Modern Bible Translations and their CORRUPTIONS

[brett]

.
Hello all,

I'm putting here a list of all the corruptions of Gods WORD that are found in modern Bible translations like the NIV, NASB etc. After learning the truth about the extent of corruption I now only read KJV. The KJV is the only reliable translation. The changes that have been made show a clear and serious flaw in modern translations, with sinister implications. I will start off with some KJV Bible verses showing God does indeed preserve His perfect Word for believers:


Psalm 12:6,7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Proverbs 30:5,6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.

Acts 2: 4-12
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

2 Peter 1: 20,21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The above scriptures should prove to you that God can and does preserve His exact Words that He utters for all generations. Believers have to TRUST that God is able to do this, that we can 100% rely on God to do this, and it doesn't depend on man, God does it Himself. The Acts 2 scripture shows that God has the ability to speak purely (perfectly) through men at any time, as the disciples spoke in languages they did not know, God did the translating not men. God is able to translate His Word into different languages and this is a perfect example of the PURE inspiration of God speaking His Words through men in different languages, where there is NO corruption - the words are 100% pure - 100% from God. God is well able to translate His Word Himself and has done so through moving upon certain men in history, we do NOT need "other" men creating new modern translations of their own will, which is really just sowing confusion & doubt. The KJV is all we need, the rest is just a bunch of confusion thrown at us by satan. And that's what the new modern translations are all about - sowing DOUBT and CONFUSION, to undermine the authority of the PERFECT Word of God. This is especially seen in the footnotes included with modern translations, always sowing doubt by saying things like (some manuscripts do not include this...etc). The NIV and all modern translations are the DEVILS work to undermine, sow doubt, and tamper with the Word of God.....I pray people see this.

Ok here is the list of corruptions that occur in Modern Bible Translations, I will just list them as they come to memory in whatever order I recall them:


(1)
Mark 1:1-3 KJV
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Mark 1:1-3 NIV
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]

NIV footnote:
Mark 1:1 Or Jesus Christ. Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek) both mean Anointed One.
Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.
Mark 1:2 Mal. 3:1
Mark 1:3 Isaiah 40:3


Ok now do you see how the NIV has made itself deliberately INACCURATE and opens the door for people to question the accuracy (perfection) of God's Word? The KJV states "prophets", which is 100% accurate and then we see both Mal 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 quoted. The NIV however changes the words and instead states its WRITTEN in "Isaiah". Wow right there any observant believer who double checked that would see an error in their bible and that immediately would sow doubt about whether the Word of God is 100% accurate or not. I know this sowed doubt in my mind when I came across it years ago in my NIV, it didn't exactly inspire my confidence in the Word of God! Then look at the footnotes of the NIV, more sowing of doubt, in particular, "Some manuscripts do not have Son of God"....more sowing doubt about who Jesus is and that the whole bible is uncertain because there are conflicting manuscripts! Also including this footnote panders to the Muslims, who deny Jesus is the son of God (AC agenda).


(2)
A strange mathematical fact. There are 678 verses in the book of Mark, in the KJV. If you look at the NIV you will see this VERY OBVIOUS note in the middle of the page in Mark 16 - its breaks up the text - its not even a footnote, its a middle of the page note, stating:
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
Ok so the NIV is basically saying Mark 16:9-20 is unreliable, which is like them saying these last 12 verses can be ignored, omitted because they are unreliable. Again tremendous doubt being sown here. But here's the really weird SATANIC thing, 678 verses - 12 verses = 666 verses - why have they really done this? Its seriously gotta make you wonder who is the true author of the NIV.


(3)
Both the KJV & NIV state that Jesus is known as the "Morning Star" in Rev 22:16
KJV .......I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
NIV .......I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

However in Isaiah 14:12 the NIV identifies the "morning star" as satan, while the KJV does no such thing.
KJV 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!
NIV How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Another satanic influence in the NIV


(4)
Micah 5:2 KJV But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Micah 5:2 NIV “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Pay attention to the difference at the end of these 2 verses. The KJV says from EVERLASTING - in other words from eternity, this is holding up the Deity of Jesus Christ. Look what the NIV does, it changes it to FROM ANCIENT TIMES, which does NOT imply eternity but in some distant time in mans history. This is a significant attack that many will miss, but you've got to ask yourself WHY? Why did they want to change the meaning of that verse and REMOVE the everlasting (eternity) meaning? Also note the NIV states Jesus had an ORIGIN, which means He started at some point in time, in ancient times. The phrase "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" just opens the door for doubt because it can be read as being from man's own history.


(5)
There is a consistent attack made on SALVATION in the new modern bible versions. The new translations try to imply salvation is a lifelong process, while the KJV makes it clear that salvation happens ONCE in a persons life and is eternal from that moment on, eternal security of the believer. In other words salvation happens in a SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME and once it happens you cannot loose your salvation according to the KJV, but according to the modern translations - salvation is a lifelong struggle and you can loose it.

1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV 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.

Note the KJV says "SAVED" (past tense) while the NIV changes that to "BEING SAVED" implying its a long process. This is a severe doctrinal error, as it perverts the whole concept of salvation and is seen in many verses in the modern translations. Salvation is not a process, its a once in a moment event and is permanent from that moment onwards.


(6)
Here's a weird one, the NIV promoting Christians to beat themselves, self harm, self mutilation.

1 Corinthians 9:27 KJV But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1 Corinthians 9:27 NIV No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.


(7)
Luke 2:33 KJV And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luke 2:33 NIV The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Here we have another inaccuracy - Joseph was not Jesus biological father, God the Father was Jesus ONLY Father. The KJV is careful to show this distinction, the NIV is not. And further down in this same Chapter Jesus rebukes Mary for calling Joseph his father in:
Luke 2:48,49 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Note here the words "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing". These are words SPOKEN by Mary and only recorded historically in the KJV. Jesus then corrects Mary and states he was doing his Fathers business, his true Father in heaven not Joseph as Mary had declared.


(8)
Acts 8:37 is MISSING in the NIV, let's see why.
Acts 8:36-38 KJV: 36 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? 37 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. 38 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.
Acts 36-38 NIV: 36 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?” [37] [c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Here we see the NIV again serving the Anti-Christ agenda, because this omission supports the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutherans etc who believe in baptising (Christening) babies, sprinkling infants with water, which somehow imputes salvation. This is another example of how the modern bible versions have an agenda to appeal to all denominations, exactly something the Anti-Christ desires to do. The truth is verse 37 - to be saved one MUST "believest with all thine heart that Jesus is the Son of God" - that is what makes someone saved and what must precede baptism. Leaving out verse 37 exposes yet again an obvious and evil agenda in the modern bible translations.


(9)
The story of Mark 1:41 is utterly TRASHED & RUINED by the NIV, removing the compassion of Christ - why does it do this?
Mark 1:41 KJV And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
Mark 1:41 NIV Jesus was indignant.[i] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.

For those who don't know indignation is ANGER, how in the world does the NIV characterise Jesus as healing a man in anger? Another corruption of the Word of God by the NIV

(10)
The NIV severely damages one of the CLEAREST verses supporting the IMPORTANT doctrine of the Trinity 1 John 5:7
1 John 5:7 KJV 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 NIV For there are three that testify

Look at that - a total REMOVAL of some VERY important parts of that verse, creating room for DOUBT, or at least WEAKENING support for the doctrine of the trinity. Why does the NIV feel the need to weaken such support for the doctrine of the trinity? Because satan desires to weaken support for the doctrine of the trinity - that's why !


(11)
Here's another corruption where the new modern translations try to make salvation a long process. Here its the NASB and the ESV that are particularly bad.
1 Peter 2:2 KJV As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby
1 Peter 2:2 ESV Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation
1 Peter 2:2 NASB like newborn babies, long for the [a]pure [b]milk of the word, so that by it you may grow [c]in respect to salvation

You will notice again these 2 modern translations make SALVATION sound like a long process that you must grow into to achieve, whereas the KJV implies no such thing.


(12)
The NIV makes it HARD to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mark 10:24 KJV And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
Mark 10:24 NIV The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[a] to enter the kingdom of God!

This is a terrible omission, leaving out the extra information that the KJV clearly provides, that its hard for them that trust in riches to enter heaven, yet the NIV just says its hard for everyone. Salvation is NOT HARD, and it is terrible for the NIV to alter the Word of God about such an important matter as salvation, which is a gift of grace and comes by believing on Jesus Christ. Christ did the hard work, all we have to do is believe in Him.


(13)
The modern translations remove the word HELL a lot from the bible.
KJV - Hell is mentioned 54 times
NIV - Hell is mentioned 13 times

This is mostly because the modern translations have completely removed the word "hell" from the Old Testament. This has lead some to start teaching now that "hell" is not an Old Testament doctrine. This is another BAD fruit of modern Bible translations, playing around with words - it has negative consequences.


(14)
Job 1:6 is another verse corrupted by the NIV.
KJV Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
NIV Job 1:6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came with them.

This is blatantly wrong. The sons of God mentioned in the KJV are BELIEVERS in heaven, whereas the NIV has changed this to angels.


(15)
1 Samuel 13:1 is a complete MESS in the NIV, its totally and utterly different to the KJV.
1 Samuel 13:1 KJV Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,
1 Samuel 13:1 NIV Saul was thirty[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-[b] two years.

In the NIV footnotes it says this:
1 Samuel 13:1 A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint; Hebrew does not have thirty.
1 Samuel 13:1 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Acts 13:21); Masoretic Text does not have forty-.

If the original Hebrew does not have these numbers WHY THE HELL does the NIV totally change this verse by injecting them? Aren't they meant to be translating Hebrew to English? What a joke, the NIV really exposes itself as the work of men alone, not God. God does not make these kind of mistakes.


(16)
Here's an error in the NASB translation, in the form of a contradiction within itself.
Psalm 8:5 KJV For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Psalm 8:5 NASB Yet You have made him a little lower than [f]God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

Now Psalm 8:5 is quoted in the New Testament in Hebrews 2:5. The NASB quotes it as:
“You have made him [h]for a little while lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor,

What a STUPID ERROR, for the original verse of Psalm 8:5 in the NASB says "GOD" and then when quoting this verse in Hebrews suddenly it switches it to "Angels". Just a really dumb error, so much for the infallible word of God, thanks NASB you just made a mockery of divine inspiration.


