King James Version Bible Against New International Version Bible
KJV Bible versus NIV Bible, Which One is The Best?
This issue in not new. I have heard this issue even when I was in seminary but I haven’t heard a good real deal with this issue before. However, I was deeply intrigued upon reading this article concerning the issues against New International Version and other translations. For so long, I have found NIV to be a Bible that is very much easy to understand especially that English is not my first language. I have been using New International Version for so long that I have made so many notes within my Bible.
Just yesterday, a friend of mine forwarded this very intriguing article that I found to be a MUST to read especially if you are a pastor, a Bible interpreter, or a worker. I am not so skeptic against Bible translations. But I think this article is worth my time to read. And I found it very helpful to take note of the things that I need to look at a Bible Interpreter.
By far, as I have remember in my training which includes Bible history, background and some glimpse (not detailed) about these codexes like Textus Receptus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, its just, its the only available manuscripts out the there that can be a reference for the newer translations.
Now, to set up the reliability issue, let’s put it in this way, Dr. William Grady is a scholar who have his personal opinion about the validity and reliability of Textus Receptus. But how about the opinion of other Bible scholars who would say Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are more reliable? Which scholars are more reliable then if they have the same degree?
By the way, Dr. William Grady is the author of Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible
Furthermore, I am not so sold out to say that KJV is the “ONLY” true and authoritative translation of the Scripture for the main reason of its historical background. I believe I have already said this several times in preaching. King James is homosexual. To avoid having conflicts with Puritants (which we know one of the major group reformers) he granted them the authority to translate this new English version that came to be known as KJV. This simply means that it was born out of King James’ personal interest. But in fairness, I would certainly admit that King James Version of the Bible is really the finest by far.
Now to the article:
Should We Trust The New International Version?
Also published in paperback and titled:
“The Great News”Reviewed by E. L. Bynum
“The New International Version” of the New Testament is now widely being heralded as a reliable and trustworthy version by evangelicals. (We shall hereafter refer to this version as NIV and the “King James Version” by KJV). We do not agree that it is trustworthy and reliable. In some respects is it better than the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, Good News for Modern Man and the Living Bible. But in the end it may be more dangerous than any of these because “a little leaven leveneth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). Many who would not accept the RSV and others may be led into accepting NIV which is contaminated with the same kind of leaven as the others. We will set forth our reasons for not trusting this version and let our readers make up their own mind.
NIV Omits Too Much Of The Bible!The omission of one word or one letter is too much, but NIV goes much further than this and omits many complete verses. Please note some of these examples.
KJV Matt. 17:21, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” NIV omits this verse from the text and places it in small print at the bottom of the page. The footnote says, “Some MSS add verse 21.” (MSS is the abbreviation for manuscripts.).
KJV Matt. 18:11, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” NIV omits this verse from the text and places it in the footnote and says, “Some MSS add verse 11.”
KJV Matt. 23:14, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” NIV omits this verse in the same manner as above.
KJV Mark 7:16, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” NIV omits this verse and says, “Some early MSS add verse 16.”
KJV Mark 9:44, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” NIV omits this verse and does not even put it in the foot note.
KJV Mark 9:46, “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” NIV omits this verse.
KJV Mark 11:26, “But if ye do not forgive, neither will you Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” NIV omits this verse from the text.
KJV Mark 15:28 “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.” NIV omits this verse. Of course this is a blow at Christ since this refers to His fulfillment of Isa. 53:12.
KJV Luke 17:36, “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” NIV omits this verse that refers to His Second Coming.
KJV Luke 23:17, “(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)” NIV omits this verse.
KJV John 5:3,4, “…waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” NIV omits all of this which is part of verse 3 and all of verse 4.
KJV Acts 8:37, “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.” NIV omits this verse, even though the eunuch’s question is recorded in verse 36 and is translated as follows: “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” Philip’s answer in verse 37 is omitted, and he baptizes him with no confession of faith if we are to believe NIV. This is a very serious matter involving the salvation of the soul and we believe it is a serious error to tamper with God’s Word in this way.
KJV Acts 15:34, “Not-withstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still,” NIV omits this verse.
KJV Acts 24:7 “But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands.” NIV omits verse 7 as well as part of verses 6 and 8.
KJV Acts 28:29, “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had great reasoning among themselves.” NIV omits this verse.
KJV Rom. 16:24, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” NIV omits this verse and places it in the foot note also.
Above we have listed 16 whole verses that NIV has omitted. This writer believes that it would be deadly and dangerous to accept such a version as the Word of God. We believe that the New York Bible Society and the translators of NIV need to read and believe Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18,19.
NIV Attacks Other VersesKJV Matt. 21:44, “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” NIV Matt. 21:44, “He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” Even though NIV includes a weaker translation of this in the text, the footnote says, “Some MSS omit verse 44.” This is a rather strong suggestion that it may not belong in the Bible at all. Matt. 12:47; 16:3 and Luke 22:43,44 are treated by NIV in the same shoddy and shameful way. To the uninformed reader, such footnotes will tend to destroy confidence in the Bible as the Word of God. The passage in Luke is the record of the angel strengthening Him as He sweat as it were great drops of blood in His Gethsemane agony. How sad to see this passage doubted!
NIV Says Mark 16:9-20 Not ReliableAt the end of Mark 16:8 there is a 2 inch black line through the center of the page. In books and periodicals this usually means the end of the chapter, passage or article. Just below this black line we find the following in NIV, “(The most reliable early MSS omit Mark 16:9-20.)” Then follows their translation of this passage in the same size type as the text. However it is clear from the long black line and their note, (which is not printed as a footnote at the bottom of the page, but right in the middle of the page), that the translators do not believe that this passage should be in the text. Some so-called fundamentalists welcome this opportunity to rid themselves of this passage since the baptismal regeneration groups quote v. 16 and the same handling occultist cling to v. 18. I for one think it is more important to rightly divide the Word of God, rather than seek to destroy it.
John W. Burgon wrote the book, “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” clearly showing beyond any doubt that these verses are a part of God’s Word. To this day Burgon’s book has never been answered. These verses are not in the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, but as Burgon shows, the area where it should have appeared was left blank.
NIV Denies The Woman Taken In AdulteryAfter John 7:52 there is another 2 inch black line. Then just below it is this quote, “The most reliable early MSS omit John 7:53-8:11.” Then we see another line after 8:11. NIV gives a translation of these verses but clearly by lines and by statement indicate that it should not be in the text. So according to this version, the poor wretched woman of John 8 is still in her sins. Burgon and others have skillfully defended the inclusion of this passage. It belongs in the Word of God, and we shall accept no Bible that removes it from the text.
Words and phrases printed in ITALICS are found in the KJV, but omitted by NIV. Matt. 6:13, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” Matt. 9:14, “…repentance.” Matt. 11:3, “…hell” (hades) is translated “depths” by NIV. Matt. 15:8, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth.” Matt. 16:3, “Oh ye hypocrites.” Matt. 19:9, “…and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matt. 20:7, “…and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.” Matt. 20:16, “…for many be called, but few chosen.” Matt. 20:22, “And be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.” Matt. 25:13, “…wherein the Son of Man cometh.” Matt. 27:35, “…that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” This is a quotation from Psa. 22:18. Mark 6:11, “Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.” Mark 10:21, “…take up thy cross.” Mark 13:14, “…spoken by Daniel the prophet.”
LUKE: The following printed in ITALICS are in the KJV but omitted from NIV. 1:28,”art thou among women”; 4:4, “…but by every Word of God”; 4:8, “…get thee behind me Satan”; 4:18, “He hath sent me to heal the broken hearted”; 7:31, “…and the Lord said”; 8:43, “…which had spent all that she had on physicians”; 11:2-4, “Our . . . which art in heaven . . . Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth . . . but deliver us from evil.” How sad, the way they have mutilated the model prayer! 22:31, “…and the Lord said”; 22:64, “…they struck Him on the face”; 23:38, “…in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew.”
JOHN: The following omitted in NIV. 1:27, “…preferred before me”; 3:13, “…which is in heaven”; 3:15, “…should not perish”; 11:41, “…where the dead was laid”; 16:16, “…because I go to the father.”
ACTS: omissions in NIV. 7:30, “…of the Lord”; 7:37, “Him shall ye hear”; 10:6, “He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do”; 15:18, “Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world”; 20:24, “But none of these things move me”; 23:9, “…let us not fight against God”; 28:16, “The centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard.”
NIV omits the following: Rom. 8:1, “…who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”; Rom. 13:9, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”; 1 Cor. 6:20, “…and in your spirit which are God’s”; 1 Cor. 7:39, “…by the law”; 1 Cor. 11:24, “Take eat . . . broken for you”; 2 Cor. 10:4, “…but mighty through God”; Gal. 3:1, “…that you should not obey the truth”; Gal. 3:17; 4:7, “…in Christ”, “…through Christ”; Eph. 5:30, “…of His flesh and of His bones”; Phil. 3:16, “..let us mind the same thing”; 1 Tim. 6:5, “…from such withdraw thyself”; Heb. 8:3, “…after the order of Melchisedek”; Heb. 10:30, “… sayeth the Lord”; Heb. 10:34, “…in heaven”; Heb. 11:11, “…was delivered of a child”; 1 Pet. 1:12, “…through the Spirit”; 1 Pet. 4:14, “…on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is glorified”; 1 John 2:1, “…from the beginning”; 1 John 2:20, “…and ye know all things”; 1 John 4:3, “…Christ is come in the flesh”; 1 John 4:13, “…and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God”; Rev. 5:14, “…Him that liveth for ever and ever”; Rev. 11:17, “…and art come”; Rev. 14:5, “…before the throne of God”; Rev. 22:24, “…of them which are saved”.
