Are The New Bible Versions Today Really Sound? This Is Not A 'kjv Only' Post ...

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by The Town Crier, Jun 27, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. #1 The Town Crier, Jun 27, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2014
    Are the new versions of the Bible really trustworthy...? It is time to give some very serious consideration to this question, as it has real implications for the evangelical church today. This is absolutely not a ‘KJV only’ post- as that would be an insult to all Christians before 1611…Rather I am asking a question of a very different nature. Namely-why is the ‘church’ today so readily accepting new versions of the Bible that are derived from a manuscript that the Catholic Church is largely responsible for its conception? Most Christians do not realize that the majority of today’s Bible translations are derived from two Roman Catholic Church documents- Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus…

    Does it not seem strange to anyone that the Roman Catholic Church extols these very manuscripts that most of today’s Bibles come from? Given that the Catholic Church is so against Protestantism and Evangelicalism, you would think they would renounce these translations…But they don’t because they are the ones who are responsible for them coming to existence. So that begs the question; Why is the Roman Catholic Church so accepting of the evangelical/ protestant churches using these documents for the basis of their Bibles? Could it be because they more closely line up with Catholic doctrine than what people realize? Could it be that these translations are really a weapon of the Devil meant to destroy evangelical Christianity from within… I challenge you to read this small comparison of the two most popular Bibles in American Churches today ( The NIV and KJV) and decide for your own self whether or not there is a real problem with the new translations, since they do ultimately come from the Roman Catholic Church… Given that fact, it appears that the evangelical church today has been duped into reading Catholic Bible translations.

    Please read the PDF(15 pages) before you comment- as I am asking for your opinion and comments on it.

    Thanks in advance TC

    Attached Files:

  2. I enjoy referencing all English bible versions. I don;t worry about being led astray by any of them, as Holy Spirit can be trusted to interpret all truth to me---and to anyone who seeks it. There is no need to fear---or to sow fear!
    God is Love likes this.
  3. Wow! you must really be a fast reader as I just posted that minutes ago- oh wait, I just remembered- you are one of the few people who always ignores my request to read before commenting and instead post as though you already know what it says. Ignorance is bliss right...Please read it or don't post thank you for for honoring my request as a Christian should...

  4. The Catholic Church doesn't say anything because the Catholic Church doesn't matter anymore. Most modern day translations aren't that different from one another, just a few verses here and there. I agree with @Euphemia that the Holy spirit is what matters in understanding scripture.
    God is Love likes this.
  5. Looks like you decided to post without reading first...What is with people today that they cannot honor a simple request? If you do not want to read the PDF fine, but your post is of little value because I am looking for COMMENTS ON THE PDF :) hello can you honor a request and read the PDF or refrain from posting? PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP ...thank you

  6. Get over it. I don't read long boring pdf files. Your explanation in the thread was enough
    God is Love likes this.
  7. wow...great Christian speech - long... boring?- you didnt even read it so how do you know? It is 15 pages (about a 10 minute read)... Oh well, Have a great day and I will pray for you. Thanks in advance for not posting anymore until you have read it.

  8. What about this one? It's in English.
  9. You come up with all these pdfs and expect people to read them. Why not just post your own thoughts?
  10. ALWAYS? Silly! I read your post, but scanned the pdf WELL! LOL!
  11. The early versions of scripture were canonized long (and we're talking like 1,500 years) before the protestant reformation. So, in that case, I think it would be erroneous to believe that the Catholic Church is behind some conspiracy to propagate a "pro-catholic" bible. Also, there is nothing wrong with being Catholic.

    From what I know about translations, I tend to prefer the NIV for the most accurate modern day translation. The other major one is the NTL which I don't like because it plays it a little loose with interpretation due to its translation philosophy (that is Idea for Idea, rather than Word for Word).

    As I understand it, KJV is not the most accurate translation, but it does have a poetic quality that is appreciable.

    Still, I believe that the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts are the only truly "inerrant" versions, as translation will inevitably lead to human error and connotations and metaphors are not easily translated. However, if you don't speak Greek or Hebrew, I see absolutely nothing wrong with reading a modern day translation and most of them make their translation with deep consideration and spiritual counsel.
  12. LOL! That would be about as serious as a comic book. It is not included in any well-respected English version of the scriptures, and never will be. Do you use it for some reason?
  13. TC, if I had the opportunity to banish some people to Mars with just enough supplies to sustain them for eighty years,....alongside of Bill Gates and the windoze development team, you would find the niv translators.:cool:
    But I can't tar all modern translators with the same brush.
    As I read your post, I was reminded of one of the chief objections to the gospel. People look at the antics of the various churches and judge the gospel accordingly. I'm talking about glass cathedrals etc.etc.
    The point is and this I feel applies to your argument; just because you don't like the salesman, don't forgo buying a good and necessary product. Some people might not get the 'warm fuzzies' when thinking RC, but the honest work of their scholars should never be despised.

    Now, I have a question for you:
    Do you honestly think that Christians should be party to....or even the originators of conspiracy theories?
    DavidG likes this.
  14. No, I'm a King James kinda Christian. I only swing one way.
  15. What good is an English translation if you can't understand it, though?
  16. There are Anglish reading classes in most countries
  17. Seeiously? The title of your pdf is Why new bibles are doctrines of devils? Come on now? Do you really think God isn't capable of keeping the bible true to His word?
    God is Love likes this.
  18. Not 17th century English classes.
  19. Murphy- that is not actually true...Nowhere is there real documentation that the 'critical text is from 1500 years before the reformation. Having said that- Since you think such of the NIV- answer this question...DO you believe in the triune nature of the Godhead? Is Jesus God made flesh? If so- should a translation omit those things?


    The NIV removes that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one in 1 John 5:7-8:


    1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

    The NIV completely removes the triune Godhead in their version:

    NIV: For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

    The NIV also removes God’s name from Timothy 3:16-that clearly shows Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.


    1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


    16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

    He appeared in the flesh,
    was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
    was seen by angels,
    was preached among the nations,
    was believed on in the world,
    was taken up in glory.

    ‘He’ leaves an open door for the heretical teaching that Jesus was not the manifestation of God... The NIV does it again in 1 John 3:16. The KJV says that God laid down His life for us. The NIV changes ‘God’ laid down His life for us to ‘Jesus Christ’ removing yet another identifier of God being manifested in the flesh:

    KJV: 1Jn 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

    NIV: 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

    Why does the NIV (and other new versions) change those three places, when the Greek says ‘Theos’... And why would the places in the Bible that clearly show Jesus and God are one be removed?

    Now here is another fact for you...

    The NIV removes ‘Lord’ 39 times, ‘Christ’ 52 times, ‘Jesus’ 87 times and ‘God’ 13 times. Yep, the Lords name or His deity is removed over 190 times.Why is that?

    Here is some more for you...The NIV removes the Lords words in many places... Let’s look at the Lord’s prayer:


    Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

    Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

    Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

    Jesus red letter words are removed...Those two verses are missing from the NIV:


    hallowed be your name,
    your kingdom come.[b]3 Give us each day our daily bread.4 Forgive us our sins,
    for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[c]
    And lead us not into temptation.[d]’”

    The NIV omits ‘Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’ in Romans 8:


    Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    NIV: Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

    In the NIV, it is removed-thus hiding the ‘spiritual nature’ of those who are saved...

    The NIV omits Jesus words that they are spiritually minded disciples in Luke Chapter 9 removing the transforming power and purpose of Jesus:


    Luk 9:53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
    Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
    Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
    Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.And they went to another village.


    53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[b]?” 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them. 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village.

    Why the changes there?

    Here is one for you to explain...Jesus says He is the “morning star” in Revelation 22:16:


    Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

    The NIV gives Satan the name ’morning star’ in Isaiah 14:12:


    ISA 14-12: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!

    So then who is really the 'morning star'?

    How important is fasting to our faith? The NIV removes it in several verses:

    Example 1: Mark 9:29

    KJV: And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

    NIV: He replied, This kind can come out only by prayer.

    Example 2: Acts 10:30

    KJV : And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,

    NIV: Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. suddenly a man in shining clothing stood before me"

    Example 3: Matthew 17: 21

    KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

    NIV: Matthew 17:21 is completely omitted and instead a ‘footnote’ given that similar words appear in Mark...They flat out remove Jesus ‘red letter’ words of power!

    Example 4: 1Corinthians 7:5

    KJV: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

    NIV: Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

    The act of fasting is denying the flesh. It is an acknowledgement that we believe. The act of fasting is also a way that we grow in grace (spiritual strength). Why would the writers omit fasting- given that it is so important? Selah...(consider it)

    This is a very small sample of thousands of errors in the new versions. Not just because of translation work- but because the manuscript they come from is different. It came mostly from Catholics texts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

    They were used by two heretics named Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) to make the ‘revised’ Greek New testament that most versions today come from. These two people did not believe in the deity of Jesus, the infallibility of scriptures, the second coming of Jesus Christ or His 1,000-year reign on earth. They also did not believe in the triune Godhead or in a literal devil either. They did however believe heavily in doctrines of the Roman Catholic church as evidenced by their own words. Let’s look at a few of their ‘beliefs’...

    Believed in Mary worship:

    "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common."

    (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)

    Were pro Roman Catholic:

    "The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

    (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

    Disputed that Jesus is the Word:

    "(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

    Rejected the infallibility of Scripture:

    "I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

    Didn’t believe Genesis was an actual account of Creation:

    "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." (Westcott, from Which Bible?, p. 191).

    Had an infatuation with the teachings of Darwin:

    "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

    (Hort, from Which Bible?, p. 189)

    Hort believed that they were starting a new ‘church period’:

    "It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)

    He was right...and their aim was intentional. The fact is, the new ‘bibles’ are not sound doctrine. They are based upon faulty manuscripts from people who did not really believe the gospel. Consider this...Why does the Roman Catholic Church promote documents that are supposedly ‘Protestant’ in nature when they are against Protestantism? Do your own research on the true history of those texts, and then test the beliefs of the ‘translators’ with scripture... You will find serious problems.

    The NIV is just the worst of the offenders.

  20. It seems quite understandable to me.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page