Are people starting to see how the modern translations just do NOT stand up to trying and testing ! The KJV is tried and tested and TRUE, and remains the ultimate standard - it is the TRUE Word of God. We can have 100% faith in it. Modern translations fail miserably, they simply cannot stand up to close inspection, they cannot be relied upon. God does not make mistakes.

I will add more as time permits.

.

[GodsStudent]

Brett: I thank you for taking so much time to point these things out. Like I said in the other thread, I know I need a PRE 1976 NASB translation, as newer translations in many bibles are modernizing and messing up.....

When my grandmothers both passed away, the one thing I wanted of theirs was their bibles. I looked up at them just now as I read your post and was grateful that I have these older versions of bibles. Im gonna make you smile here.....one of my grandmothers used the King James Version and the other used the New King James Version.

I got my own bible (NASB pre 1976 version) while we here on FP were discussing this very thing. Shorttribber (I think it's him) collects bibles and we were all discussing old bibles/new bibles and I learned that the NASB PRE 76 was the one that I wanted due to it's accuracies. That said, when I go to church, I usually carry my grandmother's bible (either one of them), so I am using the King James, too....

I am CERTAIN this is a labor of love for the brethren on your part and again, I am really appreciative of the time and effort you have put into showing what you have learned and why you are so adamant about this. I want to say Im sorry I started this, but Im really not, because I think it's an important topic....always have.....it's why I have my preference, too!!!

[brett]

GodsStudent PLEASE switch to KJV for your own sakes !

Here is one of the BIGGEST CORRUPTIONS in the modern translations that will matter a LOT when the Mark of the Beast comes out.

(17) Mark of the Beast Corruption
The KJV says the Mark of the Beast will be IN the hand or IN the forehead whereas the modern translations all change that to ON.

Rev 13:16 KJV And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Rev 13:16 NIV It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,

Rev 13:16 NASB And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, [m]to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,

Rev 13:16 ESV Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,

Rev 13:16 AMP Also he compels all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead

Rev 13:16 NLT He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead

Rev 13:16 ASV And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead

Rev 13:16 ISV he second beast[l] forces all people—important and unimportant, rich and poor, free and slaves—to be marked on their right hands or on their foreheads

Rev 13:16 NKJV He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

Rev 13:16 NRSV Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead

I cannot find a modern translation that says "IN" they all say "ON". ONLY THE KJV is correct. Please brothers and sisters TAKE NOTICE OF THIS. This is satans plan to DECEIVE anyone that he can into taking the MARK. This is why you must throw your modern translations in the TRASH CAN - they are INACCURATE - they cannot be relied upon - and this translation discrepancy WILL send many people to HELL for eternity. That's why satan has FLOODED the world with all these phony modern translations - they are intended to DECEIVE people!

I recently heard a believer talk about a "700 Club" interview with a man who works in a company that makes ID chips - he was confronted with the question. "Are you aware that these rice grain size ID chips you are manufacturing could be the Mark of the Beast in the Bible?" The response was, "No its not, read your bible", and they opened a modern translation, and the man said - "see it says ON, not IN, our chips go in the hand not on it.".......when I heard this it sent shivers down my spine, the modern translations will deceive many into taking the Mark ! We gotta stay awake brothers and sisters !

Throw your modern bibles in the trash can and buy a KJV Only BIBLE ! Please !

.

[GodsStudent]

Sometimes, seeing things play out in real time is too surreal.
I trust and thank the Lord that He is so good to us to demonstrate or make clear the relevance and importance of this discussion. It's a beautiful thing that He is so close and personal with us.

[Abiding in His Word]

Are people starting to see how the modern translations just do NOT stand up to trying and testing ! The KJV is tried and tested and TRUE, and remains the ultimate standard - it is the TRUE Word of God. We can have 100% faith in it. Modern translations fail miserably, they simply cannot stand up to close inspection, they cannot be relied upon. God does not make mistakes.

Again we will likely not agree on this topic, so I'll continue with my preferred NASB and compare other translations as well as taking context, commentaries, dictionaries, concordances and cross-references into consideration to understand the intended meaning of the passage.

For example, the passage about the woman caught in adultery has been the subject of much controversy over the years. Daniel Wallace (and others) notes that it is absent from most of the earliest manuscripts in his article, My Favorite Passage That's Not in The Bible and with a little research, you can find many other scholars who agree.

By comparing Bible versions, I have found that even the NJKV notes that it is not in the original manuscripts, and yet it continues to be inserted in the gospel of John as though it were part of the cannon. The NASB and the ESV at least include it in brackets as an indication it is not in the original. Does the KJV do this?

Here are just a couple notes in commentaries regarding the passage from John 7:53 to John 8:11 (woman caught in adultery):

Adam Clarke:

This verse and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness

E. W. Bullinger:

And every man, &c. From Joh_7:53 -- Joh_8:11 is omitted by L T Tr. [A] The Revised Version note questions it. WH place it in double brackets at the end of the Gospel. As to ancient MSS., A (the Alexandrine, London) and C (Ephraemi, Paris), are defective here, so that the oldest omitting it are (Sinaitic, Cent. v), B (Vatican, Cent. iv). The oldest containing it is D (Bezae, Cent. vi). It is contained in the Vulgate (383), and Jerome (378-430) testifies (adv. Pelag. ii. p. 762) that it is found in many Greek and Latin Codices. It is also found in the Jerusalem Syriac (Cent. v), the Memphitic (Cent. iii or iv), Aethiopic (Cent. iv). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (315-320), quotes (Hist. Ecc. iii. 39) Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (in Phrygia, 130), as refering to it. Ambrose (374-397) quotes it, as does Augustine (395-430), de adult. coniugiis (lib. ii, cap. 7). Though WH omit it, Dean Burgon (1883) quotes: "Drs. W. and H. remark that ’the argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is its own internal character. The story itself has justly seemed to vouch for its own internal truth, and the words in which it is clothed to harmonize with other Gospel narratives’ (The Revision Revised, p. 311, note). We may ask: How is it that all the MSS. which do contain it (including 300 Cursives) agree in placing it here? It was another attempt following on Joh_7:32, and referred to in Joh_8:15.

And even John Piper (whom I disagree with more often than not) agrees that the story is not in the original manuscripts and therefore doesn't belong in our Bibles. While some versions apparently change words, others add them.

The importance of research as good Bereans cannot be overstated while at the same time a good system of exegesis will lead to an understanding of the intended message/principle that leads to a better understanding of scripture and it's influence in our lives.

I will add more as time permits.

Here is a comprehensive list of over 100 versions of the Bible with comparisons of several verses as well as a brief description about that particular version.

And lastly, I have mentioned before that when I became a believer, I had never owned nor opened a Bible. It is not the sole means of salvation nor should we worship it as such. We should, however, worship the God of whom it speaks and brings us to a better understanding of Him.

[shorttribber]

For example, the passage about the woman caught in adultery has been the subject of much controversy over the years.

How many years?
And the answer is....drumroll please.......since WH (Westcott and Hort).

so that the oldest omitting it are (Sinaitic, Cent. v), B (Vatican, Cent. iv).

Unreliable Rags.

It is also found in the Jerusalem Syriac (Cent. v), the Memphitic (Cent. iii or iv), Aethiopic (Cent. iv). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (315-320), quotes (Hist. Ecc. iii. 39) Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (in Phrygia, 130), as refering to it. Ambrose (374-397) quotes it, as does Augustine (395-430), de adult. coniugiis (lib. ii, cap. 7).

Papias, in 130 refers to it. We must just Trust Modern "Supposed" Bereans who tell us that it was just ADDED right?
We must just Believe that Papias, in 130 just Thought he SAW THAT READING right?

The NASB and the ESV at least include it in brackets as an indication it is not in the original. Does the KJV do this?
.............And even John Piper (whom I disagree with more often than not) agrees that the story is not in the original manuscripts and therefore doesn't belong in our Bibles.

What "Original" can the NASB or ESV, or John Piper be referring to Abiding? Not ONE SINGLE "Original" is extant. Not even One Single Sentence or Word of an "Original" exist.
That's WHY the King James Version Does Not Do as the NASB or ESV Does in Error.

You are right in that we will not come to agreement on this forum on this matter.

But God will see to it that we will come into agreement though as we enter that time of testing to come.

Come quickly Lord Jesus........Let the Redeemed of the Lord Say So.

[Abiding in His Word]

For example, the passage about the woman caught in adultery has been the subject of much controversy over the years.

How many years?
And the answer is....drumroll please.......since WH (Westcott and Hort).

Shorttribber, my reason for my comments above along with several commentaries is to show that even among hundreds (perhaps thousands?) scholars, there are differences in translations and opinions. I only posted two commentaries about the woman caught in adultery but there are others.

I'm of the opinion that to discount or discredit those hundreds or more scholars is the height of disrespect for many who studied years both in the area of culture, language, context, etc. and devoted much of their lives to the end of producing a translation that reflects the truth of scripture while recognizing the changes in those areas over the past 400 yrs.

According to this site, there are @1153 versions of the Bible that encompass @1107 languages. We should applaud those who make every effort and devote much time in their studies to produce a book in other languages that brings the truth of the birth of the Savior to all who will benefit from the beauty of it's fulfillment of the over 350 prophecies that prove His birth.

I'm pretty certain that many of those will not be persuaded by shouts of "heresy" or such by KJV only-ers. We should feel free to read the version we are comfortable reading and learn to abide by the basics of good hermeneutics in searching for the intended meaning in those areas where different perspectives exist.

I also hope you will agree that the Bible is not meant to be a law book, but rather a historical record of the journey of mankind from death to life and from despair to hope. What makes us brother and sisters in the Lord is Him and even though there are over 3,000 denominations in the world, we still have that common bond with those who know Him as their Savior.

[shorttribber]

I'm of the opinion that to discount or discredit those hundreds or more scholars is the height of disrespect for many who studied years both in the area of culture, language, context, etc. and devoted much of their lives to the end of producing a translation that reflects the truth of scripture while recognizing the changes in those areas over the past 400 yrs.

Your opinion is noted. The opinions of those who have opposed the flood of fallacy and stood against the opinions that took root after Westcot and Hort ought to be Respected also.

Those who stood against Westcott and Hort have been greatly disrespected IMO. I do not disrespect the multiple thousands of theologians that swallowed the Lies of those two men, and the few others before them who's work was also at fault.