Remember that all of the above in italics has been removed in NIV! How can anyone say that NIV is the word of God? Shame upon men who will mutilate God’s word in this manner!!!
NIV And The Deity Of ChristNIV, like most of the new versions, tends to humanize our Lord Jesus Christ. The name “Christ” has been omitted in passage after passage. “Christ” is His messianic name, showing that He is the anointed one. In some cases when He is called “Jesus Christ” or “Jesus the Christ”, NIV removes “Jesus” which tends to deny that Jesus is the Messiah. “Lord” is removed in some instances which is a blow against His Lordship. NIV does not deny the deity of Christ completely, but it does tend to humanize Him, as we are sure our readers can see.
The deity of Christ in the Gospels. ITALICS reveal the words removed in NIV.Matthew: 1:25, “…first- born son,”; 8:29, “Jesus, thou Son of God?”; 16:20, “Jesus the Christ”; 24:36, “My Father”; NIV reads “the Father”; 27:54, “Truly this was the Son of God”, NIV footnote says, “or a son”. There is a world of difference in these two statements. Mark: 1:1, “Jesus Christ, the Son of God”, NIV footnote says, “Some MSS omit the Son of God”; 9:24, “Lord, I believe”; 15:39, “Truly this man was the Son of God”, NIV footnote says, “or a son”.
Luke: 2:23, “And Joseph and his mother marveled”, NIV reads, “The child’s father and mother”; 2:43, “Joseph and his mother”, NIV reads “his parents”; 23:42, “And he said unto Jesus, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom”, NIV removes “Lord” and this is a very important error that affects the salvation of the repentant thief and the deity and Lordship of our Savior.
Omissions from John: 4:42, “…is indeed the Christ”; 6:47, “…he that believeth on me hath everlasting life”; 9:35, “Son of God”, NIV changes to “son of Man”; NIV omits “begotten” from John 1:14,18; 3:16,18. Instead of “only begotten Son” NIV reads “one and only Son”. This is incorrect, for every saved person is a “son of God.” But in 1:14 and 18 “Son” is put in brackets which is to indicate that it does not belong in the text. “Begotten” is a translation of the Greek word “monogenes”. It comes from two Greek words, “monos” and “gennao”. “Monos” means “alone” or “only”. “Gennao” means “begotten” of “begat”, but NIV does not translate this at all.
ITALICS indicate omissions. Acts 2:37, “…according to the flesh He raised up Christ”; 7:30, “…of the Lord”; 9:6, “Lord what wilt thou have me to do?” This affects His deity and Saul’s salvation. 13:33, “As it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” NIV says, “…today I have become your Father.” Quite a difference! 16:31 “Lord Jesus Christ”; Rom 9:5, NIV’s translation plus the footnote make for confusion. Rom. 10:17, NIV changes “word of God” to “word of Christ” omitted twice in this verse. 1 Cor. 5:4, “Lord Jesus Christ”, “Christ” omitted twice in this verse. 1 Cor. 9:1, “Jesus Christ our Lord”; 1 Cor 15:47, “the second man is the Lord from heaven”; 1 Cor. 16:22, “Lord Jesus Christ”; 1 Cor. 16:23, “Lord Jesus Christ”; 2 Cor. 4:6, “Jesus Christ”; 2 Cor. 4:10, “The Lord Jesus”; 2 Cor. 5:18, “Jesus Christ”; 2 Cor. 11:31, “Lord Jesus Christ”; Gal. 3:17; 4:7; 6:15 NIV omits “in Christ”, “through Christ”, and “For in Christ Jesus.” 6:17, “Lord Jesus.”
The following words that are printed in ITALICS are omitted from NIV. Eph. 3:9, “God, who created all things by Jesus Christ”; Eph. 3:14, “for this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”; Col. 1:2, “Peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”; Col. 1:14, “Redemption through His blood”; Col. 1:28, “Christ Jesus”; 1 Thes. 1:1, “…from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”; 1 Thes. 3:11,13, “Christ” omitted twice by NIV. 2 Thes. 1:8, “Lord Jesus Christ”; 1 Tim. 2:7, “in Christ”; 1 Tim. 5:21, “Lord Jesus Christ”; 2 Tim. 4:1, “Lord Jesus Christ”; 2 Tim. 4:22, “Lord Jesus Christ”; Titus 1:4, “Lord Jesus Christ”; Philemon 6, “Christ Jesus”; Heb. 3:1, “Christ Jesus”; 1 Pet. 5:10, “Christ Jesus”; 1 John 4:3, “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”; 2 John 3, “…the Lord Jesus Christ”; Rev. 1:9, “Jesus Christ”; Rev. 12:17, “Jesus Christ”.
“God Was Manifest In The Flesh”KJV 1 Tim. 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh…”
NIV 1 Tim. 3:16, “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great; He appeared in a body…”
The KJV is very clear in showing that “God was manifest in the flesh”, but NIV says “He appeared in a body…” The KJV shows that Jesus was God, while the NIV makes it unclear by substituting “He”. We do not have space to discuss this at length, but Burgon proved that “God” is correct. Also, “True or False” edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller, contains 17 pages of solid proof of the KJV rendering written by Terence H. Brown.
Jesus Cannot Be Especially Emphatic In NIV“Amen” is translated from a Hebrew word about 50 times in the New Testament KJV. NIV sometimes translated this word “Amen” and sometimes it is left out completely. This same Hebrew word is used to introduce or emphasize a statement many times and the KJV uniformly renders it “verily” as in Matt. 5:18,20; 6:2,5,16 and many other places. NIV usually translates this word as “I tell you the truth” or “I tell you”. In the book of John “verily, verily” occurs 25 times, always on the lips of Jesus, and is thus rendered in the KJV. This is the especially emphatic use of the word. However, NIV does not render this in the especially emphatic form in even one instance, but translates it each time as “I tell you the truth.” NIV will not allow Jesus to be especially emphatic. We think that “verily, verily” is correct, but the Revised Standard Version renders it better than NIV, by saying “truly, truly”.
We cannot close without calling attention to at least two other passages badly mangled by NIV. KJV Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” NIV renders this, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.” The changing of “for” to “so” is a blunder. Even though the KJV translates “eis” several different ways, it is never translated “so”. If NIV is to be taken literally, then baptism is essential to salvation. KJV Heb. 1:3, “When he had by himself purged out sins…” NIV renders this, “After he had provided purification for sins…” The omission of “by himself” and “our” sins certainly weakens the text. No italics are used in the text of NIV, so this leaves them free to add words without the reader knowing this. The KJV uses italics to show the words added by the translators, and in our opinion any honest translation should do this.
Why Did NIV Turn Out So Badly?
1. We are convinced that the number one reason NIV is such a poor translation is because they used the wrong Greek text. From the “Preface” of NIV we quote, “The Greek text used in the work of translation was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has so much manuscript support as does the New Testament. Where existing texts differ, the translators make their choice of reading in accord with sound principles of textual criticism.” Their “sound principles of textual criticism” should be labeled “unsound principles of textual criticism.” We can thank the “unsound textual critics” for the many terrible versions in circulation today. It is clear that the translators have slavishly followed the Wescott and Hort text and textual theories. In spite of all their claims, this theory elevates the Vatican and Sinatic manuscripts above all others. When in fact these two manuscripts are among the most corrupt manuscripts in existence today. They did not rely on the Textus Receptus which the KJV was translated from, even though 90 to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in essential agreement with this text.
To prove the above statement we have checked on 151 key corruptions found in the Westcott-Hort text and we have found that NIV either in the text or in the footnotes have agreed 138 times or over 91% of the time. Out of 162 scriptures often corrupted by the new versions we find Westcott-Hort in agreement 93% of the time, and NIV in agreement 92% of the time. On the same basis the New English Version rates 92% and the Revised Standard Version 97%. Some highly recommend the New American Standard Version, but it also rates over 90% in agreement with these corrupt versions. The King James Version and the Textus Receptus rate 0%. The lower the percentage the better.
We do not doubt that some of the translators labored hard and long to produce a good version but they could not do it. Why? They followed modern textual criticism, and we are convinced that even the most fundamental scholars cannot come up with a good version of the Bible if they follow the modern textual theories. The best carpenter will fail if his lumber is rotten and decayed. Skill in any trade will go just so far, but if the craftsman is deceived into working with inferior material he will fail in the end. No where is this more evident than in Bible translation.
