conclusion was added later by the church. Several variant endings of Mark's gospel are found in different early manuscripts and the current version is simply the version that ultimately found acceptance. Once again it is impossible to imagine early scribes becoming tired out and simply deciding to skip the ending of Mark's gospel, or to imagine a tired, error prone scribe ‘accidently' forgetting to copy the end of Mark's gospel. The fact that variant proposed endings of the gospel are known to exist demonstrates that the early church was dissatisfied with Mark's sudden conclusion, and decided to add references to Joshua appearing here and there to strengthen the allusion to the resurrection that was found in the original manuscript.
    (more)
  • Dolly WGN 2012/10/28 16:51:14
    Dolly
    +1
    Both of you are basing your answer on what you "think" or "feel", but faith is the substance of the things hoped for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen, so 2Peter2:21 says the prophescy came not in old time by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, all scripture is given by by inspiration of God, and is propfitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Scripture corrects, it it was "thus saith the Lord" that stands NOTHING ELSE. So; psalm 12: 6&7 The words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times; though shalt keep them O Lord thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Who will keep them? Who will preserve them? Tyndales, matthews, Coverdales, Ghe Great bible, The Geneva Bible, The King James, and the Final authorized King James, seven gentlemen. Now, if you want to get into a conversation about the Alexandrian line of perverted texts being ommitted search out "The Rules to be observed" that were used by the 47 Elders during the construction of the KJ bible, and there my friends you will find the answer that will put all your questions to rest. Not because I said so, but because the revealer of this knowledge only comes to those who are truly taught by the Holy Spirit.
  • WGN Dolly 2012/10/29 01:26:19
    WGN
    What a contradiction- "...evidence of things not seen." Then how does anyone know that they exist at all?

    You really need to go back further that that to find the changes. the KJV is just one of many that are supposed to be created based on what is known. The problem is that most of the writings of what Jesus said were done by people who never heard him speak and were put together by stories and tales- all "hear say" evidence. And in that lies the problem with all bibles.

    "...If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum, we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God?
    First, we cannot be sure that we have the full version as it was originally intended. In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ. The Antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called "Mar Yesu" and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the book of Elxai. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence for they were comprehensive original records reporting the life of Rabbi Jesus.
    Later, Pope Alexander VI order...












    What a contradiction- "...evidence of things not seen." Then how does anyone know that they exist at all?

    You really need to go back further that that to find the changes. the KJV is just one of many that are supposed to be created based on what is known. The problem is that most of the writings of what Jesus said were done by people who never heard him speak and were put together by stories and tales- all "hear say" evidence. And in that lies the problem with all bibles.

    "...If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum, we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God?
    First, we cannot be sure that we have the full version as it was originally intended. In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ. The Antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called "Mar Yesu" and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the book of Elxai. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence for they were comprehensive original records reporting the life of Rabbi Jesus.
    Later, Pope Alexander VI ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca alone.
    Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and, in 1559, every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents.

    The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls" was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100 AD.

    In 1607, forty-seven men (some records say fifty four) took two years and nine months to re-write the Bible and make it ready for press. It was, by the order of King James, issued with a set of personal 'rules' the translators were to follow. Upon its completion in 1609, it was handed over to the King James for his final approval. However, "It was self evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts onto the greatest genius of all time... Sir Francis Bacon"

    The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time ... "he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version. At the completion of the editing, King James ordered a 'dedication to the King' to be drawn up and included in the opening pages. He also wanted the phrase 'Appointed to be read in the churches' to appear on the title page.

    The King James Bible is considered by many today to be the 'original' Bible and therefore 'genuine' and all later revisions simply counterfeits forged by 'higher critics'. Others think the King James Bible is 'authentic' and 'authorized' and presents the original words of the authors as translated into English from the 'original' Greek texts. However, the 'original' Greek text was not written until around the mid fourth century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those earlier documents no longer exist and the Bibles we have today are five linguistic removes from the first bibles written. What was written in the 'original originals' is quite unknown. It is important to remember that the words 'authorized' and 'original', as applied to the Bible do not mean 'genuine', 'authentic' or 'true'.