To point out the error of Many is not the "height of disrespect", nor any disrespect at all. It is only our obligation under God to expose fallacy, especially when that fallacy directly opposes and casts doubt on the purity, beauty, and preservation of God's Holy Word.

I will say again, that I am not King James Only. It is the Purist and Most Accurate English Version though (ALL of them, 1611 through our present day).

Why am I not King James Only? Because we DO need other versions in OTHER Languages....But Not Other Versions in English.

[shorttribber]

I will ask you again Abiding....

What "Original" can the NASB or ESV, or John Piper be referring to Abiding? Not ONE SINGLE "Original" is extant. Not even One Single Sentence or Word of an "Original" exist.

It's a very common thing we hear said...we hear it all the time.....it's not in the "Original" text....

So, what "Original" texts are you and others who say such things referring to?

If there are none, ought you stop saying it then?

[brett]

.
It should be becoming evident to people by now that the modern translations are modern "HACK JOBS" by modern scholars who are "HACKS". In fact this whole idea of trusting modern scholars in these LAST DAYS is a major mistake. Do not trust in the MEN of these LAST DAYS who call themselves scholars, trust instead in GOD and trust in a bible that has been SOLID and TRUE since 1611.

I have pointed out 17 ERRORS so far in modern translations - these are CLEARLY enough to prove the point. There are heaps more corruptions that I will point out as time goes on, they are EVERYWHERE. The fact errors exists is proof itself that these bibles are NOT FROM GOD. Gods Word does not contain errors. This is the understanding Abiding that you seem to lack, that God's Word is perfect and without error and that GOD ALONE preserves His perfect Word for us. You don't need to run around getting the opinions of scholars, scientists, manuscripts and the rest of that MAN MADE MESS. You only need to read and compare the texts of the different bibles yourself.

The KJV contains NO errors. The modern translations contain MANY errors and are clearly perverted (tampered with) texts.

It's not hard to see. Stop trusting in "EXPERT" opinions and start trusting in the witness of your OWN EYES and spirit. In the circles I move around in the modern translations are considered like radioactive waste. Stay as far away from them as possible !

I was given an NIV when I was first saved at the age of approx 19 or 20 (can't remember the exact date). I have only fully realised the KJV is the ONLY true correct Bible to read in the last few years. It took me about 20 years until I learnt this. So I can understand you may take a while to realise. I just wish someone told me earlier because the NIV HAS DAMAGED ME, it did sow doubts in my heart and it did give me doctrinal issues that I am now correcting with the KJV.

Remember its the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth, not modern "so called" scholars or scientists of these Last Days.
.

[Abiding in His Word]

You don't need to run around getting the opinions of scholars, scientists, manuscripts and the rest of that MAN MADE MESS.

Stop trusting in "EXPERT" opinions and start trusting in the witness of your OWN EYES and spirit.

Remember its the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth, not modern "so called" scholars or scientists of these Last Days.

Brett, are you not trusting in the opinions of "expert" scholars who translated the King James Version of the Bible as well as those who made revisions to it?

[brett]

You don't need to run around getting the opinions of scholars, scientists, manuscripts and the rest of that MAN MADE MESS.

Stop trusting in "EXPERT" opinions and start trusting in the witness of your OWN EYES and spirit.

Remember its the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth, not modern "so called" scholars or scientists of these Last Days.

Brett, are you not trusting in the opinions of "expert" scholars who translated the King James Version of the Bible as well as those who made revisions to it?

No Abiding, I'm trusting in what I myself can clearly see as corruption, by comparing (testing) the texts. How much proof does one need? Test them yourself, please.

.

[Abiding in His Word]

No Abiding, I'm trusting in what I myself can clearly see as corruption, by comparing (testing) the texts. How much proof does one need? Test them yourself, please.

We've gone full circle it seems, since I posted the very same advice in my comment about comparing texts in the other thread before you started this one:

We will likely not agree on this topic, so I'll continue with my preferred NASB and compare other translations as well as taking context, commentaries, dictionaries, concordances and cross-references into consideration to understand the intended meaning of the passage.

While the principles of interpretation can be found many places by doing a Google search, here's just one.

[brett]

Ok thanks Abiding. Please note, the goal of this thread is not to specifically convince you, as much as I would like you to see the deception that is going on, apparently you won't be seeing it. So I will simply continue on with listing the corruptions - there are many many more corruptions in the modern bible translations. There will be others in these forums that appreciate what I'm doing here.

.

[Abiding in His Word]

Ok thanks Abiding. Please note, the goal of this thread is not to specifically convince you, as much as I would like you to see the deception that is going on, apparently you won't be seeing it. So I will simply continue on with listing the corruptions - there are many many more corruptions in the modern bible translations. There will be others in these forums that appreciate what I'm doing here..

Brett, please know that I am fully aware of deception today. I just happen to focus on the individual erroneous teachings rather than focus on the differences between Bible translations. When teachings are promoted that are contrary to the intended purpose without consideration for the culture, descriptive vs. prescriptive, etc. or involving selective literacy, then I correct the error by research using the resources I listed above. Most believers agree on the basic, fundamental truths of scripture as noted in this board's Statement of Faith. But many churches and/or assemblies have become power hungry and gain control over members that was never meant to be. In order to maintain that power, they require membership contracts, covenants, and strict, albeit vague disciplinary measures that are not scriptural but are oppressive. This is accomplished by organizing networks, coalitions, alliances, all with affiliations with one another so as to maintain authority of a select group at the top.

I lived through the Shepherding Movement in the 1970's and Holly is currently focusing on refuting the NAR movement which teaches authority of Prophets and Apostles. Another current movement, Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is behind the popular ESV translation of the Bible and their teachings go so far as to promote the erroneous doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of Jesus in an effort to prove women's subordination to men. John Piper even went so far as to list 81 areas where women are "allowed" to participate. At least his list is more generous than Steve Anderson who forbids women to even say "Amen" in church!

All that is to say that I am keenly aware of the deception among believers today but differ in my approach to exposing and refuting the various teachings which use selective verses erroneously in an effort to give credence to their agenda.

You are refuting entire Bible translations; I am refuting the basis for erroneous teachings using individual passages taken out of context and contradicts the entire counsel of God throughout scripture.

Hope that clarifies where the differences lie rather than my lacking awareness of the existence of deception.

[brett]

.
Abiding please take a look at the above number (16) corruption in the NASB translation. I find that to be a very obvious, visible error and it makes a mockery of their translation process and sources.

Anyway here are more corruptions:

(18) Attack on Deity of Christ
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16 NIV Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit,[d] was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

In the KJV it is crystal clear that Jesus is God, it calls Jesus God. The modern translations have tampered with this and removed the word God and replaced it with He. There is no need to do this except to reduce (WEAKEN) the clarity of Christ's deity, something satan desires to do. The reader now has to assume Jesus deity from this verse rather than have the text say it 100% for certain.


(19) New World Order Propaganda

Heberws 9:10 KJV Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Hebrews 9:10 NIV They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Wow where did the term "NEW ORDER" come from? This is modern propaganda for the "New World Order", what is it doing in bibles? It will be the Anti-Christ who brings in the New World Order. These modern bibles are tampering with words to prepare people for the AC.


(20) Removal of Vain Repetitions for Catholics
Matthew 6:7 KJV But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Matthew 6:7 NIV And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

There is a difference between "VAIN REPETITIONS" and "BABBLINGS", Vain repetitions is repeating the same phrases over and over, time and time again, pretty much what Catholic mass is like. Babblings are just overly numerous random nonsense talking. This verse pretty much exposes that Catholicism is pagan, which is the truth !


(21) Total misunderstanding of Galatians 5:12
Galatians 5:12 KJV I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
Galatians 5:12 NIV As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Galatians 5:12 CEB I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!
Galatians 5:12 CEV I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more!

Paul is not talking about castration, he is talking about them being cut off from fellowship, kicked out of the church. This is an awfully dumb and crude corruption of God's Word. Just shows how these modern weirdos, modern translators are themselves polluted by this world and only see something that this world would see.


(22) More Government Propaganda - Obey the Government no matter what !
Romans 13:1 KJV Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1 NIV Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

The NIV verse is wrong, the point of Romans 13 is not telling believers to just obey whatever a government official tells them but rather to explain that generally "human government authority" is ordained by God because its needed to protect the innocent and punish evil doers. The same way parents are granted authority over children to protect and punish them. Being explained here is a god ordained order of authority - established by God, but this verse should not be used to force believers to submit to anyone in a position of authority, the law is the higher power, not a person. Yet we see the modern translations muddying the waters and making Romans 13 sound like absolute obedience to your governing authorities is required at all times. Look at the NLT

Romans 13:1 NLT Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

This is NOT TRUE. Not everyone in a position of power in government was placed there by God. Was Hitler put in authority by God? What about the Anti-Christ will he be getting his authority from God? Look at this scripture:
Rev 13:2 KJV And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Who gives the Anti-Christ power and authority? It is satan, so the NLT is blatantly incorrect, not everyone in positions of power are placed there by God. Hosea 8:4 also backs this up, along with obvious common sense, just read 1 Kings / 2Kings, 1 Chronicles / 2 Chronicles and you will see how God DISAPPROVED of MANY Kings in those days.

Hosea 8:4 KJV They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

Now look at the NLT (New Living Translation) Romans 13:6 - THIS IS BLATANT GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA

Romans 13:6 NLT Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

This is an example of shocking corruption of Gods Word by government propaganda. Do you see government inserting into Gods Word? Its pretty bad when you realise the agenda behind these new translations, its pretty much government censorship in overdrive.

.

[mark s]

Just to chime in here . . .

Having studied manuscripts, translations, at least the Greek though not the Hebrew, hermeneutics, the differences, the "omissions", the "additions", such as all of that, for quite a number of years now, I personally believe we should consider as authoritative the Septuagint for the 1st Testament, and the the Majority MS for the New Testament.

I want to make clear that the Majority Manuscript, while still the Byzantine Family, is not the same as the Received Text, from which the King James was translated.

We could go on for years as many do discussing differences in translations, however, if I remember correctly, didn't the 1611 translators say in their preface something like "even the meanest translation is still God's Word"?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[shorttribber]

We could go on for years as many do discussing differences in translations, however, if I remember correctly, didn't the 1611 translators say in their preface something like "even the meanest translation is still God's Word"?

Here is what it says Mark....
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

Now, what they wrote did not have the intended meaning that ANY Bible written in English THEREAFTER should be considered As the Same....and IS therefore "The Word of God".

Hope you can see the difference in what they did say, and what I think that you are implying Mark.

[shorttribber]

I want to make clear that the Majority Manuscript, while still the Byzantine Family, is not the same as the Received Text, from which the King James was translated.

I will hope to answer this also again for other readers.
The Received Text, BECAUSE it WAS IN FACT Byzantine, IS Squarely BASED ON the Majority Text. It was not at all necessary that the Entire Library of the Majority TextS were consulted, Nor Every One of them Examined While Compiling the Received Text. That Work had Already Been Done by the SIX Other Very Sound English translations prior to the 1611 King James.

The Majority Text is Simply not Cared For in the Least by MODERN Translators...and they Instead opt for their Errant Opinion that the Earlier Alexandrian text Type be in Favor and Superior to the Byzantine or Majority Text Type.

[mark s]

The Received Text, BECAUSE it WAS IN FACT Byzantine, IS Squarely BASED ON the Majority Text.

Hi ST,

I'd have to disagree with this.

The 11 or so manuscripts pointed to for the King James are not the same manuscript lot as the 5000+ manuscripts plus over 25000 citations and quotes from which the Majority MS was formed. The fact is, many many of these manuscripts had not even been discovered by 1611.

I don't understand why it would not be understood that these are different manuscripts. I have both at home, use both, and they don't always say just the same thing.

Naturally the Majority MS is the Byzantine MS family, along with the Received Text, but that does not make them the same.

Hey . . . I'm wondering . . . considering the . . . well . . . shall we say, questionable translations and wordings of the KJV, anyone interested in cataloging those on this thread as well, to show a fair balance?

Too daring?

To be clear, I'm not interested in slamming every translation of the Bible. I routinely use 8 or 10, and I occasionally reference up to 25 or so. But if we're going to discuss issues with translations, let's have a full, open, and honest discussion.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

We could go on for years as many do discussing differences in translations, however, if I remember correctly, didn't the 1611 translators say in their preface something like "even the meanest translation is still God's Word"?

Here is what it says Mark....
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

Now, what they wrote did not have the intended meaning that ANY Bible written in English THEREAFTER should be considered As the Same....and IS therefore "The Word of God".

Hope you can see the difference in what they did say, and what I think that you are implying Mark.

Hi ST,

Thank you for finding this for me! That was truly helpful! I was looking yesterday, but I wasn't home, and gave up.

Seems to me that they are saying that while we haven't seen 'their' translation yet, that even a crude translation by scholars contains and is the Word of God.

Am I missing something here? This is what I remembered them to be saying.

What I'm saying is that they said their translation should not be considered the only translation, others are also God's Word if done by men like them.

Isn't this like the King James translators speaking out against King James Onlyism?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[shorttribber]

Hi ST,I'd have to disagree with this.The 11 or so manuscripts pointed to for the King James are not the same manuscript lot as the 5000+ manuscripts plus over 25000 citations and quotes from which the Majority MS was formed. The fact is, many many of these manuscripts had not even been discovered by 1611.I don't understand why it would not be understood that these are different manuscripts. I have both at home, use both, and they don't always say just the same thing.

Can you further explain yourself on this mark? What do you mean, that you have Both at Home? The "Majority Text" is Not A Single Manuscript.
The "Majority Text" is Several Thousand in number, and are ALL Byzantine.....That's WHY THOSE are Called the "Majority Text".

[mark s]

Hi ST,

I think I'll leave the interested reader to research the matter.

Perhaps a place to begin is on Bible.Org:


https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

While a somewhat lengthy read, I think it will give the reader a good foundation on the matter. Maybe some will agree, some will disagree, I know some who have issues with Wallace, who wrote this, but I think it will impart at the least a greater familiarity with the topic.

I'll also add that I am one of those who disagree with his conclusions. Nonetheless, his article is, to me, very well written and presented, and, again, I think, will aid in understanding the topic.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Abiding in His Word]

Hi ST,

I think I'll leave the interested reader to research the matter.

Perhaps a place to begin is on Bible.Org:


https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical

While a somewhat lengthy read, I think it will give the reader a good foundation on the matter. Maybe some will agree, some will disagree, I know some who have issues with Wallace, who wrote this, but I think it will impart at the least a greater familiarity with the topic.

I'll also add that I am one of those who disagree with his conclusions. Nonetheless, his article is, to me, very well written and presented, and, again, I think, will aid in understanding the topic.

Daniel Wallace is the scholar who authored the article I mentioned above Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today

I also mentioned that Holly referred to his article and she explained her choice of the NASB as the translation of her choice. But she also practices comparing translations and context. Also highly recommended is the use and comparison of commentaries, dictionaries, concordances, and studies of cultures.

[mark s]

I like the NASB, particularly in maintaining the Greek word order where possible while still making sense.

Currently I'm teaching Hebrews using the Holman translation, with comparisons to NKJV, NASB, NLT, others . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

PS . . . I still like the one . . . "What's your favorite version of the Bible? The giant print."

[mark s]

Daniel Wallace is the scholar who authored the article I mentioned above Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today

I also mentioned that Holly referred to his article and she explained her choice of the NASB as the translation of her choice. But she also practices comparing translations and context. Also highly recommended is the use and comparison of commentaries, dictionaries, concordances, and studies of cultures.

Well . . . the things I miss when I don't read the entire thread!

[Jericho]

I think every translation has its problems, including the KJV, because we are translating from one language to another. That's not to say that some translations are not better than others, but for the most part it comes down to personal opinion and preference. I think the KJV is fine, although I personally don't care for the archaic language.

The question is why are there so many different translations. There are three primary reasons. The first is due to translating from one language to another. In this case, we are translating from Greek, Hebrew, and a bit of Aramaic into English. The grammar and syntax between these languages are different, and words are not always equivalent. So this in itself will produce variations in the translation. Plus languages change, certain words and idioms that were familiar when the KJV was written are unfamiliar to us today. Go back just a thousand years and Old English would be unrecognizable to us. This in itself necessitates translations into contemporary languages.

The second reason is due to manuscript variations. These variations exist because the orginal manuscripts no longer exist, and these are copies. Although those variations do not effect the core doctrine. The KJV (1611) is based on the byzantine text-types, which was prevalent around Antioch. This includes Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, Textus Receptus. They are referred to as the "majority text" because they represent up to 95% of all known manuscripts. The Textus Receptus is also used as the basis for NKJV, YLT, DBY, WEB, VUL, RVR60, WLC, LXX, and TR translations.

The NIV (NT in 1973, full bible in 1978) is based on the Alexandrian Text types, which was prevalent around Alexandria, Egypt. This includes Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Nestle-Aland Text. They are considered among the oldest manuscripts. The Nestle-Aland text is also used as a basis for the NLT, ESV, NASB, NET, RSV, ASV, HNV, and mGNT translations.

The final reason for different translations is method of interpretation. There are three ways in which to translate scripture: word-for word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrasing. The KJV uses word-for-word translation, while the NIV uses word-for-word and thought-for-thought translation.

So all these reasons are why there are differences, and no translation is perfect. Personally I don't have a favorite translation, so I'm not here to argue which is better. I just don't believe in the King James Only movement, that is the KJV is the only inspired, reliable translation. What then of translations of the Bible into other languages? Are they also not inspired\reliable? What makes the English language so special?

I have gone through the first 10 arguments to address the criticisms of each. There are a couple of things I have gleamed from addressing this issue. The argument is really about which manuscript is superior. The KJV only people hold the Text-Receptus as superior above all other manuscripts. There is a lot of nitpicking and biases here against other translations. There is also a lot of implying or reading into what the text is actually saying, as such many of these arguments are subjective.

1)
Mark 1:1-3 KJV
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Mark 1:1-3 NIV
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

Ok now do you see how the NIV has made itself deliberately INACCURATE and opens the door for people to question the accuracy (perfection) of God's Word? The KJV states "prophets", which is 100% accurate and then we see both Mal 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 quoted. The NIV however changes the words and instead states its WRITTEN in "Isaiah".

I can understand how Mark 1:2 in the NIV could lead to confusion as it only mentions Isaiah, but then points to Malachi in the footnotes. However, Malachi basically just paraphrases what Isaiah had already said first:

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isa 40:3 KJV)

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (Mal 3:1 KJV)


Now compare it with the NIV:

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” (Mar 1:2 NIV) (footnote Mal 3:1)

“a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ ” (Mar 1:3 NIV) (footnote Isa 40:3)

The NIV is not inaccurate in attributing these words to Isaiah, and because Isaiah said them first and is considered a major prophet, and Malachi a minor prophet, his words would probably take precedent here. In any case it does mention Malachi in the footnotes, so there is not an intentional deception here. Granted, it might have been better if the NIV had mentioned Malachi directly so as to not lead to any confusion.

Then look at the footnotes of the NIV, more sowing of doubt, in particular, "Some manuscripts do not have Son of God"

True, the Codex Sinaiticus, which the NIV is based upon, omits “the Son of God” in Mark 1:1. There are different ideas about why this is, but some think it may have been an oversight. This is plausible as Mark 15:39 in the NIV says, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”, affirming that Jesus was the Son of God.

2)
A strange mathematical fact. There are 678 verses in the book of Mark, in the KJV. If you look at the NIV you will see this VERY OBVIOUS note in the middle of the page in Mark 16 - its breaks up the text - its not even a footnote, its a middle of the page note, stating: [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

No where does it imply that verses 9-20 are unreliable and should be ignored, this is how you are reading into what is being said. It's only stating a fact. In any case it’s a moot point, because even though those verses are not included in the earliest manuscripts, they are still included in the NIV, and not omitted.

3)
Both the KJV & NIV state that Jesus is known as the "Morning Star" in Rev 22:16
KJV .......I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
NIV .......I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

However in Isaiah 14:12 the NIV identifies the "morning star" as satan, while the KJV does no such thing.

The Isaiah 14:12 NIV is not equating Satan to Jesus, its conveying Satan's divinity. Divine beings are portrayed as having a shining appearance, rather they are satanic or angelic. For instance, "Lucifer" means "light-bearer", in Eden the Garden of God he was clothes with every precious stone (Eze 28:13), showing brilliance. The Serpent in Gen 3:1 in Hebrew is " nachash", the adjective for nachash means “bright, brazen”. The angels in Job are described as “Morning stars” (Job 38:7). The two angels near Jesus’ tomb were wearing shining garments (Luk 24:4), at the transfiguration Jesus “face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. (Mat 17:2). The angel that visited Daniel had the appearance of “lightning”, eyes as lamps of fire, and arms and feet like polished brass (Dan 10:6), again implying a brilliant, radiant, shining appearance that’s associated with divine beings.

4)
Micah 5:2 KJV But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Micah 5:2 NIV “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Pay attention to the difference at the end of these 2 verses. The KJV says from EVERLASTING - in other words from eternity, this is holding up the Deity of Jesus Christ. Look what the NIV does, it changes it to FROM ANCIENT TIMES, which does NOT imply eternity but in some distant time in mans history.

This is an argument of semantics. Is not God called the Ancient of Days in the Book of Daniel? Does that in any way imply God is not eternal? No. Nor does it imply that Jesus is not eternal.

Also note the NIV states Jesus had an ORIGIN, which means He started at some point in time, in ancient times.

The KJV uses the phrase “whose going fourth”, or mowtsa'ah in Hebrew. According to Strong’s dictionary it means origin, place of going out from. So both the KJV and NIV are correct usages of this word. The English definition of Origin is the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. So it doesn’t necessarily imply something had a beginning, but where it originates, or derives, from.

5)
There is a consistent attack made on SALVATION in the new modern bible versions. The new translations try to imply salvation is a lifelong process, while the KJV makes it clear that salvation happens ONCE in a persons life and is eternal from that moment on, eternal security of the believer. In other words salvation happens in a SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME and once it happens you cannot loose your salvation according to the KJV, but according to the modern translations - salvation is a lifelong struggle and you can loose it.

1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV 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.

Note the KJV says "SAVED" (past tense) while the NIV changes that to "BEING SAVED" implying its a long process. This is a severe doctrinal error, as it perverts the whole concept of salvation and is seen in many verses in the modern translations. Salvation is not a process, its a once in a moment event and is permanent from that moment onwards.

There’s a number of ways “being saved” could be taken, and I can see how it could be misconstrued. However, versus like Phl 2:12 where Paul says, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”, could also be misconstrued as salvation being a process. This is all depends how we are interpreting the verse. However, if we compare other verses in the NIV, they also confirm salvation is eternal at the moment a person is saved, such as John 3:16:

[b]“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (NIV)” (Jhn 3:16 NIV)

There’s no implied process of salvation here.

6)
Here's a weird one, the NIV promoting Christians to beat themselves, self harm, self mutilation.

1 Corinthians 9:27 KJV But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1 Corinthians 9:27 NIV No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

I think this is a bit of an absurd argument, and too much is being read into the text. If we use this logic, Jesus was also into self-mutilation because he said:

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mat 5:30 KJV

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.Mat 5:31 KJV


And we could say Jesus was a cannibal because he said:

whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:54

Obviously, none of that is true. There are figures of speech that are intended to make a point.

7)
Luke 2:33 KJV And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luke 2:33 NIV The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Here we have another inaccuracy - Joseph was not Jesus biological father, God the Father was Jesus ONLY Father. The KJV is careful to show this distinction, the NIV is not. And further down in this same Chapter Jesus rebukes Mary for calling Joseph his father in:
Luke 2:48,49 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Was Jesus denying that Mary was his mother when he said “Who is my mother?”, and also his brothers?

Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? (Mat 12:48-49)

Obviously not. And would I be denying my own father if I said the Lord’s Prayer, “My Father who art in heaven? Again, the answer is no. Joseph wasn’t his biology father, but a step-father is still a father nonetheless. Even so, Joseph was still important enough to have his genealogy included in the gospels. Finally, If the NIV was trying to imply that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father, it would have removed all references to Jesus being born of a virgin, but it didn’t.

8)
Acts 8:37 is MISSING in the NIV, let's see why.
Acts 8:36-38 KJV: 36 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? 37 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. 38 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.
Acts 36-38 NIV: 36 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?” [37] [c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

It is correct that Acts 8:37 is omitted from the NIV. The footnote to the NIV says, “Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” The reasons that it is missing is because the manuscripts that the NIV is based off (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus) do not include it. There are many "theories" as to why it is not included in these manuscripts, but no one really knows for sure. In any case, it is not a deliberate attempt by the NIV to deceive people here, otherwise they would not have included it in the footnote.

Here we see the NIV again serving the Anti-Christ agenda, because this omission supports the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutherans etc who believe in baptising (Christening) babies, sprinkling infants with water, which somehow imputes salvation.

This is one theory. It's true that infant baptism was held in high regard in the early church. The Roman Catholic Church held a lot of power in that day, and if they wanted to suppress Acts 8:39 they could probably have done so. The fact that it remains to this day says a lot to the contrary.

9)
The story of Mark 1:41 is utterly TRASHED & RUINED by the NIV, removing the compassion of Christ - why does it do this?
Mark 1:41 KJV And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
Mark 1:41 NIV Jesus was indignant.[i] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.

For those who don't know indignation is ANGER, how in the world does the NIV characterise Jesus as healing a man in anger? Another corruption of the Word of God by the NIV

This appears to be another textual variation in the manuscripts. The NIV notes, “Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion”. I don’t believe he was healing in anger, or angry that the man wanted healing. He was indignant because the man asked “if thou wilt”, which are faith killing words. Jesus retorts by saying “I will”.

That's my opinion, but if you still believe the NIV implies he was healing in anger, then you still have a problem, because a few verses down in the KJV Mark 1:43 it reads, “And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;” The word “charged” (embrimaomai in Greek) also means to have indignation. So we could easily infer that in KJV Jesus heals the man in compassion, but then sends him away in anger.

10)
The NIV severely damages one of the CLEAREST verses supporting the IMPORTANT doctrine of the Trinity 1 John 5:7
1 John 5:7 KJV 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 NIV For there are three that testify

Look at that - a total REMOVAL of some VERY important parts of that verse, creating room for DOUBT, or at least WEAKENING support for the doctrine of the trinity. Why does the NIV feel the need to weaken such support for the doctrine of the trinity? Because satan desires to weaken support for the doctrine of the trinity - that's why !

It true the NIV doesn’t have all three listed in 1Jo 5:7 as does the KJV. The footnote reads “Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)”

I disagree with the assertion that the NIV is intentionally trying to weaken support for the Trinity. It’s not. The NIV is just printing what the manuscripts they are using are saying. There are certainly other verses in the NIV that give credence to the doctrine of the trinity such as Matthew 3:16-17:

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. Matt 3:16

And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” Matt 3:17

I think I have said enough on this topic, so I will stop here. I don't have the time or desire to continue on any further.

[brett]

.
Jericho I hope for you that time will convince you on this one......there are many more corruptions that I haven't added due to time. More corruptions are being detected every day AND more new translations are being released each day too. It's getting out of control imho.......

This is not the work of God. God never planned to FLOOD the world with so many different ENGLISH translations in the Last Days. The fact its happening in the Last Days should be enough of a "Red Flag" imho. Its clearly a satanic agenda, to attack the one version that God has protected and preserved. If I were satan and I wanted to sow doubt about the Word of God and lead people astray as much as possible I would do exactly the same thing. How do you undermine the Word of God? How do you get people away from the KJV? Create hundreds of COMPETING COUNTERFEIT versions with different slants - all very close to still being correct but tampered with enough to sow doubt and confusion around the reliability of the Bible, and about which one is correct. The devil is the author of this FLOOD of modern bible translations in these Last days. Anyone who cannot see this is deceived already imho.

Do not be deceived.

And think about it ..... What is a good counterfeit? One that's as close to the original as possible - so it will not be detected as a counterfeit.

BTW - I'm not at all suggesting these modern scholars are satan worshippers. Of course not, they probably have no idea they have been exploited by satan. I doubt this has been a deliberate intentional evil, its happened because of other wrong motives creeping in - like monetary motives and pressures to please man rather than God. Pretty much whatever sells the most wins these days, so we have bible translations being decided by the marketplace - this is clearly not right.

Actually just think about that a little more.......its the "Last Days" marketplace that's really deciding the default trusted translation for many Christians today......"it must be right if its the current best selling translation and everyone else is buying it"......big mistake.

[mark s]

Hi Brett,

You posted, referring to other translations:

This is not the work of God. God never planned to FLOOD the world with so many different ENGLISH translations in the Last Days.

Brett, how do you know that? How do you know in fact that other translations were not works of the Holy Spirit. For that matter, how do you know - - - as a fact - - - that the KJV translation was a work of the Holy Spirit? Seriously! What is your criteria?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[brett]

Hi Brett,

You posted, referring to other translations:

This is not the work of God. God never planned to FLOOD the world with so many different ENGLISH translations in the Last Days.

Brett, how do you know that? How do you know in fact that other translations were not works of the Holy Spirit. For that matter, how do you know - - - as a fact - - - that the KJV translation was a work of the Holy Spirit? Seriously! What is your criteria?

Love in Christ,
Mark

Because God is not the author of CONFUSION. Hundreds of bibles with different interpretations is CONFUSION. Which interpretation is correct? Where does a believer turn? Which version can a believer trust? God does not author this kind of confusion.

This is really obvious.

.

[brett]

Think about this fact and it should help make it more obvious to you.

The marketplace is what's really deciding the default trusted translation for many Christians today......"it must be right if its the current best selling translation and everyone else is buying it".......The marketplace should NOT be deciding the correct translation of Gods Word.

That's exactly what I thought when I was given my NIV many years ago. I trusted it because everyone told me its the most popular and widely used translation today.

.

[Jericho]

Because God is not the author of CONFUSION. Hundreds of bibles with different interpretations is CONFUSION. Which interpretation is correct? Where does a believer turn? Which version can a believer trust? God does not author this kind of confusion.

This is really obvious.

I think I made my case as to why there are many translations, and why those variations doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. I can say the same phrase a dozen different ways, and still have it mean the same thing. The wording may be different, but the meaning is the same. I don't see anything in the NIV or another other bibles that use the Alexandrian Text that would change the core doctrine. A lot of it comes down to how you are looking at and reading into it. There may be some truly heretical translations out there, such as the Queen James Bible or Gay Bible. I'm with you on these, but they are certainly not in the majority.

You believe that the KJV is the only true English translation, but this cannot be proven. There is nothing says "Thus saith the Lord, the KJV is my only true inspired word." And what about translations in other languages, are they corrupt as well? Does each language have it's own inspired version?

[brett]

You believe that the KJV is the only true English translation, but this cannot be proven. There is nothing says "Thus saith the Lord, the KJV is my only true inspired word." And what about translations in other languages, are they corrupt as well? Does each language have it's own inspired version?

Jericho its all about FINAL AUTHORITY. Who has final and total authority on the Words of God? It is the KJV that has final authority. One needs to believe and have faith that GOD has preserved His perfect word SOMEWHERE for us to get a hold of it. We don't need to rely on scientists to search for and dig up the oldest manuscripts. God has left His Word somewhere in plain sight for all of us to find. The KJV is the Final Authority - the thing to turn to to settle ALL matters, all debates. God has given it to us.

This whole thing depends on whether you have FAITH to believe God CAN PRESERVE HIS PERFECT Word for us somewhere on the earth. If you have FAITH to believe God is CAPABLE of providing us with HIS PERFECT WORD then you will have the faith to realise its the KJV.

Do you believe God Himself is capable of providing us with a PERFECT BIBLE? Do you believe a PERFECT BIBLE exists? This is a very important question to consider, because this is exactly the purpose and FRUIT of modern bible translations, they are selling the lie that there is no perfect version. This lie itself is an attack on God.

Psalm 12:6,7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Do you have faith to believe that God shall keep His Words and preserve them from this generation for ever? Do you believe this verse or not?

This is how God delivers His Perfect Word to us "2 Peter 1: 20,21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God has not stopped watching over this PERFECT WORD, He is still preserving it to this day. Now compare what is available today and decide for yourself - which is the PERFECT WORD of God? When you consistently see all the modern versions lining up together AGAINST the KJV it becomes blatantly clear what's going on. Either all the modern versions are the Perfect Version or the KJV is the Perfect Version. It is most obviously the KJV that has stood the test of time and stood up and been preserved through the centuries. It is the version being attacked by all the modern versions collectively - the matter is very clear to me. The KJV is without error, as God's Word should be.

God has not left us in the dark, we have a bible we can 100% rely upon, the KJV. Its a miracle of God, right in front of our eyes, preserved for our generation.

.

[mark s]

This whole thing depends on whether you have FAITH to believe God CAN PRESERVE HIS PERFECT Word for us somewhere on the earth. If you have FAITH to believe God is CAPABLE of providing us with HIS PERFECT WORD then you will have the faith to realise its the KJV.

This is what is called within Logical Fallacies a "Non Sequitur", Latin for Not in Sequence, or, more commonly, Does Not Follow.

Definition of non sequitur

1
: an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1); specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1)

2
: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 20sequitur

Non sequitur (logic)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Non sequitur (literary device).

A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the word 'non sequitur' typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, 'non sequitur' refers to an unnamed logical fallacy. Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Hi Brett,

I'm curious, how does faith that God can preserve His Word relate to the notion that the King James translation is the only true preservation of that Word?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

I have a follow-up question.

Considering that the KJV is an English translation of a compilation of a handful of Greek manuscripts, is it more authoritative, less authoritative, or sharing the same authority as the Greek manuscripts from which it is translated?

Caution . . .

There is no good answer. That is, at least for King James Onlyists.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Jay Ross]

Brett, I have stayed out of this discussion because it is a pointless debate. However, you are claiming that the KJV is "more perfect" in its translation of the original texts used, however, I would suggest that the KJV like every other English translation of the original texts, has inherent flaws in them that do not provide the "right" understanding of the original text. As such, all of the translations reflect the understanding of the translators/man rather than conveying the original message of the source Hebrew and Greek texts used in the respective compilations of the recognised/usual English translations.

I have, over the years, pointed out that the translated understanding of some Greek or Hebrew texts is inconsistent with the original meaning of the Greek or Hebrew words found in the original/reference language texts under consideration. You yourself have argued against what I have presented as being wrong because it did not line up with the understanding conveyed in the version of your KJV Bible, based solely on your understanding of the English words chosen to be used in the translation. Others, also, have tried to argue against what I have posted, and used various false arguments against in an attempt to discredit what I have posted. An example of this is Romans 11:25 where I have a very different understanding of the Greek text to how it is usually translated.

I know that there are others who question the way the Greek and Hebrew text have been translated in a number of instances and as such, they understand that the various translations all have inherent flaws within them. To say that one particular translation is better than another becomes an evaluation of the degrees of the various flaws within the various translation. Brett, what you are suggesting is that the number of flaws in the KJV translation and the consequences of those respective flaws is, in total, less that for any other version. That, in and of itself, is a judgement call and one that I would not make of the various translation, to say which is the better translation. That is why many people consult a number of English translations in the hope that they will be able to discern the right understanding for the scriptural passage they are considering at that time.

Given that every translation of the original available texts of the scriptures is flawed, they are, however, still leading many people into a personal relationship with God, and as their relationship with God deepens He is able to teach them what is on His heart with respect to their relationship with Him.

To claim that one particular English translation is better than any other is, to put it simply, a flawed argument to justify your own particular understanding of what the scriptures may mean. This argument ignores the fact that every English translated is fallible and that they should all be used with care.

Shalom.

[brett]

I have a follow-up question.

Considering that the KJV is an English translation of a compilation of a handful of Greek manuscripts, is it more authoritative, less authoritative, or sharing the same authority as the Greek manuscripts from which it is translated?

Caution . . .

There is no good answer. That is, at least for King James Onlyists.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Yes there is a good answer. Short answer - GOD DETERMINES THE AUTHORITY - not man, not language experts, not scholars, not scientists - judge by looking for Gods fingerprints, Gods influence, evidence of God's involvement. All the modern versions are regularly being revised, they are forever CHANGING, UPDATING, the KJV is CONSISTENT and UNCHANGING.....as Gods Word should be.

Anyway let's consider the argument of the original Greek manuscripts.......Ok Mark so let's say you have the original Greek manuscripts. How are you going to interpret them with your own human limitations Mark?

In order to interpret the original Greek Manuscripts you need to use LEXICONS - Greek to English dictionaries. When meanings of Greek words are given you are ON AVERAGE given 5 - 13 different possible meanings for a Greek word in english. So which definition is the correct one? Also there are different Lexicons to choose from too. So back to our previous example, who decides which definition of the 5-13 different possible definitions is the correct one? Some human scholar decides ...."ok in this case we will use this definition number 5 because it makes most sense to me". So who are you going to rely upon? A scholar, an expert? Or are you going to instead look for the hand of God?

You simply cannot use the original Greek manuscript "argument", because if you do not know Greek then what good is a Greek manuscript to you? If you don't understand Greek then the Greek manuscripts will have ZERO authority for you. Instead you need to either:
(1) Learn Greek
(2) Look for an English translation that was inspired PURELY by God.

The ONLY WAY to have a PERFECT translation of Gods Word in English is for GOD TO TRANSLATE IT FOR US HIMSELF. So you have to look for OTHER EVIDENCES of GODS HAND in a translation. Does it have any errors, has it been preserved consistently? Has it stood the test of time? You also need to put the different translations side by side and compare them. So the point is this - LOOK FOR GODS OWN INSPIRED TRANSLATION, for one of the translations was inspired by God, the rest were not.

However you look at it the KJV is unique. Modern bible translations are clearly flawed and the product of men's own limited abilities. Modern versions are all based on modern scientific techniques and modern scientific principles, the same ones that gave us evolution. None of them promote the belief that God Himself could INSPIRE and PRESERVE a translation for us HIMSELF divinely. No they all focus on mans own best "scientific methods". We do not need to rely on mans scientific processes. We do not need to rely on experts. We only need to look for God's Hand. So forget the "most ancient manuscripts" technique, look instead for Gods Hand over a translation and you will see that the KJV has been preserved, is without error, has not changed and stands alone in a class above the rest. That is proof enough that its God's PURE Word, separate from the rest.


.

[brett]

This argument ignores the fact that every English translated is fallible and that they should all be used with care.
Shalom.

Exactly the satanic LIE that I am FIGHTING AGAINST.

NO I strongly disagree - One English translation IS INFALLIBLE - for God Himself PRESERVES HIS WORD FOR US forever. Are you saying God is incapable of keeping His WORD PURE for future generations? Are you suggesting God would allow His Perfect Word to be removed from the earth? Have you lost your mind?

God judged the World with a great Flood, God sent Plagues on Egypt, God Parted the Red Sea, God wrote the 10 commandments with HIS OWN HAND on stone, God caused a VIRGIN to fall pregnant, God's son Jesus performed COUNTLESS miracles, Jesus rose from the Dead, GOD SAVED MANKIND. The Apostles performed COUNTLESS miracles........God made heaven and earth!
God said Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

You're telling me God isn't capable of preserving His Perfect Word for all generations? That instead we need to turn to the science of man to lead us? Your God is so small.


.

[Jay Ross]

Brett, your response to my above post is the very reason that I was reluctant to become involved in this thread.

Your mind is made up and it is pointless for anyone to argue against your logic and understanding.

So be it. I will withdraw.

Have a good day.

[brett]

Brett, your response to my above post is the very reason that I was reluctant to become involved in this thread.

Your mind is made up and it is pointless for anyone to argue against your logic and understanding.

So be it. I will withdraw.

Have a good day.

The problem is you leave God out of the equation. You're looking only at what is humanly possible by man. Have faith to believe God can Himself divinely provide you with His Word. His Word is more important than heaven and earth, for "Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. You think He's going to leave His Word totally in the hands of men to look after, without Himself being involved? No He Himself ensures its preservation.

.

[Abiding in His Word]

The problem is you leave God out of the equation. You're looking only at what is humanly possible by man. Have faith to believe God can Himself divinely provide you with His Word. His Word is more important than heaven and earth, for "Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. You think He's going to leave His Word totally in the hands of men to look after, without Himself being involved? No He Himself ensures its preservation.

Brett, anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of scripture knows that God uses man to accomplish His plans. He guides, directs, corrects, and endues with the power and gifts necessary to do so. You are, imho, underestimating God's ability to arrive at the desired end via the very instruments He has used for thousands of years...mankind. Mistakes along the way? Sure. But in spite of those, through the years via Kings, Prophets, Judges, apostles, etc, the Savior arrived to fulfill His mission. The Holy Spirit's gifts and power ensure the knowledge and wisdom for the continued work in the Kingdom.

To conclude that the KJV is the only "pure" version of scripture out of the 1545 is a stretch to say the least. Jesus Christ is the central message of the gospel and we can rest assured that unless He is removed from the pages of scripture, the message of salvation is still being conveyed to the nations. As I have mentioned several times before, I found Jesus Christ having never owned nor opened a Bible. I merely sought, asked, knocked, and it was opened to me. The object of our faith is the person of Jesus Christ and the Bible reinforces the truth that He lived, died, and was resurrected to save mankind for eternal life with Him. He is able...regardless of the number of versions or the languages used, and to deny that is to underestimate Him.

as I see it....

[brett]

The problem is you leave God out of the equation. You're looking only at what is humanly possible by man. Have faith to believe God can Himself divinely provide you with His Word. His Word is more important than heaven and earth, for "Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. You think He's going to leave His Word totally in the hands of men to look after, without Himself being involved? No He Himself ensures its preservation.

Brett, anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of scripture knows that God uses man to accomplish His plans. He guides, directs, corrects, and endues with the power and gifts necessary to do so. You are, imho, underestimating God's ability to arrive at the desired end via the very instruments He has used for thousands of years...mankind. Mistakes along the way? Sure. But in spite of those, through the years via Kings, Prophets, Judges, apostles, etc, the Savior arrived to fulfill His mission. The Holy Spirit's gifts and power ensure the knowledge and wisdom for the continued work in the Kingdom.

To conclude that the KJV is the only "pure" version of scripture out of the 1545 is a stretch to say the least. Jesus Christ is the central message of the gospel and we can rest assured that unless He is removed from the pages of scripture, the message of salvation is still being conveyed to the nations. As I have mentioned several times before, I found Jesus Christ having never owned nor opened a Bible. I merely sought, asked, knocked, and it was opened to me. The object of our faith is the person of Jesus Christ and the Bible reinforces the truth that He lived, died, and was resurrected to save mankind for eternal life with Him. He is able...regardless of the number of versions or the languages used, and to deny that is to underestimate Him.

as I see it....

When did I say that God does not use men? Here's what you missed.

Some works of MEN are inspired, initiated and fuelled by God, others are not. So how do we detect the works of MEN that were inspired by God as opposed to the works of just ordinary non-inspired men? In the case of bible translations you compare and test the texts as I've stated previously. You look for the Hand of God behind the WORK OF MEN, and the only way you can detect Gods involvement is by looking at the final product - the fruit.

And again like I said before, its about final authority. I'm NOT saying we can only make it to heaven if we only read the KJV, OF COURSE NOT. I got saved with the NIV. I'm saying if you're seeking the Truth about something you need a final authority upon which to rest. You cannot rest upon experience alone, its unreliable. You cannot rest upon opinions of men, humans are limited. You can only rest on the knowledge that God has and will provide what we need. I'm saying that in the earth the final authority that God has provided English speaking people with is the King James Bible. It settles all matters, all debates, all questions. That's what God has provided us as His Perfect Word from which all other things can be measured, tested and compared. Its the ultimate standard and its God who inspired its translation. Modern translations have not been inspired by God. Men took it upon themselves to translate (update) as they saw fit, in their own minds - a better translation. God had already provided His own perfect translation, there was NO need for men to create hundreds more.

God has worked through other men to translate to other languages. The point is you have to look for evidence of God's hand behind the work - and that's evident by the quality of the final product, which you can test. As an English speaking person I would judge all bibles in other languages by how well they compare to the KJV. I have total faith in the KJV translation, I have little faith in my own ability to learn Greek and Hebrew and translate myself. If I am an expert in any language (which I'm not) - its English, not Greek nor Hebrew.

.

[Abiding in His Word]

I'm saying if you're seeking the Truth about something you need a final authority upon which to rest.

Seeking the truth about what? I'm saying the truth is a Person. With over 350 prophecies in scripture regarding the Messiah fulfilled, that evidence alone proves the truth of the centrality of Jesus Christ. That's the truth that's of the primary importance and should be the primary focus of scripture.

It settles all matters, all debates, all questions.

Evidently not....

So is it your opinion that the 1545 versions of the bible do not contain truth?

[brett]

Seeking the truth about what? I'm saying the truth is a Person. With over 350 prophecies in scripture regarding the Messiah, that evidence alone proves the truth of the centrality of Jesus Christ. That's the truth that's of the primary importance and should be the primary focus of scripture.

Let's say I want to know if the Mark of the beast is IN the hand or ON the hand. The final authority (KJV) says IN and that's the translation I believe and trust, not the corrupted modern translations. So that matter is settled and decided for me, by the KJV.

Evidently not....

So is it your opinion that the 1545 versions of the bible do not contain truth?

Of course the other translations contain a TONNE of truth. Even false religions contain truth.

Anyway I gotta go to sleep now, its 10:40pm in Australia. Good night all, praying North Korea and Trump keep there cool.

.

[Abiding in His Word]

Let's say I want to know if the Mark of the beast is IN the hand or ON the hand. The final authority (KJV) says IN and that's the translation I believe and trust, not the corrupted modern translations. So that matter is settled and decided for me, by the KJV.

It's important that one is comfortable with the version they believe and trust. Also of importance is following the principles of good exegesis and compare translations along with the use of concordances, dictionaries, commentaries, and even some history books. We should also understand the inherent difficulties in understanding and translating end-time scripture due to its apocalyptic nature, with dragons, beasts, imagery, etc.

A basic understanding of idioms, allegories, hyperbole, metaphors, near/far prophecies, etc. are also helpful. And yet...with all we have available to us for evidence and reference, two people can still read the same passage and arrive at different perspectives.

Of course the other translations contain a TONNE of truth. Even false religions contain truth.

Fair enough. So if we recognize Jesus Christ as the centrality of the gospel, we will share that good news with those who are seeking the truth.

...sarcasm ahead....

After all, how important is it whether we believe Samson killed thousands with a jawbone? Or how many elders an assembly must have? Or whether or not Sunday is the sabbath we should celebrate when it's purpose was a day of rest?

It's one thing to read a book about Abraham Lincoln, for example, and quite another to meet him in person. That's what the Bible does...introduced us to Jesus and we meet Him on a personal level.

[Ready1]

Dumb question for Brett:

Can a man come to Jesus through one of the "corrupted versions" that you are so adamantly opposing?

[Jericho]

It settles all matters, all debates, all questions. That's what God has provided us as His Perfect Word from which all other things can be measured, tested and compared. Its the ultimate standard and its God who inspired its translation. Modern translations have not been inspired by God. Men took it upon themselves to translate (update) as they saw fit, in their own minds - a better translation. God had already provided His own perfect translation, there was NO need for men to create hundreds more.

Brett you have made several emphatic claims that the KJV is the only inspired English translation, but you haven't offered any real proof of this other than your own opinion. It's fine to have an opinion, I think the problem is when an opinion becomes dogmatic. It's not good to build an entire doctrine around a specific translation, especially when that doctrine becomes divisive within the body of Christ. What sort of fruit does that bear?

God has worked through other men to translate to other languages. The point is you have to look for evidence of God's hand behind the work - and that's evident by the quality of the final product, which you can test. As an English speaking person I would judge all bibles in other languages by how well they compare to the KJV. I have total faith in the KJV translation, I have little faith in my own ability to learn Greek and Hebrew and translate myself. If I am an expert in any language (which I'm not) - its English, not Greek nor Hebrew.

You don't have to know Greek or Hebrew with today's technology. You can look up what each word means and decide if the translators picked the best word. I think Jay made a good point that sometimes the English words chosen may not best reflect the Hebrew\Greek word, and this is probably true for all translations. Just one example, the KJV uses the the word "unicorn" in several passages. Why did the KJV translators pick this mythological creature? The unicorn was a European invention, and probably not known to the Old Testament writers. Some modern scholars think it could have been aurochs, which are now extinct. So how did the unicorn end up in the KJV? Unicorns were popular during the middle ages, and were even used as a symbol for Christ. No doubt this influenced the KJV translators. So here we have an example of a translation of a word that is not necessarily the best or most accurate meaning of the original word, and in the KJV no less.

[mark s]

I have a follow-up question.

Considering that the KJV is an English translation of a compilation of a handful of Greek manuscripts, is it more authoritative, less authoritative, or sharing the same authority as the Greek manuscripts from which it is translated?

Caution . . .

There is no good answer. That is, at least for King James Onlyists.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Yes there is a good answer. Short answer - GOD DETERMINES THE AUTHORITY - not man, not language experts, not scholars, not scientists - judge by looking for Gods fingerprints, Gods influence, evidence of God's involvement. All the modern versions are regularly being revised, they are forever CHANGING, UPDATING, the KJV is CONSISTENT and UNCHANGING.....as Gods Word should be.

Hi Brett,

Your answer . . . God has determined the KJV to be the one true translation of the Bible. 2 questions. Please cite or direct me to God's declaration that the KJV is The One and Only. Second question (actually, the first was a request), how can a non-English speaker/reader know what God says?

But you said something here that raises an interesting point.

The KJV has not been revised, but remains alone unchanging.

This is a longer quote than I normally like to take from a website, nonetheless, I felt it to be interesting:

Summary: of the 362 words in these twelve verses, the KJV has undergone 41 (forty-one) specific alterations. This averages out to one change per 8.83 words. This is just slightly less than one change per 7.91 words that I suggested was the average,3 but two hundred and thirty-seven times the number Scott suggested. To be sure, these changes are not particularly significant—but this has been admitted by both sides. What is not admitted by KJV-only folks is that the changes in most modern translations from the KJV (though on a verbal level are certainly greater than these) do not affect the essentials of the faith. My argument about the KJV is not that it has undergone radical changes in its long history (although, to be sure, there are some rather significant changes in the KJV in various places, as has been frequently pointed out in the books by Bruce, Lewis, Kubo, etc. [see below for a few examples]), but that it has undergone changes—100,000 of them. I submit that many of the changes that modern translations make are a mere updating of the language of the KJV, yet even these get condemned on the basis of altering the Word of God. On that same basis, for the KJV to change at all would mean that it, too, stands condemned. I am not, of course, arguing that this is the case; I am arguing that there is a great deal of selective evidence used by KJV-only advocates used to support their position. As the adage goes, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration

I don't know the numbers, but I do know there have been revisions. Isn't that your argument against the others? They've been changed?

Anyway let's consider the argument of the original Greek manuscripts.......Ok Mark so let's say you have the original Greek manuscripts. How are you going to interpret them with your own human limitations Mark?

In order to interpret the original Greek Manuscripts you need to use LEXICONS - Greek to English dictionaries. When meanings of Greek words are given you are ON AVERAGE given 5 - 13 different possible meanings for a Greek word in english. So which definition is the correct one? Also there are different Lexicons to choose from too. So back to our previous example, who decides which definition of the 5-13 different possible definitions is the correct one? Some human scholar decides ...."ok in this case we will use this definition number 5 because it makes most sense to me". So who are you going to rely upon? A scholar, an expert? Or are you going to instead look for the hand of God?

You simply cannot use the original Greek manuscript "argument", because if you do not know Greek then what good is a Greek manuscript to you? If you don't understand Greek then the Greek manuscripts will have ZERO authority for you. Instead you need to either:
(1) Learn Greek
(2) Look for an English translation that was inspired PURELY by God.

This . . . . is exactly my question for you. Why are you not, as I am, learning Greek?

To answer your question . . . I rely on the Holy Spirit to teach and speak to me. But again I ask . . . where is God's declaration that KJV is the only true one?

About authority . . . I'm not talking about something subjective, something that is "true for you, but not for another", I'm talking about an objective, external reality, that there is a set of writings, and this is the authoritative Word of God. Would that be found in the Greek manuscripts, the KJV, both? Which is superior. Again, objective reality.

The ONLY WAY to have a PERFECT translation of Gods Word in English is for GOD TO TRANSLATE IT FOR US HIMSELF. So you have to look for OTHER EVIDENCES of GODS HAND in a translation. Does it have any errors, has it been preserved consistently? Has it stood the test of time? You also need to put the different translations side by side and compare them. So the point is this - LOOK FOR GODS OWN INSPIRED TRANSLATION, for one of the translations was inspired by God, the rest were not.

Yes it actually does have errors in translations, things that they didn't know at the time.

Here is one interesting example from Colossians 2:

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

KJV

In verse 14, "handwriting of ordinances" was translated from the Greek word "cheirographon" or "handwriting", and "tois dogmasin", and declares this "handwriting of ordinances" is against us, or more literally, undermines us.

Without the true understanding of what the "cheirographon" is, one must conclude from this passage in the KJV that the Law was against us, hostile to us, and Jesus removed the the Law from the way, nailing to his cross.

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a group of manuscripts discovered during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by papyrologists Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt at an ancient rubbish dump near Oxyrhynchus in Egypt (28°32′N 30°40′E, modern el-Bahnasa).

The manuscripts date from the time of the Ptolemaic (3rd century BC) and Roman periods of Egyptian history (from 32 BC to the Arab conquest of Egypt in 640 AD).

Only an estimated 10% are literary in nature. The lion’s share of the papyri found seem to consist mainly of public and private documents: codes, edicts, registers, official correspondence, census-returns, tax-assessments, petitions, court-records, sales, leases, wills, bills, accounts, inventories, horoscopes, and private letters.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri

One of the discoveries made from the Oxyrhynchus papyri is that when someone purchased on credit, or owed a bill, they would give the creditor their cheirographon, their handwriting, which served as a promissory note. When the debt was paid, the creditor would write across it tetelestai, paid in full.

The Law was not nailed to the cross. It was our sin debt which was nailed to the cross.

Even the NIV is more accurate:

14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

Not that I care that much for the NIV.

NASB does a pretty good job with it:

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The New Living Translation is clear, concise, and, in this layman's view, true to the Greek text:

14 He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross.

Jesus did not cancel the Law. He cancelled our debt to the Law. I don't criticize the KJV translators, this information simply was not available to them at the time. It's only been in the last 100 years or so that we know how these words were used.

However you look at it the KJV is unique. Modern bible translations are clearly flawed and the product of men's own limited abilities. Modern versions are all based on modern scientific techniques and modern scientific principles, the same ones that gave us evolution.

The same techniques and principles that gave us evolution? I would most certainly disagree with that statement. They are entirely different disciplines, with entirely different methods.

None of them promote the belief that God Himself could INSPIRE and PRESERVE a translation for us HIMSELF divinely. No they all focus on mans own best "scientific methods".

This is what would be called a "sweeping generalization".

Have you examined all other translations?

Have you confirmed with the translators of each that they focused on man's "scientific methods" rather than relying on their faith in God?

Does your statement have a factual evidentiary foundation?

We do not need to rely on mans scientific processes. We do not need to rely on experts. We only need to look for God's Hand. So forget the "most ancient manuscripts" technique, look instead for Gods Hand over a translation and you will see that the KJV has been preserved, is without error, has not changed and stands alone in a class above the rest. That is proof enough that its God's PURE Word, separate from the rest.

About this "scientific process". What is it about a "scientific process" that you take exception with?

Let me ask you this:

Did the KJV translators receive a translation word for word prophetically from God, that is, verbatim, just sit down and write as God speaks? Or did they compare their 5 or 6 manuscripts, and pick one reading over another where there was a difference, and select one translation over another where there is a range of possible meanings? Isn't this the "scientific process" which you denigrate?

you will see that the KJV has been preserved, is without error, has not changed and stands alone in a class above the rest. That is proof enough that its God's PURE Word, separate from the rest.

The KJV has undergone, if I remember correctly, 4 revisions, that's 5 different versions of the King James Version Bible. Isn't this your complaint against other translations?

The KJV, in at least the example I've explained above, not just mistranslated, but actually misleads as to the point of the passage. Isn't that one of your complaints against other translations, that doctrines are compromised? This one certainly is.

The KJV translators exercised textual criticism in selecting the manuscripts which they did, in selecting which readings from within those manuscripts which they did, and in selection of which word translation to use. Isn't that one of your complaints against the translators of other versions?




I'd like to set this next bit by itself, apart, in the hope that it will be given greater attention by the readers . . .




I've seen many examples over the years as I've engaged in debates that as I ask questions, they are often not answered. And yet within these questions it is my hope that the reader will come to grapple with those Scriptures, Biblical truths, that pertain to their view, and may even be contrary to it. When they are skipped over, I feel that an important part of the debate process is lost.





There was a question I had asked, that I don't believe has been answered.

I always get curious why, when there is a question fundamental to the discussion, that is not responded to.

Hi Brett,

I'm curious, how does faith that God can preserve His Word relate to the notion that the King James translation is the only true preservation of that Word?

Love in Christ,
Mark

It's seeming to me that there are a number of logical fallacies within your arguments. Now, you can reply that I'm just applying that damnable "scientific process" to your statements. But really I'm simply saying that your arguments don't make sense. I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to be rude, only to be clear.

But you know what? I never would have guessed what Colossians 2:14 was actually talking about if I had stuck to the KJV. And I would have never resolved the conflicts created with other Scriptures by that poor translation. And I would not have realized how this passage also comforts and encourages me that I am truly forgiven, which is the intent of the passage. Not that God had to kill the Law. God had to kill me. I was sinful. But Jesus took on my sinfulness, and in His death, my debt to God for that sin was annulled.

It's like in 2 Corinthians 5, He became sin, Who knew no sin. Jesus became our sin. When Jesus was nailed to the cross, our sinned debt was nailed to the cross in Him, to die in His death, sins now all forgiven, free, paid in full.

This, to me, is a primary doctrine in Scripture. It's enough to believe that Jesus is the rightful ruler, and that He is the One who can come back after being with those who had died. This will bring you into new life.

However, I personally found the truth of Colossians 2:14 to be life changing. My sin is gone, entirely, completely, removed forever by the One who has the power, alone among all who have died,to return from the dead, victor over it. He took on my sin, and with it the guilt for my sin - He became sin - and because Jesus took my sin, He was punished for my sin. But He was stronger than sin, stronger than death, and returned. No one else could do this. This is the meaning of the passage where the KJV says,

Colossians 1:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

In the KJV, it's as if the dead birthed Jesus. But the actual meaning is that from among the dead ones, He was the first to come back. Other translations bring this out, as well as the study, as limited as I may be, a layman studying an ancient dead language, at any rate, such study as I am able to do.

I am so very thankful to God for these many translations, study tools, teachers, and above all, the Holy Spirit, Who is my Teacher.

Anyway, I hope you consider, and answer, my questions.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

So how did the unicorn end up in the KJV?

Hi Jericho,

If I remember correctly, the word is translated, at least in certain instances I checked, from a word meaning "one horn", so unicorn is a reasonable translation in my opinion.

The only thing is, people have to understand what it is they are working with. I doubt that it's talking about a pink and purple unicorn with long glittery mane and sparkles flying from it's hoofs and tail. But I don't question that there was a one horned animal that probably everyone know what He was talking about.

Just like where it talks about dragons and such, no problem, dinosaurs have lived in modern times, and some most likely still survive. It's common knowledge now that they find soft tissue in dinosaur bones, so these are not nearly the age evolutionists claim.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Jericho]

If I remember correctly, the word is translated, at least in certain instances I checked, from a word meaning "one horn", so unicorn is a reasonable translation in my opinion.

This word "unicorn" in the KJV was an animal called a re'em in Hebrew. The writers of the Septuagint did not know what a re'em was, so they translated the word to be "monocerous," meaning "one-horned." Thus the KJV called it a unicorn. http://castlelyons7.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... icorn.html

Hi Mark. It may have been an animal with one horn, some think it could have been a rhino. I don't know, and apparently the scribes of the Septuagint didn't know either. My point is the original Hebrew authors of the Old Testament would not have known what a unicorn was, and probably were not thinking of a horse with a horn on its head. I think we agree on this.

From what I have gathered, the earliest account of unicorns comes from ancient Greece. In particular the writings of Greek physician Ctesias in the 5th century B.C. Unicorn mythology became apart of European culture and eventually found its way into the KJV bible, as unicorn lore and symbolism were popular in the middle ages. Maybe it would have been a reasonable translation in their day, but today it just sounds silly.