IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[Brother Love]

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE? (Part 1)

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians 2:17)


For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable - are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?

Our examination of this important subject will by no means be exhaustive, given the space available to us here, but we hope to give the reader enough information that as an informed believer you can make a sound decision as to which Bible is reliable and which version in not.

A bit of background to begin with: In 1881 there was introduced into public circulation a new Bible text. It came through the work of the Revision Committee which produced the (English) Revised Version, 1881, and the American Standard Version, 1901.

This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations. It has been used to replace the Received Text of the KJV and its predecessors. There is, however, a growing awareness that this new Greek text is not reliable-and more and more are returning, we have, to the KJV.

As we compare verses, we will see why this is true. We have objective evidence as the reliability of the KJV as opposed to the new bible versions-overwhelming evidence that new versions are not simply better translations. Nor are they simply revisions of the KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts which often question, discredit and water down important and vital truths basic to the Christian faith (cf. Genesis 3:1).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:

In Matthew 1:25 the words "her firstborn son" are consistently omitted by modern versions. In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the Roman reading.

Verses such as Matthew 17:21 and 23:14 are omitted entirely, while in Matthew 24:36 the words "nor the Son" are added.

There are literally hundreds of these type textual alternations which have nothing to do with translation. They come because of the difference in what is being translated-the Greek texts being used are substantially different. And the difference is by no means insignificant.

In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new versions of perverting God's Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:

In John 1:27 the words "is preferred before me" are omitted, so that John is made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 "he that believeth on me hath everlasting life" is changed to read: "he who believes has everlasting life" (NIV) The words "on me" are left out [footnote 1].

John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God "the Father instead of "my Father," as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).

Other vital truths are also affected. For examples, in I Corinthians 5:7 the words "for us" are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily "for us" (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn't surprising that Hebrews 1:3 omits the words "by Himself" from the phrase: "When He had by Himself purged our sins." There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause "through His blood" is omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for redemption.

Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.

In Luke 24:51 the words "And carried up into heaven," referring to our Lord's ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words "because I go to the Father" are omitted.

By now it should be obvious that the new versions are not simply "better translations" or a revision of KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts. Nor is it true that they contain only minor changes which do not affect basic meanings.

The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to spiritual health.

We are using the New International Version for comparison quotes because of its present popularity. What is true of it however, is consistently true of other versions.

------------------------------------------------------------

[Brother Love]

(Part 2)

SERIOUS QUESTIONS

Because of the subtle nature of the deception used to corrupt God's Word, we want to offer three examples of the absolute devastation caused by these new versions. The complacent nature of current thinking in regard to these issues has caused some to pass off as only a minor irritant the numerous passages which are altered so as to eliminate or dilute statements on the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, etc. Because of this, and the emotional allegiance often attached to those recommending the modern versions, we ask our readers to consider the impact of these three passages on their faith. These three passages are irrefutable, objective evidence that modern versions are unsafe.

1. Matthew 5:22: Often it is difficult to grasp the impact of what seems to an innocent omission. Here is a verse where this syndrome is demonstrated to be a subtle trap leading to spiritual destruction. In KJV the verse reads,

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

The NIV renders the verse thus:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Did you catch the omission? The phrase "without a cause" is omitted from the statement "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." This does not seem to be too very consequential at first glance. But for a Bible student who is serious about believing and honoring the Word of God, this verse is devastating.

If the reader is diligent it will not be long before he comes upon Mark 3:5, were we are told about our Lord:

"And when he had LOOKED ROUND ABOUT ON THEM WITH ANGER, BEING GRIEVED FOR THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS..."

The problem is obvious: If the NIV reading is to stand, our lord is condemned by His own words.

This is no small matter! By this seemingly unimportant omission in Matthew 5:22 the modern versions have destroyed the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ and established him as a sinner, condemned for failure to live by His own declaration.

2. Mark 1:2: This verse brings up the dementia associated with the use of modern versions. The following change is so amazing that we doubt anyone would believe it if the record was not clear. In KJV the verse reads,

"As IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

The NIV rendering is consistent with other modern versions:

"IT IS WRITTEN IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way."

Any reference edition or center column reference will quickly establish the problem for modern versions: The quotation in Mark 1:2 is not from Isaiah. It is from Malachi 3:1. Mark 1:3 is a quote from Isaiah 40:3. Thus two prophets are being quoted, not one. The statement in NIV (and other new versions) is simply false.

This is simply a case of the Greek text and resultant English translation being wrong. It is a mistake, plain and simple. No amount of sophistry can argue around it. Notice the verse does not say, "It was spoken in Isaiah" (as in the case of Matthew 27:9's quote of Jeremiah). No. The quote is clearly said to have been "written in Isaiah."