    By the early third century, it became well noted that a problem was occurring . politics! In 251AD, the number of Presbyter's (roving orator or priest) writings had increased dramatically and bitter arguments raged between opposing factions about their conflicting stories. According to Presbyter Albius Theodoret (circa 255), there were "more than two hundred" variant gospels in use in his time. In 313, groups of Presbyters and Biscops (Bishops) violently clashed over the variations in their writings and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience and territory."

    The KJV is no more the word of God than any bible written before or since!
    (more)
  • debbie Dolly 2012/12/02 22:08:42
    debbie
    First of all I found this out accidently and looked into it. That was some time ago since then I realize that there's a reason I found this out. It doesn't matter. It never changed what I believe in. Jesus died for me. For that I will follow him and acknowlege him forever
  • Dolly WGN 2012/10/28 17:26:44
    Dolly
    Wrong and wrong again, all your suppositions are based on what you have read and studied by men. You must go to the scriptures to make this case, nothing else. Your basis for your answers are "worldly" that are not of the spirit! Only the Holy Spirit himself can reveal the truth to you, but to possess HIM, you must be first BORN-AGAIN.
  • WGN Dolly 2012/10/29 01:28:56
    WGN
    Sorry, but that is an opinion based on your interpretation of the word of God. Since I do have felt the spirit of God, he/she/it does not require me to be born again. Your religious dogma is what iit is and does not fit any one except you, as belief in God is a personal thing and what you do and believe has nothing to do with what I believe!
  • Talavar WGN 2011/09/28 02:45:59
    Talavar
    The Original King James version actually match what was written in the dead sea scrolls from between 67 AD - 200 AD. So no changes in the writing there. I would suggest using KJV.
  • WGN Talavar 2011/09/28 12:00:47
    WGN
    Wrong, and wrong again. One translation of the scrolls matches. But that has been contradicted by scholars for 100's of years. My KJV has what Jesus supposedly said written in red. The problem is that all of that was hear say, because no one wrote down what he said when he said it. It is all conjecture based on bits and pieces of anecdotal material, as the writers of the NT never met Jesus, talked to him, or heard him speak.
    A good course on the history of the bible is what you need!

    "Early manuscript evidence as well internal inconsistencies indicate that the Bible manuscripts of the early Christians were edited and revised by the church. The Church Testament actually preserves a wide array of conflicting doctrines and ideological outlooks, and the differences between the gospels is pronounced. The evidence indicates that the purpose of the revisions was an attempt to harmonize the gospel accounts and lessen the conflicts in doctrine found on the pages of the Church Testament, or for the purpose of emphasizing ‘similarities' between gospel accounts, and down playing the marked differences, by ‘sharing' parables between manuscripts.
    Some of the tens of thousands of variant readings of copies of the church manuscripts are the result of the work of copyists who were not part...

    Wrong, and wrong again. One translation of the scrolls matches. But that has been contradicted by scholars for 100's of years. My KJV has what Jesus supposedly said written in red. The problem is that all of that was hear say, because no one wrote down what he said when he said it. It is all conjecture based on bits and pieces of anecdotal material, as the writers of the NT never met Jesus, talked to him, or heard him speak.
    A good course on the history of the bible is what you need!