2. The second reason for NIV’s poor quality may be found in the translators themselves. The Preface to NIV says, “Certain convictions and aims have guided the translators. They are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures, which they believe to be God’s Word in written form.” There is at least two things wrong with this statement. (1) While it sounds good on the surface, it is entirely too ambiguous to suit us. It is open to a number of interpretations, and this we believe they had to make it that way, in order to make up their 100 member committee. How much simpler to have said that all the translators believed in verbal (word for word) inspiration. I am sure that part of the committee does believe in verbal inspiration but until they say so in writing, we are going to doubt that they all do. (2) Frankly we are not impressed with the long list of names and the schools that they are associated with. It is very evident that the “New Evangelical” schools are heavily represented on the translation committee. Among others, we find that this committee contains 6 men from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and several from Fuller Wheaton, Dallas, and even Oral Roberts University. Why does Oral Roberts University need to be represented? How sad to see Clyde T. Francisco of Southern Baptist Theological Seminar represented. In the early 60’s Dr. Ralph Elliott stirred a furor in the Southern Baptist Convention with his book, “The Message of Genesis.” Dr. Elliott’s book denied the historical accuracy of the first 12 chapters of Genesis. Adam meant mankind and Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the tower of Babel is a parable, Enoch was not translated, and the age of men before the flood is doubtful, these as well as other heresies are contained in Elliott’s book. And where did Elliott get his ideas? In his introduction he said, “Though the material in this book is mine and I do not wish anyone else to be charged with its deficiencies, I do wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Clyde T. Francisco, my teacher and later a colleague on the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. It was in an elective course in the Pentateuch under his guidance that I first gained inspiration and purpose to attempt a serious study of the Book of Genesis. Thus, I am sure that many of the insights which culminated in my own mind were placed there in seed-bed fashion by him.” To this date we have never heard of Dr. Francisco denying this. Even the Revised Standard Version sponsors chose a better man from among Southern Baptist, when they chose Kyle M. Yates for the translation committee of the RSV. (3) The translators that even believe in verbal inspiration must not believe in the Divine preservation of the word of God, since they are searching for it among the manuscripts. What a mess! Surely God is not the author of such confusion.
3. We question this version on the basis of some of its enthusiastic supporters. Dr. Billy Graham wrote, “The New York Bible Society is rendering a distinct service to the English-speaking world by sponsoring a major new translation of the Bible by the leading evangelical scholars of America.” That sounds good, but Billy Graham has endorsed the Revised Standard Version, Good News For Modern Man, and the Living Bible. So his endorsement is not reassuring. The National Association of Evangelicals has been in sympathy with the production of NIV, and many of the translators are members of this group. The NAE is shot through and through with new evangelicalism.
One church leader quoted in a NIV promotional brochure said, “I have read the New International Version and found that it preserves the dignity of the K.J.V. and the accuracy of the R.S.V. and the New American Standard Bible along with the free-flowing readability of the Living Bible.” We believe he put NIV in the right class. Need we say more?
If your are interested in more information on the modern versions, we recommend the following books: “Which Bible?
” by Dr. David Otis Fuller, “True of False?” by Dr. David Otis Fuller, “God Wrote Only One Bible
” by J. J. Ray, “The King James Version Defended
” by Dr. Edward F. Hills.
Tract # A- 217 Order From:
TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH
1911 34th St., E. L. Bynum, Pastor
P.O. Box 3100, Lubbock, TX 79452
This book would also be an interesting book to read. Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible
Thank You for coming back. I'm sure you will enjoy the rest of the posts. Just don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to my RSS feed!!! God Bless!!!
Related posts:
- Is "Sola Scriptura" (Bible Alone) Biblical?
- Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching
- Paid and Free Bible Softwares For Everybody
- How To Interpret The Bible?: Exegesis vs. Allegory
- Lesson 3A: Basic Inductive Bible Study
- How To Read The Bible To Enhance Your Bible Experience
- Lesson 3B: Basic Inductive Bible Study
- Another TOTALLY FREE Bible Software: The Word
Tags: 
If you enjoy the free information on this site, you're sure to appreciate our FREE Christian Resources Updates 
David and Solomon were womanizers. Did their sins affected their writings of the books now in the bible?
Did King James homosexuality affect the translation of the bible to come out with the attacked King James Version, which is considered as the nearest to the original Textus Receptus, known as the bible used by the true believers since apostolic times??
How about the liberal, heretical, even homosexual lifestyles of the translators of the other versions? Don’t their biases creep into the translations, since as toning down gender into gender-neutral words, since the original words would be a big rebuke on their sinful behaviors???
How many saints were sinful, but God still used them to fulfill God’s will? Moses killed a man. Jonah ran away from God’s command to preach to the Ninevites? Even the saint known as very patient, Job, was also seen as questioning God’s acts in his life of misery? Even the prophet Jeremiah, like Job, cursed the day they were conceived??
With this reasoning, why then publish some personal attacks on the article against the people behind NIV translation?
And this is exactly the same that I am referring. Basically, all these translators and Bible authors have the same or at least a little difference from each other when it comes to background. Why then we question so much the personalities and backgrounds of these translators?
Please Refer to Point 2 of “Why NIV Turn Out To So Badly?”
2. The second reason for NIV’s poor quality may be found in the translators themselves.
Well, I am not questioning the reliability of KJV, but I am questioning the criticisms against the people behind NIV translation. Exactly the same point, they are sinners just like us, yet still they can be used by God.
Vince´s last blog ..When Evil Reigns
If Evangelicals truly believe the essential Sola Scriptura, the issue of the quality and reliability of a bible translation is very important, since the purity of the original word of God can be adulterated and compromised by the hidden biases of the translators. E.g., the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness so mangled the original bible to fit their translation to their Unitarian biases. Some liberals translated the bible to fit into their biased unbelief on the virgin birth, and most of all, on the Deity of Jesus Christ. Just how much translators’ whim and caprices can be tolerated in their biased translations so as to fit into their heretical belief systems, while using their version as their final authority???
Does clarity in language of newer translations imply veracity compared to the KJV?
Usual argument of the newer translations is the the sources of their translations are older to hastily conclude reliability, but not pointing out the fact that they were corrupted copies. On the other hand, the KJV translation was based on younger but purer sources. Which would be of better quality and of more reliability???
Hold on… the article says, Textus Receptus is a “MORE RELIABLE” source compared to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But it doesn’t claim that Textus Receptus is “WITHOUT ERROR” due to manual copying of scribes. So there is “STILL” room for “corruptions” right???
But ok, let’s face it, KJV is “MORE RELIABLE”, but still it doesn’t give us the authority to “HASTILY” say that other versions are “CORRUPT” and “PER-VERSIONS” of the Bible Translation. I hope this can clarify all the more.
So what’s safer to do then? I guess, we need to be more careful then comparing God’s word to KJV since Bible Scholars claim this to be “MORE RELIABLE”. NIV and other versions is still useful to the fact that it is really “more understandable” that KJV having a very exotic English. I myself have difficulty in understanding the Old English used in KJV. So with this, what good then can it give to me if I cannot understand God’s word? I guess, I better used at the same time other translations.
Vince´s last blog ..Unchanging
There are many facets to this complex issue of translation and their reliability.
Since choosing what version to use is a personal choice, if a verse in one translation seems to be a little confusing, sometimes comparing it side-by-side with another version can make the meaning more clear. No matter what Bible translation we use, we can trust that it is God’s Word, and that it will accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 55:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12). And only the Holy Spirit can truly enlighten the reader about what His words really mean, and even if a bad translation would be used, if the reader is a true seeker, the Holy Spirit would lead him/her to His truths!!
From a very clear arguments of
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/king.htm
we get this:
IV. The KJB is too hard to understand. The modern translation is better than nothing.
A. The Bible is a spiritual book, and cannot be understood by natural means, such as changing the words. As one preacher said, the Bible needs to be reread, not revised.
B. The Bible must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not translators using Roman Catholic mss.
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” —l Corinthians 2:9-10
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” —Prov. 25:2
Fifty years ago people read the KJB and understood it. Our language has not changed that much in such a short period of time.
C. A little error counts a great deal. The Bible says, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” —l Corinthians 5:6. Therefore, the modern translation is not better than nothing at all when we have a Bible that is 100% error free and the Holy Spirit to teach it to us.
A clearer expose on the issue:
from: http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/king.htm
The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God.
Christ must have preeminence in all things (Colossians. 1.18). This includes translations of the Bible. The Bible that God honors is the Bible that honors God!
WHICH REALLY HONORS GOD AND CHRIST???
The King James Controversy:
A Biblical View
Ps. 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Ps. 12:7
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Dear Friends,
Of late there I’ve been an onslaught of material published concerning the issue of which translation is best, or which one is the inerrant word of God. Of the two camps (one camp supporting modern translations, the other supporting the King James Bible), two things are abundantly clear. First, the view in favor of modern translations bases its view solely on the wisdom, intellect, and textual findings of man. Second, the view supporting the King James Bible does so not only by bringing to light factual evidence which underlines the majority of manuscripts, but also establishes its points on a scriptural basis.
This is quite clear in a recent publication by Dr. John MacArthur entitled “The Biblical Position On The KJV Controversy”. In this 30 Page booklet, Dr. MacArthur does everything except. present the Biblical position on the King Jams controversy. Not one Scripture is ever given to support his position in favor of modern translations. The only time Scripture is ever used It to try to show some “errors” in the King James Bible. Such are the attacks by the higher and lower critics who set In judgment of God’s holy word.
Therefore, I felt the need to present the Biblical view of this controversy. No point is presented by man’s wisdom, intellect or textual theory. All points are underlined and fortified by God’s word. When we state that the Bible is infallible and without error, we mean what we say- not, as the modern Translators believe, that the Bible was infallible but through the process of time has lost its infallibility.
This paper is presented in outline form and gives only a brief survey of the issue at hand. It is dedicated to the living Word, my Saviour Jesus Christ. If but one person reads it and begins to believe God’s every word (Matthew 4:4), it will have been a job well done.
‘But speaking the truth in love, …’ —Ephesians 4:15
A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE BIBLE ISSUE:
I. A Biblical Starting Point.
“So then faith cometh by hearings and hearing by the word of God.” —Rom. 10:17
A. The Starting point for this issue must be Scripture! “…let God be true, but every man a liar;” —Rom. 3:4
1. God’s word is infallible, without error (John 17:17; Acts l:3). In His infallible word, God promises to keep His words (note: W-0-R-D-S, not messages). Not one word was to be in error.
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:6-7
For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” —Matt. 5:18
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” —Matt. 24:35
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” —I Peter 1:23
2. Man was not to add to or take from God’s word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).
3. Therefore, the keeping of God’s word is God’s job, not fallible man’s.
“…Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:7
4. This was the view of the translators of the King James Bible (KJB).
Note how they concluded their preface to the A.V. 1611:
“…we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, that we may love it to the end.” (See enclosed information, “Appendix 2″)
If you start with Scripture, your finishing point is confidence in God’s word.
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” —I Thess. 2:13
B. The starting point of modern translations.
1. First the student must study Hebrew and Greek.
2. Second he must learn the major points of textual criticism.
3. Then he makes a translation of the Bible, presents it to a translational board for review and revision by scholars.
4. The outcome is a reliable translation, but not one free of error. Note how the preface to the New International Version (NIV) reads:
“Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals.”
5. This view is also seen in the statement of Dr. William Shedd:
“Why did not God Inspire the copyists as well as the original authors? Why did He begin with ABSOLUTE inerrancy and end with RELATIVE inerrancy?”
Psalm 118:8— “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.”
II. The Question of Final Authority.
A. If you have two authorities and they differ, you need a third authority to tell you which one is correct. (Such as in the courtroom). The same is true of translations. If the KJB says one thing and the NASV (New American Standard Version) says something else, you need a third authority to tell you which one is right (such as a pastor, teacher, scholar, etc.). When you do, then they become your final authority, not the Bible (Psalm 118:8).
B. To say there is no difference between modern translations and the KJB is not correct. The modern translations are based on Roman Catholic manuscripts and differ from the Greek text of the KJB 5,788 times! Translations such as the NASV differ from the KJB 36,000 times in the N.T. alone! (See enclosed information, “A Brief History of Modern Translations:” and “A Brief Comparison of Bible Translations.”)
C. Modern translations have no real authority other than the view of some scholars. Scholarship is not a deciding factor in relation to the preservation of God’s word. Our Lord does not say kind things concerning scholars. Note what Malachi 2:12 says, “The Lord will cut off the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.”
D. We should take heed In how we judge God’s word, for one day God’s word will judge us.
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” —Heb. 4:12-13
A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:
“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” —Matt. 7:17-18
Note the roots of corruption.
I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)
A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.
B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall’s Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as “A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation.” Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God’s word.
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” —Rom. 10:17
C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, “In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John.”
(”Which Bible?”. ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)
II. Tatian (150 A.D.)
A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.
B. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.
C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).
D. His. “Harmony of the Gospels” was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.
III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)
A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-”The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.”)
B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.
C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.
D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.
IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)
A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.
B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.
C. Origen stated, “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” (Ibid. p. 192).
D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, “When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries.” (Ibid.).
E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the “Hexapla”) was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called “allegorization”. Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns “Christianity Through The Centuries”, Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).
V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)
A. He was trained at Origen’s school in Alexandria.
B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. (”Which Bible?” p. 139,143).
These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.
C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, “Ecclesiastical History”, Vols. 1-5).
D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)
A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.
B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome’s Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.
VII. Tischendorf (1869)
A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.
VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)
A. They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.
B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.
C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section “A Brief Comparison of Bible translations”.)
D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.
WESTCOTT: “I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness.”
“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did.”
HORT: “Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common.”
“Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary.”
“The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.”
“Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.”
These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, “…away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables.” —2 Tim. 4:4
NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.” —Amos 8:11
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:
I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)
A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).
B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.
C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).
II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)
A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).
B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?
C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.
III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)
A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.
B. These believers were called “Waldensens” and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.
C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see “Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s”)
IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)
A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.
B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.
V. Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)
A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.
B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.
VI. Luther (16th. century)
A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).
B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.
VII. The King James Bible (1611)
A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome’s Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.
B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.
1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, “Power Through Prayer” p. 33).
2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.
3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.
4. Dr. Miles Smiths He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.
5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).
6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, “Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee.”
7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ‘ Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, “I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself.”
8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called “Bloody Mary”) before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.
NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see “Which Bible?” pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, “The Men Behind The KJB”
C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611, (see enclosed “A Brief Summary of Some Objections to the King James Bible”, V.)
D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God. (see Appendix 2).
E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.
F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well’s Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.
Matthew 12:33 “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit.”
1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?
2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?
3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.
4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???
5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God.
A BRIEF COMPARISON OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:
“Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.?” —1 Corinthians 5:6
(Leaven In the Bible is false teaching —Matt. 16:12)
I. Comparing the KJB with any modern translation of the Bible will show the following:
Colossians. 1:14 “Through his blood” is omitted.
Acts 17:26 “Blood!’ is omitted.
1 John 5:7 The part of the verse proving the Trinity is omitted.
I Tim. 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” is changed to “He who was
made manifest in the flesh,” thus weakening the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.
Luke 2:33 “Joseph” is changed to “Father” thus calling Joseph the father of Christ.
John 5:4 The whole verse is omitted.
Acts 8:37 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 9:44,46 These verses are omitted in all modern versions.
Romans 16:24 The whole verse is omitted.
Matthew 18:11 The whole verse is omitted.
Matthew 12:47 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 11:26 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 15:28 The whole verse is omitted.
Mark 16:9-20 This passage is either omitted in the modern versions or placed in brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.
John 8:l-11 This passage is either omitted or placed In brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.
Acts 15:34 The whole verse is omitted.
Acts 2417 The whole verse is omitted.
Acts 28:29 The whole verse is omitted.
Romans 811 Half of the verse is omitted.
Romans 1:16 The phrase “of Christ” is omitted.
Matthew 6:13 Half of the verse is omitted in the modern versions.
I Peter 2:2 The phrase “unto salvation” or “in regard to your salvation” is added to the text in modern versions to teach salvation by works.
Matthew 9:13 “To repentance” is omitted.
Mark 2:17 “To repentance” is omitted.
I John 4:3 “Christ is come in the flesh” is omitted
John 1:18 “Begotten Son” is changed to “Begotten God” in the NASV. This is also how it reads in the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These are only a few of the 36,000 changes made. In light of Scripture, one change is one too many (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).
II. In reading the KJB, NIV and NASV, you can see that they do not teach the same thing:
2 Samuel 21:19
KJB: “…Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath…”
NIV: “…Elhanan killed Goliath…”
NASV: “…Elhanan killed Goliath…”
Daniel 3:25
KJB: “He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
NIV: “He said, Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.
NASV: He answered and said, Look! I see four men loosed and walking about In the midst of the fire, without ham, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
Genesis 6:4
KJB: “There were giants in the earth…”
NIV: “The Nephilim were on the earth…”
NASV: “The Nephilim were on the earth…”
Genesis 7:1
KJB: “And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou … into the ark;”
NIV: “The Lord then said to Noah, Go into the ark,…”
NASV: “Then the Lord said to Noah, Enter the ark,…”
NOTE: There is a difference between “Come” and “Go”. The KJB shows that the Lord was in the ark with Noah and his family.
I Samuel 13:1
KJB: “Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,”
NIV: “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty two years.”
NASV: “Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.”
NOTE: How old was Saul when he began to reign, 30 or 40? How long did he reign, 42 or 32 years? The RSV and the New Scofield Reference Bible read, “Saul was ______ years old…”.
I Corinthians 7:36
KJB: “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,…”
NIV: “If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to,….”
NASV: “But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter,…”
NOTE: is it his virgin daughter or the virgin he is engaged to?
III. The KJB and the Catholic Bible (New American Version) are compared with the NIV, NASV, TEV, RSV, and the NWT below.
The following is a list of verses showing a few places where the KJB and the NAV (Catholic) differ. The KJB receives a “P” for Protestant, the NAV receives a “C” for Catholic. If the NIV, NASV, TEV, RSV, or NWT agree with the KJB they receive a “P”. If they agree with the Catholic Bible they receive a “C”.
Verse KJB NAV NIV NASV TEV RSV NWT
Matthew:
5:22 p c c c c c c
5:27 p c c c c c c
5:44 p c c c c c c
9:13 p c c c c c c
16:20 p c c c c c c
18:2 p c c c c c c
18:11 p c c c c c c
20:16 p c c c c c c
20:22 p c c c c c c
22:30 p c c c c c c
23:14 p c c c c c c
25:13 p c c c c c c
27:35 p c c c c c c
Mark:
1:2 p c c c c c c
l:14 p c c c c c c
6:11 p c c c c c c
7:27 p c c c c c c
9:44 p c c c c c c
9:46 p c c c c c c
10:21 p c c c c c c
11:10 p c c c c c c
11:26 p c c c c c c
12:23 p c c c c c c
13:14 p c c c c c c
15:28 p c c c c c c
16:9-20 p c c c c c c
Luke:
2:33 p c c c c c c
2:44 p c c c c c c
4:4 p c c c c c c
4:8 p c c c c c c
9:56 p c c c c c c
9:57 p c c c c c c
11:2 p c c c c c c
12:31 p c c c c c c
17:36 p c c c c c c
23:17 p c c c c c c
John:
4:42 p c c c c c c
5:4 p c c c c c c
8:1-11 p c c c c c c
8:29 p c c c c c c
Acts:
2:30 p c c c c c c
4:24 p c c c c c c
8:37 p c c c c c c
Verse KJB NAV NIV NASV TEV RSV NWT
Acts:
15:18 p c c c c c c
16:31 p c c c c c c
17:26 p c c c c c c
28:29 p c c c c c c
Romans:
1:16 p c c c c c c
8:1 p c c c c c c
11:6 p c c c c c c
15:8 p c c c c c c
16:24 p c c c c c c
I Corinthians:
5:4 p c c c c c c
6:20 p c c c c c c
9:1 p c c c c c c
10:28 p c c c c c c
Galatians:
6,15 p c c c c c c
Ephesians:
3:9 p c c c c c c
5:30 p c c c c c c
Colossians.:
1: 14 p c c c c c c
1 Thess.:
1:1 p c c c c c c
I Tim.:
3:3 p c c c c c c
3:16 p c c c c c c
1 John:
5:7 p c c c c c c
Revelation:
1:6 p c c c c c c
1:8 p c c c c c c
1:11 p c c c c c c
21:24 p c c c c c c
In light of this and about 5,000 other places, how can the modern version be called Protestant Bibles? Remember, they are based on Roman Catholic mms.
The Bible says,
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” —Amos 3:3
IV. The Modern Translation omits the name of Christ almost 200 times.!!!
Number of Times Omitted
NIV NASV RSV
Jesus:
38 75 73 (examples: Colossians. 1:2; 1 Peter 5:14)
Christ:
43 43 42 (examples Romans 1:16; Revelation 22:21)
Lord:
35 35 36 (examples: 2 Corinthians 4:10; Titus 1:4)
God:
31 33 34 (examples: Acts 20:25; 1 Jn. 5:13)
Other names:
26 26 28 (such as “The Beginning” —Rev. 1:8
“the Word” —l Jn. 5:7; and
“the Spirit, —I Peter 1:22).
Christ must have preeminence in all things (Colossians. 1.18). This includes translations of the Bible. The Bible God honors is the Bible that honors God!
BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE:
The following are some objections people use against the KJB, followed by Biblical answers.
People who use the KJB only, worship a Bible and not the God of the Bible.
A. You can not make such a distinction between the Word of God in flesh (Jesus Christ) and the word of God in print (the King James Bible). If the word of God in print has error, what about the word of God in flesh? No, both are infallible.
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” —I Peter l:23
B. God’s word is holy, there is no honor in trying to prove the Bible
has error In it. Note the following Scriptures.
“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” —Psalm 138:2
“Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.” —Psalm 119:164
“Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” —John 14:23
I. Only the originals are inspired and without error, not any translation.
A. Where is this taught In Scripture?
B. In the following Scripture, Paul calls copies (not originals) inspired Scripture. Therefore, more than just the originals are inspired and without error. Any of the words God gives are inspired.
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which is able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction In righteousness.” —2 Tim. 3:15-16
II. There is no difference between the KJB and modern translations.
A. The Creek mss. of the modern translations and the Greek mss. of the KJB differ about 10% of the time.
B. Ninety-six percent (96%) of all Creek mss. are of the same type as the KJB.
C. When dealing with translations themselves, there are over 36,000 differences between them and the KJB in the N.T. alone. Dr. Jack Lewis, who was one of the translators of the NIV, even stated this. When he compared the KJB and the ASV of 1909, he wrote…
“…in the end more than 36,191 corrections of various sorts were made in the N.T.. These included changes resulting from alterations in the Greek text itself, changes where the KJB appears to have chosen the poorer of the two readings, changes where the KJB is ambiguous or obscure, changes where the KJB is not consistent with itself in rendering phrases or passages that are alike or parallel, and changes that are required because of other changes made.” (”The English Bible/ From the KJV To NIV”; P. 70.)
While I do not agree with Dr. Lewis’s statement, he points out the number of differences between the KJB and modern translations.
IV. The KJB is too hard to understand. The modern translation is better than nothing.
A. The Bible is a spiritual book, and cannot be understood by natural means, such as changing the words. As one preacher said, the Bible needs to be reread, not revised.
B. The Bible must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not translators using Roman Catholic mss.
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” —l Corinthians 2:9-10
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” —Prov. 25:2
Fifty years ago people read the KJB and understood it. Our language has not changed that much in such a short period of time.
C. A little error counts a great deal. The Bible says, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” —l Corinthians 5:6. Therefore, the modern translation is not better than nothing at all when we have a Bible that is 100% error free and the Holy Spirit to teach it to us.
V. The KJB we have today is not the same as the one in 1611.
A. This is not true! The KJB we have today is the same as the one in 1611. Not a word of the text was changed. The American Bible Society wrote, “The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text…” They further stated, “With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bible remains unchanged and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators.”
B. Calligraphy: This is the change in the way letters were used. For example the word “gave” would have been written as “gaue” in 1611. The reason was the letter “v” was written as “u”. This is not changing the text as the NIV does.
C. Orthography: This is the change in spelling. Some words today are spelled differently than they were in 1611. For example, the word “took” was spelled “tooke”. Again, this does not change the text as the NASV did 36,000 times.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” —John 8:32
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” —John 17:17
My friends, God said He would keep His words, without error, forever (Psalm 12:6-7; 119:89,140; Matthew 5:17; 24:35). If He did not do this, then the whole Bible is a lie. However, the Lord is always true to His word. Why not ask Christ which Bible honors Him the most and use the Bible with no corruption?
“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the
joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, 0 Lord God
of hosts.” —Jer. 15:16
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
Burgon, Dean John William. The Revision Revised. Paradise, PA Conservative Classics, l883
Fowler, Everett W. Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. Watertown WI Maranatha Baptist Press, 1981
Fuller, David Otis. Counterfeit or Genuine., Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids International Publications, 1980
Fuller, David Otis. True or False? Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975
Fuller, David Otis. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, MI Grand Rapids International Publications, 1970
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines, IA The Christian Research Press, 1976
McMlure, Alexander. Translators Revived. Litchfield, MI Maranatha Bible Society, l885
Paine, Gustavus S. The Men Behind the KJV. Grand Rapids, MI Bake, Book House, 1977
Pickering, Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville, TN Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980 ad.
Ray, J. J. God Wrote Only One Bible. Eugene, DR: The Eye Opener Publishers, 1970
Ruckman, Peter S. The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. Palatka, FL Pensacola Bible Press, 1976
APPENDIX 1
7 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
In the Spring of 1986 I debated two “scholars” in Dayton Ohio on the Bible issue. During the debate I raised 7 main questions which were never addressed by my two opponents and remain unanswered to this day. The following are the 7 questions.
1. According to the “science” of textural criticism (I Tim. 6:20; Colossians. 2:8) two of the most controversial passages of Scripture are Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. Are these passages inspired Scripture?
A. If yes, why use a Bible which calls them into question by setting them aside in brackets with footnotes reading “not found in the most reliable manuscripts” ? (see NIV or RSV footnotes).
B. If no, why use a Bible which places them into the text with brackets? Why not leave them out completely? Where is your integrity?
C. If you do not know, how has your science helped you?
2. Where is the inerrant word of God today? Could you show me this infallible Bible? If you can not, how can you teach Biblical infallibility?
3. When we check modern translations In such places as 2 Samuel 21:19, Mark 1:2; Daniel 3:25; Matthew 5:22; and 2 Corinthians 2:17, we see they are less than truthful (John 17:17; 2 Thess. 2-13). How can translations which lie about the truth be more reliable?
4. Modern translations remove the names of Christ over 200 times in the New Testament. Who is it that would want you to read a translation which does not allow Christ to be as preeminent (Colossians. I..18)?
5. Why should we use a Roman Catholic text to correct the Protestant Bible of the Reformation?
6. In 1 Thess. 5:21 we read, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”. The KJB is a good thing. Why are we not holding fast to it?
7. The Bible says, “…it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 2b). How could anyone that loves the Lord and His word stand before a group of babies In Christ or the unsaved and question the authenticity of a text of Scripture? Is this contending for the faith that was once delivered unto us?
Those of us who believe God preserved His words without error are often accused of being devisive. The Bible does encourage us to be loving in our attitude and message (Ephesians 4:15). However, in light of 1 Thess. 5:21; Jude 2 and dozens of other passages, the argument seems rather void of substance. Love in silence is a poor substitute for speaking the truth in love as the Bible commands.
APPENDIX 2
THE KJB TRANSLATORS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
The following are some quotations from the original preface to the 1611 KJB by the translators themselves as set forth by one of the translators, Dr. Miles Smith.
“The Romanist therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated did no less than despite the Spirit of grace,…” p.24 “…and all is sound for substance in one or other of our editions (a reference to translations based on the Textus Receptus), and the worst of ours (that is before 1611) far better than their (Romanist) authentic vulgar.” p. 22
“Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time (a reference to earlier English translations of the Greek Textus Receptus) and the later thoughts are thought to be wisers so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do ondeavour to make that better which they left so good,…” p. 21
“And this is the Word of God, which we translate.” p. 23
“… but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that YOU Bee”. P. 31
“If we be sons of the Truth we must consider what it speaketh and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too.” P. 25
“It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build futher than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end.” p. 35
On pages 7-9 of the preface, the translators compared their work to David bringing in the ark and Solomon building the Temple. Also they compared the work on the KJB to men like Moses, Solomon and Stephen.
Historian Dr. Gustavus S. Paine in his book, “The Men Behind The KJV” (Baker Books) stated the following.
“Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity—no mere mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them.” P. 173 (1977 edition)
By itself this does not prove what we have stated in this booklet. It does prove that the translators of the KJB would agree with the claims of this booklet, that the KJB is the inerrant word of God for the English-speaking people.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!
flourish
Sojourners of the Lord Home PageSojourners of the Lord Home Page Bible Studies, Articles, Links, More…
Sojourners’ King James Bible PageSojourners’ King James Bible Page Large Collection of Manuscript Evidence
Sojourners’ NoteTabbers’ Assistants PageSojourners’ NoteTabbers’ Page Loaded with Libraries, Clips, and Images…
Sojourners’ Site IndexSojourners’ Site Index Listing of Most Pages on All Sites
flourish
Sites Brought to You by Sojourners of the Lord
Sojourners’ Bible Study Rightly dividing the word of truth
Sojourners’ King James Bible Information on Bible Versions
Sojourners’ Clean-Funnies dot com Many Clean Jokes; a Must Visit.
Sojourners’ NoteTabbers Assistant Great Stuff for Great Editors
Sojourners’ Fookes Software.us Software Doesn’t Get Any Better!
Sojourners Software Excellent Shareware and Freeware
Sojourners of the Lord Flagship Sojourners of the Lord
If you write reporting a problem, please send the url with the post or name of the page and copy some of the text you are reporting.
I’m normally way too busy to reply to all my eMail, especially long messages. If you have a question that only requires a short reply, I’ll try to answer it if I can. I do read sincere mail and thank you in advance for your valuable feedback!
You can write me at: Jody
If people would just be only giving flippant lip service to the issue of the quality and reliability of bible translations, then they would just obviously give an “I-don’t-care” and “no big deal” attitude to the implications and impacts of a questionable translation.
If they think that believing a truncated version that denigrates the essentials doctrines of the faith (e.g., solo Christo, sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, and solo Deo gloria) so obviously done by modern translations with liberal biases based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, particularly on the deity and humanity of Christ as not a big deal, then they are so entitled to their own fixated biases for what they believe. Even God respects the choices of man, and no one can take away his freedom of choice. The chooser is accountable to the consequences of his choices.
from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2427
ronically, our day is seeing more Christian media and entertainment, and more Bibles of every sort. Yet, the result is a corruption of God’s truth because there is no heart for sound biblical doctrine, especially since marketing departments are now leading the way! At best, the evangelical church in the U.S. reflects the lukewarmness of the Laodiceans (Revelation 3:14-17): rich and increased with experiential goods that can only yield shallow Christians; at worst, it has become a willing contributor to the end-times delusion.
Yet even in the face of so troubling a situation, we have reason to be both encouraged and fruitful, that is, if we will obey Paul’s inspired exhortation: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee [from the growing apostasy]” (1 Timothy 4:16). Let us pray for one another to that end.
For those translations of liberals that belittle the deity of Christ, Jude is very clear in:
Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this CONDEMNATION, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
FROM: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/7266
Question: We are in urgent need of information for our church family concerning the Bible paraphrase by Eugene Peterson: The Message published by NavPress….I do not believe that The Message is a good translation…yet it is promoted by Promise Keepers as well as other “big, trusted” names in the Christian world. We are many here in our town who hope to be able to obtain a brochure or a position paper concerning this paraphrase.
Response: Unfortunately, the errors in this paraphrase (it’s not a translation) are numerous and serious. The Message cannot be relied upon to tell the truth and, in fact, is dangerously misleading. If Promise Keepers endorses it, that is one more mark against that organization.
Let me give you only a few examples. John 1:1 actually says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Message renders it, “The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.” That garbling is an improvement?! It is confusing at best and misleading at worst, changing the meaning. “In the beginning was the Word” is changed to “The Word was first.” First before God? And what does “in readiness for God” mean? In verse 5, “the darkness comprehended it not” is rendered, “the darkness couldn’t put it out,” changing the meaning entirely.
In verse 14, “full of grace” becomes “Generous inside and out,” while “truth” becomes “true from start to finish.” “Generous” and “grace” do not mean the same, nor does “true from start to finish” convey the rich meaning of Christ being “full of truth.” In verse 29, “which taketh away the sin of the world” becomes “He forgives the sins of the world.” There is a world of difference between taking away the sin of the world by paying the debt mankind owed, and forgiving sins! In John 3:5, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit” becomes, “unless a person submits to this original creation—the ‘wind hovering over the water’ creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life,” again obscuring, complicating, and changing the true meaning. In 3:17, “but that the world through him might be saved” becomes “He came to help, to put the world right again,” a destructive change in the meaning.
“Saved” means to be redeemed, rescued from the judgment we deserve for our sins; whereas “to help, to put the world right again” sounds like social or political reformation. In verse 36, “the wrath of God abideth on him” becomes, “All he experiences of God is darkness, and an angry darkness at that.” How can anyone experience darkness from God, when 1 John 1:5 says of God, “in him is no darkness at all”? Serious error is added to serious error!
In 1 Corinthians 1:17, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” is perverted to read, “God didn’t send me out to collect a following for myself but to preach the Message.” It is important that Paul, a former rabbi, is a follower of Christ—The Message says “of God.” The main point Paul makes is that baptism is not part of the gospel—The Message misses that completely. “Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” is changed to “…lest the powerful action at the center—Christ on the Cross—be trivialized into mere words.” There is a vast difference between the eternal effect of “the cross of Christ” as the Bible states it and “Christ on the Cross” as The Message puts it and Catholicism depicts it. Christ is not on the cross; the work is finished! In verse 30, “sanctification, and redemption” is changed to read “a clean slate and a fresh start”—both trivializing and misleading. In Hebrews 11:1, “the substance of things hoped for” becomes “the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living,” a totally different meaning, with hope for eternity expunged. In verse 4, regarding the lamb, which speaks of Christ, the “more excellent sacrifice” offered by Abel, the comment is interjected, “It was what he believed, not what he brought, that made the difference.” On the contrary, the sacrifice he brought was important to his belief, and without the proper sacrifice there could be no forgiveness no matter what was believed.
In verse 7, “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” is changed to “became intimate with God,” again an entirely different meaning which leaves out the vital phrase “righteousness which is by faith.” In verse 16, “God is not ashamed to be called their God” is twisted into “God is so proud of them.” Never! Attributing the human evil of pride to God is blasphemy and leaves the dangerous impression that if God is proud then it isn’t so bad for man to be proud as well.
In verse 35, “that they might obtain a better resurrection” becomes “preferring something better: resurrection.” Again the meaning is changed completely. It makes it sound as though resurrection is dependent upon good works. It was not a question of whether they would be resurrected, but of the reward they would receive in the Resurrection.
These are only a few among many errors, some extremely serious. It is appalling that any mere man would change or ignore the meaning of God’s Word under the vain delusion that he could improve upon what God has said and the way He has said it! It is even more appalling that a leading evangelical publisher would publish this blasphemy, Christian bookstores would sell it, and Christian leaders would praise instead of denounce this perversion!
Considering modern translations coming from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as of equal quality, value, and reliability with the translations coming from the Textus Receptus only gives lip service to the importance of God’s Word while undermining its inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency.
When lip service about the importance of sound doctrine from sound sources (e.g., good translation), we can get this:
from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5958
Brian McLaren, the most prominent of the emergent leaders, echoes Bell’s “doctrine” of avoidance regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality:
“Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making [doctrinal] pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.”
from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2565
When challenged about its lies, Stan Gundry, Zondervan’s Vice President and Editor-in-Chief responded, “The purpose of the rewriting was…to give a more balanced portrayal of the history of Christianity.” Whitewashing Roman Catholic doctrine and practice and leaving out the slaughter of millions of Christians gives a “more balanced” history?! And who owns Zondervan, publisher of The Purpose-Driven Life?
In 1988, Zondervan and its NIV Bible were purchased by Harper & Row Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers), who put out pro-homosexual books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality (“Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography…”) and others! HarperCollins is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s The News Corporation which owns Twentieth Century Fox and Fox Broadcasting. The latter produces some of the most immoral, anti-family shows on television. Murdoch—to whom Pat Robertson sold the Family Channel (paid for by CBN donors) for $1.9 billion—was knighted by the Pope after donating $10 million for a new Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles. And Rick Warren claims to be Murdoch’s pastor.
Christian publishers have put profits ahead of sound doctrine and have made a lot of money by giving customers what they want instead of the biblical truth they need, selling out to the world monetarily as they already had morally. Isn’t this the opposite of contending for the faith?
Together with his disciple, Eusebius, the heretical Origen was the origin of the corrupted bibles, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from which all modern translations have been based, such as NIV, RV, RSV, ASV, NASV, etc….
Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html
Origen produced a six-column Bible, the Hexapla, which he subtly permeated with Gnostic doctrine. Diocletian (302-312), the last in an unbroken line of pagan emperors, had furiously sought to destroy the Christian sect and pursued every copy of the Scriptures to destroy them also. Constantine succeeded him as Roman emperor and, desiring to bring peace to the Roman Empire, commissioned a Bible which would facilitate the amalgamation of pagan religion and Christianity. “Quite naturally he preferred the one edited by Eusebius and written by Origen, the outstanding intellectual figure that had combined Christianity with Gnosticism in his philosophy, even as Constantine himself was the political genius that was seeking to unite Christianity with pagan Rome… Eusebius in publishing the Bible ordered by Constantine, had incorporated the manuscripts of Origen… The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible.” 6.
Origen had been pronounced a heretic by a number of general synods in the early Church period. The Church also recognized that the Alexandrian manuscripts produced by Origen had altered the Apostles’ doctrine and rejected them as heretical. Early Christians chose not to use them and they were abandoned in Rome in 500 A.D. However, Origen’s influence extended to the Roman Catholic religion during the Middle Ages: “One of the greatest results of his life was that his teachings became the foundation of that system of education called Scholasticism, which guided the colleges of Latin Europe for nearly one thousand years during the Dark Ages. Origenism flooded the Catholic Church through Jerome. ‘I love…the name of Origen,’ said the most distinguished theologian of the Roman Catholic Church since 1850. [John Henry Newman]” 7.
On the qualifications of the KJV translators:
Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html
Rev. Terence H. Brown, formerly Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London wrote of the fifty-four translators of the KJV:
“No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship, well qualified for their important work, or that with God’s blessing they completed their great task with scrupulous care and fidelity… They were indeed ‘learned men’ – and their scholarship was recompensed by a deep conviction of the divine origin of the records which they were translating. Learning and faith went hand in hand to open the storehouse of God’s word of truth for the spiritual enrichment of millions from generation to generation, over a period of more than three hundred years.” 15.
The Translators’ Preface to the 1611 AV describes the intent of the translators, their method of translation and presents much valuable background information. 16. Unfortunately, the Preface has been removed from King James Bibles for the past one hundred years which has given rise to the Ruckmanite Heresy that the KJV is superior to the Greek Textus Receptus. For this reason, manuscript scholar Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote a Thesis on the Preface and endeavored during his lifetime to restore the Preface to the King James Bible, but to no avail. 17.
On the basis of the modern translations’ questionable quality and reliability:
Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html
THE NEW GREEK TEXT
In 1853, F.J.A. Hort and B.F. Westcott, who later became an Anglican bishop, proceeded to create, not a revision, but an altogether New Greek Text of the New Testament. 42. According to Dr. Hort, their intention was to radically alter the Traditional or Majority Text for future generations. “Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” 43. The correction of “Byzantine corruptions” by Hort and Westcott was, in fact, the substitution of corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts for the Textus Receptus which underlies the Authorised Version – the text which agrees with the majority of manuscripts extant today.
Wrote Dr. Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions.” 44. Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) was professor of Classical and German Philology in Berlin, and also a German rationalist and textual critic who produced modern editions of the New Testament in Germany in 1842 and 1850. Lachmann began to apply to the New Testament Greek text the same rules that he had used in editing texts of the Greek classics which had been radically altered over the years. Having also set up a series of several presuppositions and rules which he used for arriving at the original text of the Greek classics, he then began with these same presuppositions and rules to correct the New Testament which he assumed was hopelessly corrupted. 45.
Continuation of the New Greek Text of Westcott and Hort:
from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html
Lachmann’s theories laid the foundation for the German school of higher criticism which rejected the authenticity of the Gospels, particularly the miracles, and also the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. The widespread acceptance of Lachmann’s work furnished the critical authority for Drs. Westcott and Hort in their formulation of a method of Textual Criticism, known as the Westcott and Hort Textual Theory. Drs. Westcott and Hort hypothesized that that the original New Testament text had survived in near perfect condition in two manuscripts other than the Received Greek Text and that the early church used these manuscripts to edit the Textus Receptus. The Westcott-Hort Theory, which maintains that the true text of Scripture was lost by the true Church for approximately 1600 years, has since been discredited for lack of historical evidence. 46.
Constantin Tischendorf (1815-74) was a German textual editor whom Dr. Frederick Scrivener of the English Revision Committee ranked “the first Bible Critic in Europe.” Tischendorf traveled extensively in search of ancient documents and was responsible for finding the two manuscripts most relied upon in the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf discovered (c. A.D. 1844) the Vaticanus B manuscript in the Vatican Library and Sinaiticus Aleph in a waste basket in a Catholic convent at the base of Mt. Sinai. 47. Psalm 108:5 promises that God will preserve His Word “unto a thousand generations.” For this reason, He would never allow it to be suppressed or withheld from His people as the Roman Catholic hierarchy did for 1400 years. It is reasonable to assume that God removed these manuscripts from circulation because they were not His Word.
Westcott and Hort used the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) manuscripts as the basis for their New Testament Greek Text, which in turn was the basis for the 1881 text adopted by the ERV revisers. 48. Dean John Burgon, the brilliant textual scholar and Anglican clergyman who led the opposition to the English revision, described for his English readers the corrupt character of the manuscripts primarily used by Westcott and Hort – not to revise the Textus Receptus – but to create an altogether new Greek Text.
“It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS, besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. That in different degrees they all five exhibit a fabricated text… We venture to assure [the reader] without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B, D, are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: – exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: – have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, – which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” 49.
Excerpt from: http://watch.pair.com/another.html
The New International Version
The NIV Story, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “eclectic” as: “to select, to pick out, to choose – 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems.” According to Goddard, the members of the committee chose not to confine themselves to one printed text of ancient or modern writings, but to privately determine, based on their evidence, what readings are true or genuine. In addition to its primary selections, the NIV committee decided to include alternative readings in footnote form to acquaint the reader with other interpretations. And in some extended portions of Scripture, liberty was taken to introduce verses not well-attested by manuscript evidence. 56.
Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts. 57. In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as “Bibles.” However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, “They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ.” 58.
It seems that the New International Version was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is “the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity.” 59. Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort’s design. 60. This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text. Few Christians realize that the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witness cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. 61.
Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 62. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation 63., and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 64.
This part from the excerpt on the NIV is very revealing:
Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. 62. Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation 63., and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. 64.
from an extensive expose at:
http://watch.pair.com/church-on-trial.html
we get this:
THE SCRIPTURES
Ø ARE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS STILL IN EXISTENCE?
* No.
Ø HOW MANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT LINES ARE THERE UNDERLYING ALL OF THE THE BIBLE VERSIONS?
* Two
§ Antiochian (from Antioch, Syria)
§ Alexandrian (from Alexandria, Egypt)
Ø HOW MANY GREEK MANUSCRIPTS FORMED THE BASIS FOR THESE TWO GREEK LINES?
* Two
§ Antiochian/Byzantine
§ Alexandrian
There are over 3,000 Antiochian manuscripts as opposed to only 3 Alexandrian manuscripts.
“In the 300 years since the publication of the first printed Greek text (which came to be known as the ‘Textus Receptus’), a large number of New Testament manuscripts have come to light. By 1968 a total of 3,112 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek were listed by Kurt Aland. The overwhelming number of these manuscripts are in agreement with the Textus Receptus, as are lectionaries, versions and many patristic writings.” – Robert Sargent, Landmarks of English Bible Manuscript Evidence (199:173)
Ø HOW CAN WE TELL THE TRUE MANUSCRIPT LINE FROM THE FALSE LINE?
· True manuscript line
§ Many copies extant.
§ Copies agree with each other.
§ There were thousands of Greek mss.
which formed the Antioch line.
“The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” – Psalm 68:11
· False manuscript line
§ Few manuscripts extant
§ Only three Greek manuscripts formed
the Alexandrian line.
§ Alexandrian mss. do not agree with each other . (Mark 14:55-56)
“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” – Mark 14:55-56
Also from:
http://watch.pair.com/church-on-trial.html
THE SUBJECTS
Ø IF THERE WAS A PLAN TO CORRUPT THE SCRIPTURES,
WHAT WERE THE TARGETED DOCTRINES?
· All Bible corruptions are concerned with the
doctrine of Christ.
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” – 2 John 1:9
· The most serious deception is that none of the changes affect Bible doctrine. The truth is that any word changes in Scripture affect Bible doctrine.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: “ – 2 Tim. 3:16
§ Sound doctrine can only be based on sound words.
“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” – 2 Tim. 1:13
“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” – Titus 1:9
o “sound”
Strong’s Dictionary #5918 – “true”
Greek Lexicon – “pure, uncorrupted”
o “gainsayers”
Strong’s Concodance #483 – means “deniers”
o “deny”
Strong’s Concordance #720 – “to contradict or disavow”
Lexicon – “disclaim”
Thesaurus – “gainsay”
Dictionary – “to withhold something from, to refuse to recognize of acknowledge”
· God has given the following Scripture verses to help discern true readings from corrupted readings (textual criticism).
* As the Pharisees and Sadducees denied certain points of doctrine pertaining to Jesus Christ, so also do the modern versions. Most Bible corruptions are concerned with diminishing or denying these specific doctrines:
DOCTRINE OF CHRIST
SECTION 12 Jesus is Christ (1 John 2:22-23)
3.A Jesus is God’s Son (1 John 2:22-23)
3.B Jesus is the Lord God (Jude 4)
2.A, 2.C Jesus is God the Son Incarnate (1 John 4:3)
2.A Jesus has all of the divine attributes
(Acts 3:14)
3.A Jesus’ Name (Rev. 3:8)
2.A, 3.B Jesus’ Word (2 Peter 2:2)
1.A Jesus’ Substitutionary Atonement
(2 Peter 2:1)
3.C, 7.A Jesus was indwelt by Holy Spirit
(Matt. 12:31)
2.A, 3.A Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection (Acts 23:8)
3.D Jesus’ Angels (Acts 23:8)
5 Jesus’ definition of Sin (1 Tim 6:3)
6 Jesus’ Church (Acts 8:1)
6, 8 Jesus’ Second Coming/Millennial Reign
(2 Peter 3:3-4)
Was King James a Homosexual?
from: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/james-h.html
There is absolutely no legitimate historical evidence to indicate that he was.
The same critics who decry examinations of the lives of Westcott and Hort as ad hominem attacks gleefully slander King James and by association deride the Bible translation that now bears his name. First, we must note that whereas Westcott and Hort are directly responsible for modern textual criticism theory and practice, having a major impact on translations employing their methods, King James did not have such influence on the AV.
Second, the charge itself is slanderous and false. The historical basis for the charge is based on non-eye witness claims of enemies of King James who resented a Scott being on the throne of England. Modern scholars who continue to perpetuate this lie find themselves quoting modern homosexual authors with a clear agenda to promote, and betray their monumental ignorance of historical context of writings and customs. These same “historians” would cite 1 Sam. 18 as proof that David and Jonathan had sexual relations.
Further, an examination of King James’ numerous extant writings show him to be a true man and father; in deep love with his wife. For complete and detailed research on this issue, I refer you to the book King James VI of Scotland & I of England, Unjustly Accused?, by Stephen A. Coston, which goes in to exhaustive detail on the matter.
Related Articles: Erasmus, King James, and His Translators (2/3)
The following is from Sam Gipp’s The Answer Book.
QUESTION 3: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?
ANSWER: No.
EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.
At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James’ desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history’s most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the word of God in English.
James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish, even wrote a tract entitled “Counterblast to Tobacco,” which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James, that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn’t true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God’s book to a more “modern” translation.
It seems, though, that Weldon’s false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re- establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot’s victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.
On the translators of the modern versions of the English Bibles:
from: http://watch-unto-prayer.org/revision.html
BIBLE REVISION IN ENGLAND
1851 – B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort found the Cambridge University Ghost Society, one of the early pioneers of modern Spiritualist inquiry:
“In 1851 was founded at Cambridge a Society to ‘conduct a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena vaguely called supernatural,’ and a number of distinguished persons became members.” [Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, NY:Schocken Books, 1968, p. 66]
Cambridge Ghost Society was parent of the Society for Psychical Research, which was directed by Henry Sidgwick, the husband of Eleanor Balfour, who was the sister of Arthur Balfour.
“Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:
“‘Among my father’s diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a ‘Ghost Society,’ the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he cared to admit.’
“Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.” [brackets in original] [W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, London, 1948, pp. 5,6]
Fenton John Antony Hort joined the Cambridge Company of the Apostles.
“…[F.J.A. Hort] found time to attend the meetings of various [Cambridge] societies and in June joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles… He remained always a grateful and loyal member of the secret Club, which has now become famous for the number of distinguished men who have belonged to it. In his time the Club was in a manner reinvigorated, and he was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence. ” (Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, NY: Schocken Books, 1968, pp. 317, 49)
“(The) Apostles had hoped that developments in the social sciences would before long make possible an equitable and frictionless society…” (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p. 170)
1853 – B.F.Westcott and F.J.A. Hort begin New Greek Testament based on Alexandrian manuscripts.
“In 1853 Hort began to devote himself more definitely to work on the lines recently laid down for himself. . . It was during these weeks, in the course of a walk with Mr. Westcott, who had come to see him at Umberslade, that the plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek New Testament was first definitely agreed upon. . . About this time Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggested to him that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme.’ Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a New Testament Grammar and Lexicon.” [Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Volume I, London: Macmillan and Co., 1896, pp. 239-40]
April 19, 1853 letter to Rev. John Ellerton: “One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” [Ibid., p. 250]
Never thought this was a very well-discussed issue by the lone poster Oggie.
Anyway, all translations are interpretations. And according to my favorite professor here in the seminary,
“traduttore, traditore.”
Dr. Oggie claims to be “Textus Receptus” adherent and not by any other translations. Perhaps you can share your ideas here since you are almost a Doctor now.:) (Or doctor ka na ba?).
Ptr. Vince´s last blog ..Alas Bro. Eddie Villanueva Filed His COC for 2010 Elections
Here’s a good read:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/tabor_357913.shtml
P.S.
Nung march 2008 lang ako naka-gradweyt. Hehehe…
Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge
If you would really seriously study all pertinent aspects and all persuasive perspectives of this very divisive issue, you can understand my “Textus Receptus Only” (so much different from the “King James Only”!!!) kind of conviction.
Understanding one another does not always mean each one can agree with one another. Each has his/her own freedom of beliefs, freedom of conscience, etc… that each one should respect, but not impose their own version or ideology on others … Such is the legacy of the Reformation — to question even the authoritarian authorities. The Baptist legacy of constitutional democracy and egalitarianism enshrines this freedom in the constitutions in every democratic governments. Popes, priests, pastors, profits, politicians are not infallible so as to protect this freedom without abusing their God-ordained powers and authorities. As one British parliamentarian said:
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
This is so much related to this issue:
http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html
which is also related to this issue
http://www.mtc.org/bishop_s.html
I am not forcing other people to believe what I believe, just I won’t let other people force me to believe what they believe!
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God”.
— Thomas Jefferson
“Obedience to tyrants is rebellion against God.”
— Oggie
Maybe, we should adopt the attitudes and actions of the Berean Bible Believers, who would always check and balance anybody else’s teachings and preachings, be they coming from pastors, prophets, people of God, etc… against biblical revelation, and do discern if a teaching or preaching is really either from the infallible words of the infallible God or from the fallible words of fallible man.
Or, adopt Pauline apologetics and rhetorics as given by:
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6797
Unless we pay only shallow lip service to the distinctive doctrinal Evangelical essential of the “sola scriptura”, or the final authority of scriptures over the believers’ doctrines and deeds, beliefs and behaviors, attitudes and actions, principles and practices, we won’t be that deadly serious as to the reliability of our scriptural sources, translations, hermeneutics, homilitics, interpretation, etc… because we’ll only have the flippant attitude that all types of scriptures and translations are all of equal value and worth.
If the bible said:
Proverbs 30:5
EVERY WORD of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 18:16
But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY WORD may be established.
Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.
then shouldn’t the quality, reliability, transferability of our scriptural sources, translations, hermeneutics, homilitics, interpretation, etc… be taken seriously?
So, the big question would be:
WHICH REALLY REPRESENT(S) THE TRUE, SURE, AND RELIABLE WORDS OF GOD??
Socrates said:
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
which I may modify for our discussion:
“The unexamined belief is not worth believing.”
“The unexamined bible is not worth buying.”