Two possibilities exits: Either Isaiah, as we have it, is incomplete, omitting the quote (and thus the Bible itself so not complete), or Mark is mistaken, having given the wrong reference (which would mean that the Holy Spirit made a mistake writing the Scripture).

These two choices leave us in the unenviable position of having to adjust our understanding of Biblical infallibility. The doctrine of infallibility will not stand the test if the reading of the new versions is accepted.

3. Hebrews 3:16: We add this reference because it too seems to be too impossible to be real. Unfortunately it is all too real-and illustrative of the caliber of modern versions. KJV renders the verse this way:

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit NOT ALL THAT CAME OUT OF EGYPT BY MOSES."

The verses changed in NIV to read:

"Who were they who heard and rebelled? WHERE THEY NOT ALL THOSE MOSES LED OUT OF EGYPT?"

In others words, KJV says that "not all that came out of Egypt by Moses" rebelled while NIV indicates that "all those Moses led out of Egypt" did rebel. Any junior in Sunday School knows which of the two is right!

After four decades of wilderness wanderings, Moses addressed Israel as she prepares to enter the promised land. Deuteronomy 29:2 tells us,

"And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the Lord did BEFORE YOUR EYES IN THE LAND OF EGYPT UNTO PHARAOH..."
(cf. Deuteronomy 1:30).

Obviously some of these who were in Egypt and saw with their own eyes what God had done there also entered into the promised land, having not rebelled in the wilderness. As we said, any junior aged boy or girl could name two of them: Joshua and Caleb! One wonders what the translators of the NIV and other versions have been reading.

Why should we accept a Bible version that is not true-especially when we have one that is? Why would we accept a Bible that openly denies the sinlessness of our Lord and that makes the doctrine of Scriptural infallibility a falsehood?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BOOK WILL DEFEND ITSELF
We do not fear for God's Word, He'll take care of it! We fear only for its readers. These new versions are simply unsafe to rely on.

We trust this information will help our readers to understand this issue more clearly. Compare the verses for yourself and you will see that we do have a reliable, dependable copy of the Word of God in our own language. God has preserved His Word and made it available to us in our own language in an absolutely dependable form, the King James Bible.

By Pastor Richard Jordan

[ebia]

For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and

Only by the small minority of Christians that happen to speak English.

confidently believed to be the Word of God.

a translation of the Word of God, surely.  The translators make it clear in the preface that they didn't think they had done a perfect job.

In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

There have always been multiple translations available.  Well, not always, but the AV was not the first translation into English.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable -

As reliable as the AV, yes.

are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?

Many?   A tiny few.

This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations.

Not exclusively, no.   Most modern translations use an eclectic mix of texts, including but not limited to Westcott & Hort's work.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:

Lets get this into perspective - the bible is about 1500 pages long. The discrepencies are small and few, are mostly not of doctrinal importance, and very very few would actually affect any doctrine not made clear in another undesputed passage.

SOME DIFFERENCES SNIPPED

The fact of differences does not and cannot prove which of the two texts is the more accurate.  In fact, it's pretty much certain that the AV will be right in some cases, and the new translations in others.

In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the Roman reading.

eh?
Are you claiming the new translators chucked out the doxology to make it fit the version preferred by the Roman Catholic church, or that the RC based their prayer on the modern texts?  You can't have both.

Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.

Such "changes" are based on what the greek manuscripts say.  They didn't go around changing stuff because they felt like it - they translated what they believed to be the best supported greek texts.

The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to spiritual health.

Who on earth do you think carried out this conspiricy?  A group of 2nd and 3rd century devil worshipers planting very slighlty corrupted manuscripts in places for people to find 1500 years later?   Talk about paranoid.

[Brother Love]

umm


Brother Love

[ebia]

These three passages are irrefutable, objective evidence that modern versions are unsafe.

No they are not.

You have to prove that the AV is perfect (something its translators did not claim) before you have demonstrated that a differing translation is corrupt.
Until you have done that, quoting differences only proves they are different, not which (if either) is correct.

[Petro]

Thanks  Bro Love,

Know one can see, why the WatchTower loves this 1881, translation, since it waters down or rejects the diety of Jesus;

It them becomes easier to teach, faith in other things, the church, oneself, for the faith necessary to be saved.

This is really the issue, in notg being able to agree with doctrine, nor unite in one faith, since those who love and read the new watered down transaltions, can let their imaginations run wild, and figbure their own works into the picture for their eternal life.

Unfortunately, claiming ignorance of the truth in that day, won't be much of an excuse.

Those who like to read the Bible in the vernacular languages, are simply to lazy to look up words, to find out what their true meanings are, or even to see if those words are subsatntiated in the original text (Hebrew-Greek).

They argue the KJV, is to formal and archaic, and hard to understand;  well the only other alternative is to learn Heberew or Greek, either way studying the scriptures, or making an effort learning the languages, isn't something they care  to do  and, I am sure they have their excuses for not doing that either.


Blessings,  

Petro.

[ebia]

This is really the issue, in notg being able to agree with doctrine, nor unite in one faith, since those who love and read the new watered down transaltions, can let their imaginations run wild, and figbure their own works into the picture for their eternal life.

No-one has demonstrated that the AV is closer to the original than the modern translations, so your whole post is built on sand.

[Petro]

This is really the issue, in notg being able to agree with doctrine, nor unite in one faith, since those who love and read the new watered down transaltions, can let their imaginations run wild, and figbure their own works into the picture for their eternal life.

No-one has demonstrated that the AV is closer to the original than the modern translations, so your whole post is built on sand.

ebia,


I suggest it is, the other way around, you, need to infrom yourself  mo-bettehhh..

For you and others that may not realize it, the KJV, contains pratically 80% of Wm Tyndale's translation "word for word", and the remainder would agree with  John Wycliffe's version of 1384.

So to make a claim, that the KJV the only Authorized Version, somehow or other is foreign to previous english translations is lacking in substance.

The KJV, in many instances contain the exact english words translated by Tyndales translation, ei: The entire Chapter of Gen 33.

http://jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/nwt/tyndale.htm
Here are little exerts, of thei article.

"In matters of accuracy Tyndale also set a high standard. For example, in translating from Hebrew, he tried to be as literal as possible while maintaining an easy, flowing English style. He was careful even to reproduce the Hebrew fullness of description with its frequent repetition of the word "and" joining clause after clause in a sentence. (See Genesis chapter 33 in the King James Version, which retains Tyndale's wording almost entirely.) He paid close attention to the context and avoided additions to or omissions from the original text, even though paraphrasing was resorted to by most translators of the time."

"Tyndale's word choice was also careful and accurate. For example, he used "love" instead of "charity," "congregation" for "church," and "elder" rather than "priest" where appropriate. This infuriated critics like Sir Thomas More because it changed words that had come to be venerated through tradition. Where the original demanded the repetition of a word, Tyndale was careful to reproduce it. To illustrate: At Genesis 3:15, his translation twice speaks of 'treading' done by the seed of the woman and by the serpent. Tyndale was also responsible for introducing God's personal name, Jehovah, into the English Bible. As writer J. F. Mozley observes, Tyndale used it "more than twenty times in his Old Testament" translations."

"But by translating the Bible into English, Tyndale incurred the wrath of the authorities. Why? Because as early as 1408 a council of clergymen met at Oxford, England, to decide whether the common people should be allowed to have copies of the Bible in their own tongue for personal use. The decision read, in part: "We therefore decree and ordain, that from henceforward no unauthórised person shall translate any part of the holy Scripture into English or any other language ... under the penalty of the greater excommunication, till the said translation shall be approved either by the bishop of the diocese, or a provincial council as occasion shall require."

Now, I assume you know the rest of the story concerning William Tyndale, and how he was arrested by the authorities, with the help of the Catholic church, for printing and distributing Bibles, so the common man could possess them in the english language, and was strangled and burned at the stake, for this heinous crime..of being a HERETIC, because he didn't obey the teachings of rome and the pope.

"To escape the persecution of the authorities, Tyndale fled to mainland Europe to continue his work. But he was at last caught. Convicted of heresy, he was strangled and burned at the stake in October 1536. His final prayer was: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." Little did he know how soon the situation would change. In August 1537, less than a year after Tyndale's death, King Henry VIII gave authorization to the Bible generally known as Matthew's Bible. He decreed that it should be freely sold and read within his realm."

God Bless,

Petro

[Allinall]

Here's the problem: the AV folk will attest to their translation being most accurate because it follows their transcripts.  They will attest that their transcripts are the best because - why?  Usually because they will hold to the belief that theirs are more numerous.  However, I've said before, that the other side will claim the same with equal proofs.  The AV side will then try and use scripture to support their view.  Here's the problem with that - it only applies to God's word - not their view.  They will hold that the KJV alone (and the transcripts from which they came unless their Ruckmanite theologians) fits these scriptures.  Upon what do they base this?  Their opinion.  It cannot be upon anything but.  It cannot be upon the durability of the AV and Majority text families, unless they take the supporting passages out of context.  It cannot be upon the age of the texts as the other texts are also of aged composition.  Let me say here, that I do not argue for the NIV.  I personally don't care for the dynamic equivalency used in its renderings.  However, to down-play a 90-95% agreement between the texts due to word changes, or man-made omissions or inclusions, I believe to be short sighted.  

In turn, the AV folk will attest that the newer translations are in error, because they do not follow their transcripts for their translational work.  Again, faulty transcripts because they do not agree with the one's used for a longer period of time.  The longer time period of use making their version the only one acceptable because of miscontexted scriptural interpretation for support.  Basically, it becomes a large mess of "I'm rights" and "You're wrongs" that get us nowhere.  

[Petro]

Actually you are partially correct.

The KJV was produced in 1611, and since that time, thousands of older manuscripts have been found which corroborate, the later ones used to translate the translation, so it stands to reason, that the older manuscripts should be used to correct the later ones. Providinf they can be verified  as being original, unfortunately this may not be possible unless corroborated with older versiona which may be non existent, at this point.

So the answer should be no changes should be made until this is possible (to verify the text is authentic), otherwise you have problems with the newer version which publishers want to publish for the sake of monetary return.

We have a real can of worms on our hands, with the new english translations begining with the NIV, so one must use discernment, and seek wisdom from the Spirit of God on this matter.

As I said before when you have the cults, agreeing with a translation, then christians should take notice, because it usually means something is not right in the translation if it agrees with their version of the scriptures and their teaching.

Blessings,

Petro

[Allinall]

So the answer should be no changes should be made until this is possible (to verify the text is authentic), otherwise you have problems with the newer version which publishers want to publish for the sake of monetary return.

Again, this is assuming that the transcripts currently found and used for the AV, are the authentic original.  This is where we come to the crux.  Why do we assume this?  Why do the "minority text" folk assume this of their transcriptural basis?  Hence, I believe to be truly true to the word, one must be ecclectic.  Regardless, one must adhere to the word.  The greatest argument for the AV folk is that the missing verses, or words change or weaken doctrine.  Uniquely, no bible doctrine is based upon one verse!  I also argue that as I fail to see this to be true.

We have a real can of worms on our hands, with the new english translations begining with the NIV, so one must use discernment, and seek wisdom from the Spirit of God on this matter.

As I said before when you have the cults, agreeing with a translation, then christians should take notice, because it usually means something is not right in the translation if it agrees with their version of the scriptures and their teaching.

I agree!  However, when I tell others of your viewpoint that I have done so...it is met with sceptical disbelief.  How could I come to this conclusion by the same Spirit you've come to your conclusion by?  The answer I give is pointed.  I have studied both sides, both from a scriptural and a tutorial basis.  That is, I have studied the books, lectures, and teachings of the TR side - studied under Dr. Clinton Branine.  I then studied under the other side with the same practices.  I came to the decision I have come to by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and am convinced that this is where the truth lies.  There are few on the AV side who have done this.  Many have accepted what others have said, or shown them in the scriptures at face value.  These are, btw, good men showing them these things!  However, it is not man that we are to look to.  It is God.

I am not, just as a side note, implying that this is what you, or the others are doing.  Rather, I say this if on the occasion that this happens to be true, you might take my course as a confirmation or condemnation of your current position.

We reflect those under whose tutelage we sit.  I would rather reflect the Spirit than any man - whomever he might be.

[ebia]

For you and others that may not realize it, the KJV, contains pratically 80% of Wm Tyndale's translation "word for word", and the remainder would agree with  John Wycliffe's version of 1384.

I am perfectly well aware of this, but what has it got to do with the current discussion.

So to make a claim, that the KJV the only Authorized Version, somehow or other is foreign to previous english translations is lacking in substance.

I never made such a claim.

that the KJV the only Authorized Version

Try as I might, I can't figure out what you mean here.  Maybe its not important, but if it is can you spell it out?

The KJV, in many instances contain the exact english words translated by Tyndales translation, ei: The entire Chapter of Gen 33.

I know.

So what?

[ebia]

As I said before when you have the cults, agreeing with a translation, then christians should take notice, because it usually means something is not right in the translation if it agrees with their version of the scriptures and their teaching.

This is still a pathetic argument, but just to demonstrate how pathetic.

1.  JW's do not like the NIV - they prefer it to some others, but they still prefer their own translation because the NIV still contains the foundation of much doctrine that contradicts JW teachings (eg the beginning of the Gospel according to St John).

2.  If the fact that a cult or heretical group uses your translation is damning evidence, then the King James Only crowd are in big trouble, because the Mormon's insist on using that version.

Other than that, I think Allinall summed it up pretty well.

[Kris777]

What Bible version do you think is the most accurate anyone?

Opps. I now what you are going to say.  I mean ones that are in english.

[Brother Love]

What Bible version do you think is the most accurate anyone?

Opps. I now what you are going to say.  I mean ones that are in english.

KJV  

Brother Love