    "Early manuscript evidence as well internal inconsistencies indicate that the Bible manuscripts of the early Christians were edited and revised by the church. The Church Testament actually preserves a wide array of conflicting doctrines and ideological outlooks, and the differences between the gospels is pronounced. The evidence indicates that the purpose of the revisions was an attempt to harmonize the gospel accounts and lessen the conflicts in doctrine found on the pages of the Church Testament, or for the purpose of emphasizing ‘similarities' between gospel accounts, and down playing the marked differences, by ‘sharing' parables between manuscripts.
    Some of the tens of thousands of variant readings of copies of the church manuscripts are the result of the work of copyists who were not particularly concerned with precision, often paraphrasing or making small errors (manuscripts were copied by hand before the invention of the printing press). Other variants are due to poor translation. But there still remain a number of revisions and variants that were deliberately included in the manuscripts for the purpose of either harmonizing the inconsistent doctrinal positions of gospels and letters or harmonizing the church documents with the developments that took place in Christian theology over the first few centuries of the existence of the church.
    Not all the revisions of the church manuscripts can simply be blamed on copyist error. As perfectly good example of this is found in the opening line of the gospel of Mark. The line reads, ‘The beginning of the gospel of Joshua Messiah, the son of God. The phrase ‘the son of God' is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is hard to imagine a scribe becoming so exhausted after copying the very first line of Mark's gospel that an inadvertent error, a notorious slip of the copyists pen took place, and the phrase ‘the son of God' was omitted. Furthermore, the phrase ‘the Son of God' is so central to Christian theology is impossible to imagine it being omitted from earlier manuscripts. It is obvious in this case that the phrase was added later, by the church, in order to harmonize Mark's gospel with developments in later Christology, as well as to bring terminology in Mark's gospel into ‘harmony' with that employed with other gospel narratives. (Mark was heavily influenced by apocalyptic imagery in the book of Daniel, as his explicit reference to Daniel's gospel in his ‘mini-apocalypse' indicates. Throughout the gospel Mark uses Daniel's term ‘the son of humanity' to refer to Joshua. The phrase ‘the son of God' was a later harmonization by the church.)
    The gospel of Mark, in its earliest form, ends with the discovery of the empty tomb in chapter sixteen. The remainder of the conclusion was added later by the church. Several variant endings of Mark's gospel are found in different early manuscripts and the current version is simply the version that ultimately found acceptance. Once again it is impossible to imagine early scribes becoming tired out and simply deciding to skip the ending of Mark's gospel, or to imagine a tired, error prone scribe ‘accidently' forgetting to copy the end of Mark's gospel. The fact that variant proposed endings of the gospel are known to exist demonstrates that the early church was dissatisfied with Mark's sudden conclusion, and decided to add references to Joshua appearing here and there to strengthen the allusion to the resurrection that was found in the original manuscript.
    (more)
  • Dolly WGN 2012/10/28 17:23:30
    Dolly
    Im so glad you asked, AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION. Now, more importantly, when are you going to stop playing games with your salvation and ask God to forgive you for your sins and be born-again? John 3:3 except a man be born-again, HE CANNOT.... see the kingdom of God. 180 degree turn, ALL of you, total committment and belief that Christ died for you and rose from the dead, and then, and only then, will you know for SURE that your eternal destination is secure, otherwise, there is only one other place for your soul to go, and that's hell. So now you have been told, and your blood is not on my head, and I wouldnt put it off much longer, because your soul could be required of you tonight! Do you really want to take that chance?
  • WGN Dolly 2012/10/29 01:31:19
    WGN
    I have a relationship with my God, and that is all I need.
    Your interpretation of the bible has nothing to do with my faith and never will.
    Religious belief is a personal thing and it is NOT up to you to tell me about mine.
  • alexpgi... WGN 2013/07/30 09:53:10
    alexpgillan
    +3
    There are far more than just 46 versions. See http://uk-christians.net/foru...
  • WGN alexpgi... 2013/07/30 17:18:38
    WGN
    I believe that that number is the number currently available in print. yes, there have been many, many more versions. And if one looks at the Gnostic Gospels there are still more religious christian works.
  • marichatita789 2009/12/22 22:26:57
    no i didnt know-oh my gosh
    marichatita789
    +1
    i didnt know that
  • FREED S... maricha... 2010/01/21 16:41:28
    FREED Speaks Up
    It isn't. This is from at best a legalist. The new NIV that they are working on isn't good. The currant one is fine.

    Blessings mari
  • Dolly FREED S... 2012/10/28 16:56:13
    Dolly
    +2
    If you think the current one is "fine", you are mistaken. There is only one instance where the devil is named "lucifer" and it has been ommitted and replaced wtih the meaning of his name whichis actuallly "day star", but the NIV has put in "MORNING STAR", Jesus Christ is the bright and morning star, none other, and check the footnotes that were detracted in the earliest editions of the NIV, they actually said this was an event that hadnt happened yet, that Christ would be cast out of heaven, rediculous. We are not to add to or take away from the word of God... the NIV is Satans tool to decieve the masses and unfortunately my friend, you are one of them.
  • Cat 2009/12/22 17:25:57
    other(comment)
    Cat
    Where do you get your information? Who wrote the King James version, oh yeah, some guy, or bunch of guys! The NIV version is, simply, THE BIBLE, written to make more sense to today's christians where, before, they struggled with the, "Thou shalts" and "Whomsoevers" Have you ever read the NIV? What version, in your opinion, is the "true" version? IT'S THE SAME BOOK! One more question, how long did it take you to come up with this question?
  • Joseph Cat 2010/01/08 14:42:04
    Joseph
    +3
    The NIV has made alot of the verses like it's no big deal. Ten commandments Graven Image verses Carved image in the NIV. Graven image is also in the mind, carve is to cut or slice. Big difference. Don't you think.
  • Dolly Joseph 2012/10/28 16:58:18
    Dolly
    +2
    there are over 50 instances of adding to , taking away, and changing completely the meaning, it is corrupt and uneffectual, ......
  • Talavar Cat 2011/09/28 02:50:30
    Talavar
    The NIV has many verses removed, Also they remove the names of many, and replace them with (Hims and He's) which is VERY confusing in certain parts. They also dim down the severity of breaking commandments, etc etc.. If you ask me, it was written so children could grow up without a god-fearing sense.. the whole damned thing is anti-Christal.
  • Dolly Talavar 2012/10/28 16:58:55
    Dolly
    You are correct.
  • Dolly Cat 2012/10/28 16:57:12
    Dolly
    +2
    to make more sense to heathens, THE HOLY SPIRIT TEACHES, not man, so if you need an EASIER version, you may want to check on that little thing you call your salvation.
  • reed67 2009/12/22 12:32:02 (edited)
    other(comment)
    reed67
    +1
    So Athiest wrote the bible?? Damn it must be true it's on Youtube!
  • Dolly reed67 2012/10/28 17:00:42
    Dolly
    +1
    Father in the name of Jesus, I pray for this soul right now and ask you to cover him with your precious blood that you shed and died for him with. Let him see the light that you are the savior and that your word is holy and pure. Please send ministering angels to his side to speak to his black heart and give him a new heart filled with the promise of salvation, in the name of Jesus. Amen!
  • ladyshellie-Child -of- God 2009/12/22 10:50:27
    no i didnt know-oh my gosh
    ladyshellie-Child -of- God
    I didnt know until now-wow,now I know why God wouldnt allow me2buy a NIV when I got my new bible last month.I have the New century version.Anyone know about that?I cant understand the king james version but maybe the new king james is best?in your opinion which version you think is best?
  • Captain... ladyshe... 2009/12/22 12:42:54
    Captain Sticky
    +2
    This one.

  • reed67 Captain... 2009/12/22 13:12:28
    reed67
    +3
    Sometimes I got to wonder where people get this stuff from.... then I have to ask myself if I really want to know...
  • Captain... reed67 2009/12/22 18:35:48
    Captain Sticky
    +1
    I'm with you. I think they just do it to make themselves feel good about themselves. In my early years as a mechanic, the Chilton book WAS called the bible at work.
  • WGN reed67 2009/12/22 23:54:19
    WGN
    +1
    The World Weekly News- by the way, JFK is alive and living in a rest home in Europe.
  • Dolly reed67 2012/10/28 17:04:48
    Dolly
    +2
    trust me reed, you want to know, your eternal destination depends on not just knowing, but intimately knowing for sure.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/18 15:56:42

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals