MODERN VERSION WIMP

Psalms 78:36 (KJB) Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

*************************************

Psalms 78:36 (NASB) But they DECEIVED Him with their mouth, And lied to Him with their tongue.

Psalm 78:36 (YLT) And -- they DECEIVE Him with their mouth, And with their tongue do lie to Him,

The god of the MVs was able to be DECEIVED! So when I say the god of the MVs is an impotent wimp - here is the proof, right from the MVs!

HERETIC or DIVISIVE?

I have also found several big websites on the internet that now list King James Bible Onlyism under their section titled "Heresies". In today's messed up and apostate world the every day Bible believing Christian is labeled DIVISIVE simply because he or she insists that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation from sin, death and hell, and will not go along with the rest of the group that tells us there are many ways to God, be it New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Islam religion or whatever. Funny how things get turned upside down, isn't it?

Let's look at all the verses where variants of the same Greek (and English) word are used and see if heretic or divisive fits better:

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call divisive, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

With the context being what Paul BELIEVED, heresy fits much better than divisive.

1 Cor 11:18-19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Being that "divisions" occurs in verse 18, and is from a different Greek word than "heresies" in verse 19, heresies makes much more sense in verse 19.

Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, divisions, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

With variance, strife, and seditions already mentioned in this passage, divisions would've been a bit redundant.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable divisions, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

With the context being FALSE PROPHETS and FALSE TEACHERS, heresies makes a lot more sense than divisions.

The same Greek word is also translated five times in Acts as "sect", which goes alone with heresy much better than with division.

Titus 3:10 A man that is divisive after the first and second admonition reject;

Since Jesus, and other orthodox men, can be very divisive, but Jesus is certainly not a heretick to be rejected, divisive does not fit here. Heretick does.

CAN YOUR VERSION COUNT TO TEN?

MORE than 10 days: (Acts 25:6)

KJB And when he had tarried among them more than ten days

Nkjv And when he had remained among them more than ten days,  

10 days or LESS:

DOUAY And having tarried among them no more than eight or ten days

ESV After he stayed among them not more than eight or ten days

ASV And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days

NASB After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them

CEB He stayed with them for no more than eight or ten days

HCS When he had spent not more than eight or 10 days among them

NLT About eight or ten days later Festus returned

Mes About eight or ten days later, Festus returned

NIV After spending eight or ten days with them, Festus went

TNIV After spending eight or ten days with them, Festus went

CEV Festus stayed in Jerusalem for eight or ten more days before going

GNT Festus spent another eight or ten days with them 

Which reading is TRUE? Can the FALSE readings be the word of God? Should you trust a Bible version that can't count to ten? This is not just a synonymous word. This is an error of FACT that disqualifies the modern versions as the word of God.

MARK 16:9-20

We just had a discussion about this portion of scripture being omitted from the Alexandrian mss (textus corruptus). Providentially, we had Dr. Phil Stringer in today to do a mini-KJB seminar. He used this passage in the morning sermon.

He recounted how as a young bus kid, he simply believed the Bible. Then he read Scofield's note on this passage and began to have questions. Then he went to Bible college and heard some claims about the passage and began to doubt. So he studied it himself.

First he looked at the text.

Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

That would be a horrible place to end a gospel - the apostles afraid because Jesus had died.

Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Not only does the disputed passage begin with the minor doctrine of the resurrection (must be a minor doctrine since the modern versions do not affect any serious doctrines, right?) but it details many of the people who WITNESSED Jesus AFTER the resurrection (obviously another insignificant doctrine).

Then he checked the manuscript evidence. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omitted the passage, but one of them had a blank space the size of the omission, indicating the reading was there at one point.

Then he checked the next 15 claimed oldest mss. 15 of 15 included the reading. Then he broadened his search and checked the next 300 oldest versions. 300 of 300 include the passage.

So of the 317 of the supposedly oldest mss, the passage was included in 315 of them. And based on that - they remove it from modern versions, or place footnotes doubting its authenticity.

Nah, it's removed because Satan doesn't like what it says. And his crowd and his versions remove it.

MARK OF THE MODERN VERSIONS

Rev 13:16-17 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark *IN* their right hand, or *IN* their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Several precursors to this chip have been publicized, but they are generally claimed to be for pets, children, invalids, and such. Recently (2012), some school students have been forced to receive implanted chips. This is the first one that admits it's purpose is for humans to buy and sell - just like the Bible said 2,000 years ago. Of course if you don't have a KJB, your modern version probably says "on" the hand and forehead, instead of *in*. Once again, the KJB hits it right on the mark and the modern versions fail.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35766

Bio-chip implant arrives for cashless transactions

******************

Mark of the MVs

We're not supposed to take the mark of the beast, right? That wouldn't be a good thing, would it?  The KJV says the mark will in IN their right hand or in their foreheads.

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

But the modern perversions say not to take the mark ON the hand or forehead. So any mark going IN is ok? Like all the recent microchip technology?:

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

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

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

Rev 13:16 (NIV) He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark *on* his right hand *or* on his forehead,

Even the NEW kjv does it!

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

Modern perversion proponents will be set up to take the mark of the beast because they will not recognize it because their versions only give the "message", not the correct WORD.

Mat 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

It won't be hard to do, the false Christs can use the false Bibles to get those who believe and obey the false versions to take the mark of the beast.

The corollary to this is:

Eph 1:13 (KJV)  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were *sealed* with that holy Spirit of promise,

Sealed is not the same as marked.

Eph 1:13 (NIV)  And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.  Having believed, you were *marked* in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit

Well lookie there! The KJV says don't take a mark *IN* your hand or forehead, the perversions say don't take a mark *ON* your head or forehead, but it's okay to get a mark, in fact getting a mark is a sign of being saved and secure. Something, eh! The NIV supports the mark of the beast already. Can't you just see folks turning to their NIV to prove the mark IS what God wants you to take in the tribulation?

Some  point to Revelation 20:4, "...neither had received his mark upon their foreheads..."

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

Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark *in* his forehead, or *in* his hand,

Even the verse in question:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or *IN* their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Mark in = 5
Mark upon = 1
Mark on = 0
     
Either way, MVers will still not be looking for a mark *in* the hand or forehead, but KJV believers will not be fooled. In fact, here are the modern versions IN ACTION on this very thing!

http://www.bible-prophecy.com/antichrist.htm

{{ Notice that the number is to be placed *on* the right hand or *on* the forehead. This is an obvious, external symbol of compliance - even of worship - of Antichrist. It is not an invisible tattoo or an implanted transponders chip implants, even though these things might also be employed to make all of this possible. }}

The MVs really do "miss the mark".

SODOMITE or SHRINE PROSTITUTE?

The Hebrew word for "sodomite" is qAdesh. The Hebrew word for "holy" is qOdesh. In other words, the consonants for both words are exactly the same. Only a slight difference in the vowel alters the meaning of the word.

That is, what was once holy is now unclean. What was once right is now wrong. Ergo, the OPPOSITE of holy, pure, good, righteous, etc., is mandated here.

Sodomite covers that meaning perfectly, especially since the account of Sodom and Gomorrah was displayed before the term was ever used. That is, the term "sodomite" was particularly defined by the events of Genesis where God's judgment came on Sodom for the men having relations with men. We know what a "sodomite" is because it was elaborately defined already.

I have no idea what a shrine prostitute is. I have never seen one. Neither did the writers of the other ancient versions. Additionally, a sodomite would be led to think he was not engaged in sin, so long as he was not selling himself at a shrine.

The Latin Vulgate uses the word "effemenati", making it obvious how they viewed the Hebrew word "qadesh". The German Luther Bible used the word "Hurer" which means lecher or a male fornicator. There are several different Greek words employed for the Hebrew qadesh here in the so-called LXX, yet each one implies "sodomite" which is no doubt why Brenton's English translation of the LXX renders the Greek into English as "sodomite".

In short, the word "sodomite" is as old as the English language, and its meaning is clear. A shrine prostitute - whatever that is - does not accurately convey the meaning. I do not find anywhere in the Genesis account that the men of Sodom were hanging around shrines. I do not find the word shrine or any implication thereof in the Sodom and Gomorrah account. I do remember that it was the "MEN" of Sodom who were "wicked before the Lord".

adapted from Scott Jones

BELIEVE VS. OBEY

In John 3:36, Acts 14:2, 17:4, 19:9, 27:11, 28:24, Rom 11:30, 31,32, 15:31, Heb 3:18, 4:6, 4:11, and 11:31 the KJB uses some variant of BELIEVE, while most of the modern versions, in all these verses use a variant of OBEY.

Salvation is by FAITH (belief), not WORKS (obedience). Why would a version put the emphasis on WORKS in over a dozen verses where the KJB puts the emphasis on BELIEF?

This is not to discount the importance of obeying God, but to consistently appeal to obedience when the emphasis should be on belief can mislead a seeking person into thinking salvation is of works rather than faith.

Who would be behind such changes?

GIANTS or NEPHILIM?

KJB Gen 6:4 There were GIANTS in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

(NIV) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ...
(ASV) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days ...
(ESV) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ...
(CEV) ... Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time ...
(NASB)  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ...
(RSV) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ...

What is a Nephilim? I thought it was the King James that was supposed to be difficult and archaic? Nephilim is the Hebrew word. Why didn't the modern versions translate it into English so we could understand it?

Addendum 7-14-09:

I subscribe to "Bible and Spade", a biblical archaeology journal. Although they are the most conservative biblical archaeology group I'm aware of, they still appeal to the modern versions and sometimes the Alexandrian texts. The take the position that "Red Sea" was a mistranslation, even in the original Greek quotes of the OT Hebrew.

But they are one of the authorities on Bible events of antiquity. In their current issue (Spring '09) I read an interesting accounting in an article on the Genesis 6 "sons of God" by David Livingston. The authority on antiquity in scripture (and I say that seriously, not sarcastically) has this to say:

{{ "Giants" in verse 4 may mean tall men. }}

Noooooo? You mean the KJB was right all along?

{{ The word niphal [TG: root of Nephilim] refers sometimes in Scripture to men of large stature. }}

You mean like GIANTS?!?!

{{ But it also means "to fall". It may have a double meaning here - tall mean who ... sin grossly. }}

Wow. Sounds just like the GIANTS of Gen 6 in the KJB English.

So after all that scholarship, but textual and archaeological, we come to the realization that the KJB was right in the first place.

UNICORN WAS on the ARK!

There is so much misinformation about the word UNICORN, which the AV uses nine times in the OT, translating it from the Hebrew word REEM. Modern bibles mostly translate this word as WILD OX or something of that nature.

The AV, however, renders the Hebrew word REEM as UNICORN, and UNICORN as employed by the AV, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Matthew, Coverdale, et cetera, is NOT a mythical creature, nor did the AV translators or anybody else in that age think of it as such.

Observe -In Isaiah 34:7 in the 1611 edition the AV translators wrote two slashes || in front of the word UNICORN. Those slashes are known as a siglum, and the 1611 edition makes use of sigla throughout. In the adjacent margin - directly across from this siglum - the AV translators repeat that same siglum, i.e., they write the same two slashes ||, and then immediately after that they write -

"or Rhinocerots"

which was the term for the RHINOCEROS in 1611, derived from the Latin UNICORNIS and the Greek MONOKEROS, both meaning ONE-HORNED, and both referring to the RHINOCEROS type creature.

In other words, the AV translators themselves stated that they were equating UNICORN with RHINOCEROS. They employed UNICORN as a specific type of RHINOCEROS to further indicate that they were referring to a RHINO with a SINGLE HORN, for the SINGLE HORN has spiritual significance in the Bible. That is how everyone understood the passage until scholars arose who can't speak Latin and who know absolutely nothing about the subject of the Bible, all their pretensions notwithstanding.

Now since the AV translators made it plain that they were talking about the RHINOCEROS - for it comes from their own lips - only a complete ignoramus would assert that they were referring to a mythical creature.

Further still, the AV translators were masters of the patristic literature, including Jerome, who in the 4th century translated the Hebrew word REEM as RHINOCEROTIS five times and UNICORNIS four times. Did you get that? Jerome translated this SAME Hebrew word as RHINOCEROTIS and UNICORNIS. Jerome studied Hebrew for years under the Jews before he began his translation of the OT, thus it is from the Jews that Jerome derived his definitions.

As just stated, the AV translators were EMINENTLY familiar with all of this, as well as statements by others, such as Tertullian in ca 200 who also mentions the RHINOCEROS in the OT passage which the AV translates as UNICORN.

Finally, the UNICORN symbolizes the strength of Israel. A wild ox simply doesn't fill the bill. For example, observe this rhetorical question -

Job 39:9-10 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

 This passage clearly indicates that the animal in question is untamable. Modern bibles such as the NKJ, NASB, NIV, et cetera, use the term WILD OX here, which once again demonstrates the incompetence of modern translators. In fact, wild oxen are tamed every day. Wild oxen do not symbolize anything but servitude.

The UNICORN symbolizes the strength of Israel, and this is how the word is employed in this passage and the others.

Indeed, notice what the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge says about this matter -

"The REEM, most probably denotes the RHINOCEROS, so called from the horn on its nose. In size he is only exceeded by the elephant; and in strength and power inferior to none. He is at least twelve feet in length, from the snout to the tail; six or seven feet in height; and the circumference of the body is nearly equal to his length. He is particularly distinguished from all other animals by the remarkable and offensive weapon he carries on his nose; which is very hard horn, solid throughout, directed forward."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown concurs -

"Israel is not as they were at the Exodus, a horde of poor, feeble, spiritless people, but powerful and invincible as a REEM --THAT IS, A RHINOCEROS."

Only in the past hundred years or so, when scholars no longer understand Latin and the cognitive relationship of Latin and Greek to English, as well as a virtual bankruptcy of knowledge of the patristic and rabbinic literature, not to mention that their Hebrew grammars are all based on theories which postulate that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, that Daniel wasn't written until the Maccabean period, ad nauseam, have scholars substituted the utterly absurd WILD OX for the glorious UNICORN, which alone symbolizes the strength of Israel in these contexts.

In summary, the UNICORN is NOT a mythical creature. The UNICORN from the earliest times has meant ONE-HORNED and has ALWAYS referred to the Rhinoceros.

As to the SINGLE HORN, it should be known that the Indian Rhinoceros, whose scientific appellation is RHINOCEROS UNICORNIS, is a Rhino with a single horn, is as big as the African Rhino, and is the only Rhino whose skin is so thick that its folds make it appear armor-plated, and whose territory was vastly more expanded in ancient times than it is today. And it's even called a unicorn today!

THE GREAT GOD and OUR SAVIOUR

In his book, "One Book Stands Alone", Bro. Doug Stauffer has given some excellent reasons for the superiority of the KJV for some of the verses it is most heavily attacked for.

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

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.

The MV lackeys think they have found a problem with the KJV, that it denies the deity of Jesus Christ. To the contrary, it affirms some vital doctrine.

First, the English construction accurately translates the Greek phenomenon called a hendiadys (making one from two) in these passages. But, more than that, these verses affirm that there is but ONE true God, and that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Saviour.

Note that the verses say, "THE great/only God and OUR Lord Jesus Christ. God is indeed THE only God. He is God of the saved and lost alike, the God of all. But Jesus is not the Saviour of all, He is only the Saviour of those who believe, He is OUR Saviour - He is not *their* Saviour. Though He OFFERS salvation to all,  He is not the Saviour of ALL, He is the Saviour of all who believe.

Thus, the KJV is right again. And the seemingly innocuous words like "the" are sometimes vital.

Oh, BTW, the modern perversions, trying to clarify and improve on the KJV, rend the passage, "OUR great God and Saviour", which implies there can be *other* great gods, OUR great God, and their great god.

Thus, the modern perversions are wrong again.

EVERY WORD of God is pure! The modern dishrags don't have the same "message" because they don't have the right words.

BORN AGAIN

WHO NEEDS TO BE BORN AGAIN?

KJV John 3:7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

He spoke unto Nicodemus (singular) that YE (plural - ALL of them)) must be born again.

NIV John 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

Only Nicodemus must be born again in the NIV.

NASB John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Only Nicodemus must be born again in the NASB.

LNT John 3:7 So don't be surprised at my statement that you must be born again.

Only Nicodemus must be born again in the Living Bible.

NKJV John 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again.'

Only Nicodemus must be born again even in the NEW kjv! The modern versions contain the same message', do they? Apparently being born again is not part of that 'message'.

FALSE PROPHETS

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Almost every other English version credits Isaiah with the quotes in verse two and verse three. He did write was was quoted in verse three, but it was Malachi who said what was quoted here in verse two. That is an outright error in the other versions.

The Alexandrian manuscripts (that the modern versions follow, rather than the Textus Receptus behind the KJB) don't stop there.

Matt 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

When we approach the reading of Aleph we discover that it reads, "dia Hsaiou tou profhtou" or "by Isaiah the prophet". The fact is Matthew is quoting Psalm 78:2, which is a Psalm of Asaph and not of Isaiah. Oops!

Of course the MVs know this is a mistake they cannot explain even by wresting scripture, so they make the appropriate 'correction' in their English versions. All this does is indicate that the MVs don't even translate their own underlying texts accurately. Of course if they did, they'd also have to include such blasphemy as having the soldier kill Jesus rather than Him giving up His life willingly, death being swallowed up in controversy instead of victory, and Jesus praying for His disciples to be put under the power of Satan, in addition to this blunder.

MOTHER MARY

John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Those pesky, difficult, archaic thees, thous, and thys!

The word "thy" in this passage is singular, limiting the application to the apostle John. If you replace "thy" with "your", as does almost every other version (including the ESV), it can be plural. That's the way the Catholic Church interprets it when they use this passage to tell us Mary is our mother and should be venerated.

But the modern versions don't make any important changes or affect any doctrine. Apparently, the veneration of Mary, equal to or above Jesus Christ, is not an important doctrine to the modern versions.

JESUS LIED!

No important doctrine is affected by changes in the modern versions, according to a couple of brassy women in here recently.

Well, is Jesus being truth an important doctrine? Is Jesus being God an important doctrine? Is Jesus being honest important?

Let's look at the exclusion of ONE little word in one little verse (John 7:8) and see if the various versions all have the "same message":

NASB 8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."

NLT 8 You go on. I’m not going to this festival, because my time has not yet come.”

ESV 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."

CEV 8 Go on to the festival. My time hasn't yet come, and I am not going."

ASV 8 Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.

TNIV 8 You go to the Festival. I am not going up to this Festival, because my time has not yet fully come." 

These six major modern versions have Jesus telling His disciples He was not going to the feast. Never mind the fact that not going was probably a sin for a Jew - the issue here is that Jesus DID go to the feast (verse 10). That means Jesus LIED to His disciples in these versions. He DECEIVED them.

John 7:8 KJB Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

Well, well. One little word makes all the difference. The KJB does not make a liar out of Jesus. The NIV, Nkjv, and some others, oppose themselves by including the word with a footnote suggesting it shouldn't be there. The above versions have Jesus telling a lie, meaning He's not "the way, the truth, and the life", nor is He God "which cannot lie". But those are not important doctrines according to modern versionists.

 It turns out some textual critics prefer the modern rendering because it makes Jesus a liar! They want Jesus to be a sinner! They want to bring Him down to their level. The only problem is that if Jesus was a sinner, He wouldn't be able to be a Saviour - He'd need one Himself.

We see this same thing in the verses where modern versions give Jesus an "origin" from "ages past", and make Him a "begotten god".

Canons of Criticism - Bob Waltz http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/CanonsOfCrit.html
   D K 1241 1071 1241 a b c e ff2 vg sin cur bo arm geo al read "I am not going to this festival."
P66 P75 B L T W Q 070 0250 33 892 Byz have "I am not yet going to this festival."
The first reading is to be preferred because it implies that Jesus either lied or changed his mind.  
Arthur Schopenhauer (likely using a Tregelles or Tischendorf text)
"Jesus Christ himself is reported on one occasion to have intentionally told an untruth"
(The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics - English translation of 1881 German edition)

BETTER TO OBEY ANY VERSION?

Burger King versionists ("Have it your way!") insist it's okay to believe any Bible, so long as we truly obey it. Here is an example of what can happen if you believe and obey the modern versions:

(KJB) Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Here is a hypothetical story applicable to this verse:

A certain church was visited by some "Heaven's Gate Jim Jones Grape Kool-Aid" cultists. The Pastor, trying to be a good shepherd to his flock, warned them about the visitors. He told them that these people were cultists and heretics and that his people should reject them after admonishing them to receive Christ and get right with God.

Of course this caused no small stir among the Kool-Aid cultists,  and some of the Pastor's congregation, who accused the Pastor of not showing Christian love or tolerance, and being divisive.

The Pastor stood his ground. Most of his congregation appreciated his steadfastness and protection, and they killed a fatted calf and celebrated as most Baptists are wont to do. Amen.

Now let's look at how the modern versions rend this verse:

(NIV) Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

(ASV) A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse;

(NASB) Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,

(NLT) If anyone is causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with that person.

(RSV) As for a man who is factious , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

(ESV) As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

(CEV) Warn troublemakers once or twice. Then don't have anything else to do with them.

(HCSV) Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning, 

(TNIV) Warn divisive people once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

(NKJ) Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,

The other versions would have you to REJECT the Pastor, and have NOTHING to do with him, in the parable for being DIVISIVE instead of avoiding the HERETICS! Some of the versions try to make the archaic KJB English "easier to understand" by using "factious", but that's a more difficult and archaic synonym for "divisive".

A secondary error is that the modern versions say to AVOID the offender, whereas the KJB says to REJECT him. There is a difference. We reject Roman Catholic heresy, we don't avoid Roman Catholics. We preach the gospel to them.

It gets worse!

Mat 25:31-32  When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Luke 12:51  Suppose ye that I [Jesus!] am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

John 7:43  So there was a division among the people because of him [Jesus!].

John 9:16  Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

John 10:19  There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings [of Jesus!].

This Jesus is constantly DIVIDING and causing DIVISION. All the modern versions listed above tell you to AVOID such a DIVISIVE man. Are you going to obey the modern versions?

Certainly Jesus was indeed a divisive man, but He was not a heretic. The KJB tells us to reject heretics. The modern perversions (including the NKJ) tell us to AVOID AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A DIVISIVE MAN LIKE JESUS!

Are you going to obey the KJB, or the perversions?

WHAT VERSE SAYS KJB?

Another commonly parroted question is, "Where in the Bible does it say the King James Version is the only true English Bible?" For example:

{{ Do you have a verse that KJV is the one and all other translations, including the ones kjv came from are not? }}

First, what is this Bible you speak of? Some translation containing errors? But, to answer your question, Yes.

1 Tim 3:15  ... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (the truth being the scripture, John 17:17). Only ONE Bible version can be pointed to as having general recognition from the overall body of Christ - the KJB. Even many places which speak other languages use the KJB when they recognize they don't have an accurate translation in their own language (i.e. Philippines, Kenya, China).


And here's another verse:

1 Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The KJB has been PROVED to be GOOD over 400 years. The modern versions fail one after another. Few have a shelf life of over 4 years let alone 40, much less 400.

The KJB is the ONLY English Bible to meet that criteria.

Now tell me, in the past half century (century, or four centuries):

Which Bible has caused the most conversions, the KJB or the Greek?

Which Bible has built more churches, the KJB or the Greek?

Which Bible has called the most preachers, the KJB or the Greek?

Which Bible has sent the most missionaries, the KJB or the Greek?

Which Bible has been printed and distributed more, the KJB or the Greek?

Which Bible has led to the most revivals, the KJB or the Greek?

Need I continue? By ANY measure, the KJB is the Bible God uses and blesses. Apparently the English is more able to accomplish God's will than the Greek of today. If the English was not pure, inspired scripture, why would God use it instead of the Greek? Why would God give us second best when the best was available?

If God could move from Hebrew to Greek, why couldn't He move to English? God created all of those languages. In fact, the pre-KJB English Bibles were used more than the Greek before 1611 and the Latin Bibles before them. God is not bound to one or two languages. You are putting God in a box. If God wanted to, He could have His pure, inerrant word in French or Swahili and use & bless it above all others. But God was wise enough to use the language that would reach most of the world (that's kind of the idea, right?). Greek does not do that.

You NEED your Hebrew and Greek experts to tell you what God really meant. You can't be certain the verses you trust for your salvation are accurate without those experts. They are your real final authority and god. I need the Bible on my desk - the word of God, the inspired scripture.

Even on a human scale, I'd put my experts, the KJB translators, up against your experts, and come out way ahead. But I'd rather trust that God preserved His pure scripture like He promised.

DO MVers LOVE JESUS?

In a word: no.

That sounds harsh, but here's why:

John 14:23-24 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. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

How can we love Jesus and keep His words, when we don't have His words? If all we have is errant copies, we don't have His words. We cannot keep His sayings, no matter how badly we want to, and we can't love Jesus.

To keep God's words would include obeying them as well as reading, studying, and memorizing them, which would require actually HAVING them.

A Burger King version adherent doesn't even HAVE the pure word of God. Thus he can't read, study, or memorize the pure word of God. Therefore, a modern versionist cannot love Jesus, since he CANNOT KEEP God's pure words.

In fact, a mv advocate doesn't even believe GOD could keep His own words, much less than we could. If an mv advocate claims he can keep God's pure words, even though God couldn't, he is admitting that he is an authority over God and God's word.

Is SALVATION an "important doctrine"?

The anyversionists claim that the "message" is still retained in the modern versions, that no important doctrine is messed with. As we'll see, apparently salvation is not an important doctrine to modern version supporters:

Is the "narrow way" HARD?

KJV Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

ESV 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Holman 14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

CEV 14 But the gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it.

Nkjv 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

The modern versions make salvation hard/difficult, when it is actually quite easy. That's a serious difference dealing with the vital doctrine of salvation.

The narrow way is EASY. Getting saved is easy, just believe on Jesus Christ. No effort at all. The scriptural examples of how easy it is are things like, opening a door, drinking water, eating bread, and all them actually require more effort than believing on Jesus.

Living for Christ is EASY, even though Christian sissies (which can be any of us) might sometimes think it's hard.

Mt 11:30  For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light.

Pr 13:15  ... the way of transgressors is HARD.

Now YOU might think the narrow way (either getting saved or walking with Christ) is hard or difficult, but God says it is easy. If you disagree, your disagreement is not with me, it's with God. Take it up with him, set him straight on the matter.

We see a similar phenomenon here.

Is it HARD to get into God's kingdom?

KJV Mark 10:24  And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

The KJV notes that it is hard for those who TRUST in RICHES to enter the kingdom - that's because we must TRUST in CHRIST - and then entering the kingdom is EASY. But the modern versions still make it hard:

NIV The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" (the NASV reads almost the same)

NASB The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Holman But the disciples were astonished at His words. Again Jesus said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NWT But the disciples gave way to surprise at his words. In response Jesus again said to them: "Children, how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!"

ESV And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NLT This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to get into the Kingdom of God."

CEV The disciples were shocked to hear this. So Jesus told them again, "It's terribly hard to get into God's kingdom!" 

Now it is not just hard, not just difficult, not just very hard, it is now terribly hard. At this rate the next version that comes out will have to say "it is impossible".

Why do the modern versions omit the vital words "TRUST IN RICHES"? Prominent KJV naysayer James White says, "This variant gives us an instance where the modern texts follow a very small minority of Greek texts (White, The King James Only Controversy, p.169)."

The truth of the matter is that the United Bible Society and the Nestle/Aland Greek texts can muster only 4 (that's four) Greek MSS. that omit the phrase, viz. the ever untrustworthy Sinai and Vatican Codices, D (Delta) and Y (Psi).

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) rests on much greater manuscript evidence than our present example, yet it is rejected by these Bible critics as spurious. This simply shows the selective deceit they exhibit when wanting to find error in the KJV.

(Some of this material was stolen from Marty Shue)

Was ADAM MADE or did he BECOME?

Look at this one in the NIV:

God’s word describes Adam as being “made a living soul.” The NIV, however, follows the evolutionary philosophy of the world and changes God’s word to say that Adam “became a living being.” In the NIV man was not created,but instead just “became.” This evolutionary slant fits in nicely with the Roman Catholic teachings.

KJB 1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul.

NIV 1 Cor 15:45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being.”

Besides promoting or opening the door for evolution (and the evolution compromises like Theistic evolution or Rossism), the NIV translation is just plain ridiculous. It directly implies that the first man Adam was not a "living being" when he first appeared. It omits the idea of Adam being MADE, and doesn't tell us how he got here. But when he was first here, he was not yet a "living being"; He had to "become" a living being. And the word is NOT "being" it is SOUL.

Satan is indeed subtil, but since he has already gotten away with so much in all these fake Bible versions that NOBODY believes are the infallible words of God anyway, now he is getting even more bold in his perversions.

Stolen from Will Kinney

MV HALF-BAKED JESUS

My claim:

"the modern versions portray (Jesus) as a mere human with an inherited sin nature like the rest of us."

A modern version advocate response:

I have yet to see this in any evangelical modern version. Please give examples for the New American Standard as well as the New King James.

SAME ORIGIN

(KJV) Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

(RSV) For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

(ESV) For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers.

Here's a subtle, but important difference there. Of course the serpent was the most subtle of all creatures, so we know where the subtle changes come from. We are one in Christ, but we do not have the same origin - Christ has no origin (except in the modern versions as we'll see). We have origins. The RSV and ESV have just brought Jesus Christ down to our mortal level. They have made a mere man out of Jesus, which means he NEEDS a Saviour himself - he certainly can't BE one.

ANCIENT ORIGINS

(KJV) Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, from EVERLASTING.

This is a clear prophecy of Jesus Christ. Prophecy is one of the key proofs that the Bible is the Supernatural word of God. And this is one of the most stunning prophecies of Jesus Christ - it gives the very town He will be born in, what family He'll belong to, and some specific things about His life - all in one little verse written 700 years before Jesus was born. Let's see the daily horoscope try that! Surely no Bible version would mess up at such an important place.

(NIV) ... whose ORIGINS are from of old, from ANCIENT times.

What? Whose origins? From old, ancient times? Either that's not talking about Jesus, or they are making Jesus into a created god like the cults do.

(RSV) ... whose ORIGIN is from of old, from ANCIENT days.

Oh oh, same thing.

(NLT) ... one whose ORIGINS are from the DISTANT PAST.

(CEV) ... someone whose FAMILY goes back to ANCIENT times.

(ESV) ... whose ORIGIN is from of old, from ANCIENT days.

His origins are from the distant past. No, that's not better at all, it still strips Jesus Christ of His deity and makes Him a created false god. He is not the everlasting Word/Son of God.

How can a Christian convince an evolutionist from such versions? We're supposed to be apt to teach and able to convince the gainsayers of God's truth. How can we do that with a Bible version that says what they believe? And that's what they do say! That's why we call them per-versions. How can a Christian witness to a lost person and tell Him about Jesus when the lost evolutionist can grab almost any modern version and show that Jesus wasn't God, He had an origin, and He wasn't the Creator! The multi-version creationists have a different Creator than the King James Bible!

Those two verses should be enough to make any Christian with the brain waves of lime jello chuck his fake Bible and get the real one. 

CREATED BY WHO? WHEN?

(KJV) Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the BEGINNING of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things BY JESUS CHRIST:

Let's try the supposed 'best-seller', the 'conservative' NIV:

(NIV) ... which for AGES PAST was kept hidden in God, who created all things. [by nobody]

Ages past? What does that tell you? Not much. Not as much as "from the beginning" - that is specific, settled. And Somebody is missing from the verse. Who might that be? Only Jesus Christ - apparently nobody important if you want to have a Bible version with the "same message".

(NASB) ... which for AGES has been hidden in God who created all things; [by nobody]

Same problems.

(ASV) ... which for AGES hath been hid in God who created all things; [by nobody]

Same again - it's a conspiracy! Let's try the liberal versions.

(RSV) ... mystery hidden for AGES in God who created all things; [by nobody]

(ESV) ... mystery hidden for AGES in God who created all things, [by nobody]

(NLT) ... God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning. [by nobody]

(CEV) God, who created everything [by nobody], wanted me to help everyone understand the mysterious plan that had always been hidden in his mind. 

Hey! Two versions (NLT & CEV) that got it half right! Except they left out Jesus too. What good are all these versions (seven, yeah eight of the most popular) that leave out Jesus? BTW, Jesus Christ is in the Greek Textus Receptus here. My Nestles Alexandrian Greek text omits Jesus Christ, but has a footnote, and the critical apparatus lists several Alexandrian texts that contain Jesus Christ. Why would a modern version want to take Jesus Christ out of the Bible? Who would be the inspiration for that?

Maybe the New KJV get is right. That's translated from the same manuscripts, they say.

(NKJV) ... which from the beginning of the AGES has been hidden in God who created all things THROUGH Jesus Christ;

Closer, but still not there. "Beginning of the ages" sounds like a compromise of a politically correct liberal politician. Even the NotKJV doesn't have Jesus Christ actually doing the creating. The Real King James has the creation done BY Him, but the New King James has the creation done "through" Him, which can mean almost anything. That sounds like a politically correct Catholic liberal politician.

Is removing Jesus Christ only a "minor" change that "doesn't affect any doctrine" and has the "same message"?

It is essential to specify Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Word of God made flesh, as the Creator. That's one of the great ways to prove that Jesus is deity, that He is God. The modern versions have diluted the doctrine of the deity of Christ - yet they claim they don't affect any major doctrine. Apparently the Godhood of Christ is not a major doctrine to modern version editors - and it isn't, if you read some of what they say.

How can you witness to a lost evolutionist (or any lost person), that Jesus Christ is the Creator, when they can take virtually ANY popular modern version and find Him stricken from this verse? Here's another similar passage:

ONLY BEGOTTEN WHO? WHAT?

(KJV) John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(NIV) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

(ESV) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

The NIV and ESV call the One at the Father's side, "God the One and Only" and "the only God". Does that mean the Father is not God? The verse doesn't even say that Jesus is God's Son at all here, it refers to THE Father. That doesn't even say He's Jesus' Father!

(NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

(AMP) No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only BEGOTTEN GOD, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

The NASB and Amplified read along with the JWs NWT doctrine and makes Jesus a BEGOTTEN GOD, instead of a begotten SON. Yet, MVers will reject the NWT and accept the NASB or Amplified as "valid" Bibles, despite this BLATANT DAMNABLE HERESY of making Jesus a CREATED god. For this one horrific heresy alone, the NASB should be rejected by anyone with the spiritual discernment of a dried raison.

(RSV) No one has ever seen God; the ONLY SON, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

(NLT) No one has ever seen God. But his ONLY SON, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.

(CEV) No one has ever seen God. The ONLY SON, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like. 

The RSV, NLT, and CEV err in the other direction. Whereas the others omit the word "Son", these omit the word "begotten". So now we have Jesus being the ONLY Son of God. Batfeathers! ANY saved person is a Son of God! This is a doctrinal error.

No matter how you slice it, these all say DIFFERENT things. They do not say the same thing in different words. They do not have the same "message" or doctrine here.

FIRSTBORN *OF* EVERY CREATURE, OR FIRST CREATED?

(KJV) Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn OF every creature:

(NIV) ... firstborn over all creation.

(NASB) ... firstborn of all CREATION.

(AMP) ... Firstborn of all CREATION.

(ESV) ... firstborn of all CREATION.

(ASV) ... firstborn of all CREATION;

(CEV) ... He is the FIRST-BORN Son, superior to all creation.

The KJV refers to His family/genealogical status as progenitor of all. The modern versions, again, make Him a created creature. Jesus is part of the creation in these modern versions. If he is part of the creation, he's not the Creator and he's not God.

If the modern versions (in English or Greek) are right in these verses, we are wasting our time as Christians. We are following a created man with the same sin nature we have. If the modern versions are correct in these verses, we might as well go out and get drunk, because we have no Saviour and no hope.

You say they have the deity of Christ in other verses? What good is a Bible version that strips Jesus of His deity HALF the time, but has it in other places? I want more than a HALF-BAKED Jesus out of my Bible.

NOT SO FAST!

In two passages, speaking about the disciples failure to cast out strong devils, and a third related verse, Jesus (and Paul) told them:

Matt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and FASTING.

Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by *nothing, but* by prayer and FASTING.

1 Cor 7:5  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.

This is the ONLY way to resist these strong devils, according to Jesus Christ (and the apostle Paul). These are the ONLY three places where this vital doctrine is mentioned in scripture (if you don't think being armed to resist the devil is vital, try fighting him unarmed!). Do the modern versions give us this vital information?

Matt 17:21 (NIV) ENTIRE VERSE REMOVED

Mark 9:29 (NIV) He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer."

1 Cor 7:5 (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.

Only by prayer? This version removes the way to defeat strong devils from ALL THREE verses.

Matt 17:21 (NASB) Most ancient mss do not contain this verse

Mark 9:29 (NASB) And He said to them, "This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer."

1 Cor 7:5 (NASB) Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Uh oh, this version forces us to battle strong devils unarmed as well.

Matt 17:21 (RSV) ENTIRE VERSE REMOVED

Mark 9:29 (RSV) And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer."

1 Cor 7:5 (RSV) Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer. but then come back together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self control.

How about the version-du-jour, the RSV update, the ESV?

Matt 17:21 (ESV) ENTIRE VERSE REMOVED

Mark 9:29 (ESV) And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer."

1 Cor 7:5 ESV) Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer. but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control.

No fasting? This version is also making you fight strong devils with one hand behind your back.

Matt 17:21 (ASV) But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting.

Mark 9:29 (ASV) And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.

1 Cor 7:5 (ASV) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.

ONE out of THREE! But finally a MV at least mentions it. That's really sad when the other MVs omit this vital doctrine ALTOGETHER and we must scour them to find one mention.

Now who would not want you to know how to battle strong devils?

CATHOLIC FRIENDLY VERSIONS

The modern versions are very Catholic friendly. Of course, with Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini being an editor of the UBS Greek text underlying all the MVs, that shouldn't be a surprise. Condensed from Dr. Doug Stauffer's book, "One Book Stands Alone":

*************************

MVs promote auricular confession of sins to a priest. (KJV = faults)

(NIV) James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

(NASV) James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

*******************************

MVs magnify Mary above others. (KJV = among women)

(NIV) Luke 1:28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

(NASV) Luke 1:28 And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

*********************************

MVs allow for Mary to be perpetual virgin. (KJV = firstborn)

(NIV) Matt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

(NASV) Matt 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

********************************

NIV removes idol worship prohibition. (KJV = sacrifice unto idols)

(NIV) I Cor 10:28 But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake-

(NIV) II Sam 5:21 The Philistines abandoned their idols there, and David and his men carried them off. (KJV has them burned!)

*********************************

NIV disguises tradition. (KJV = tradition)

(NIV) I Pet 1:18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,

**********************************

NIV omits prohibition against "vain repetition" in prayer. Get out your rosary and say 10 Hail Marys.

(NIV) Matt 6:7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

***********************************

MVs help Peter become recognized as Pope. (KJV = stone)

(NIV) John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).

(NASV) John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).

*************************************

MVs turn ministering into priestly duties!

NIV) Rom 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

(NASV) Romans 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

**********************************

MVs promote self-torture, like crawling up steps on knees or being nailed to a crucifix.

(NIV) I Cor 9:27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

(NIV) Gal 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

(NASV) Gal 5:12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

*****************************

NIV promotes the Inquisition (KJV = suffereth violence)

(NIV) Matt 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.

VERSIONS SAY DIFFERENT THINGS

The argument is not over where the MVs say the same thing as the KJB using synonymous terms (although we still believe EVERY WORD of God is pure, and we live by EVERY WORD of God), the argument is that the MVs say DIFFERENT, and CONFLICTING things. To attempt to reconcile these things, MV supporters have to do incredible linguistic gyrations that would impress a circus contortionist. I find it hard to believe that in their hearts, they don't know they are doing this.

Here are a few examples:

KJB John 1:18 ­ No man hath seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

NIV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

NASB John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

RSV John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the ONLY SON, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

No matter how you slice it, these four all say DIFFERENT things. They do not say the same thing in different words. They do not have the same "message" or doctrine here.

The NIV calls the One at the Father's side, "God the One and Only". Does that mean the Father is not God? The verse doesn't even say that Jesus is God's Son at all here, it refers to THE Father. That doesn't even say He's Jesus' Father!

The NASB reads along with the JWs NWT doctrine and makes Jesus a BEGOTTEN GOD, instead of a begotten SON. Yet, MVers will reject the NWT and accept the NASB as a "valid" Bible, despite this BLATANT DAMNABLE HERESY of making Jesus a CREATED god. For this one horrific heresy alone, the NASB should be rejected by anyone with the spiritual discernment of a dried raison.

The RSV errs in the other direction. Whereas the other two omit the word "Son", this one omits the word "begotten". So now we have Jesus being the ONLY Son of God.  Batfeathers! ANY saved person is a Son of God! This is a doctrinal error.

MV supporters will tie themselves in knots trying to make all four of those verses contain the same "message", but any HONEST person knows they all say DIFFERENT, CONFLICTING things, including false doctrine and blatant heresy.

Several other examples have been covered in the past.

* In Mark 1:2 the KJV rightly attributes the quote to "the prophets", whereas most MVs WRONGLY attribute the quote to Isaiah, even though it was Malachi who wrote the quote in Mark 1:2 (Isaiah wrote the quote in Mark 1:3).

* In Titus 3:10 the KJV rightly warns us to AVOID a HERETIC, whereas the MVs WRONGLY warn us to REJECT a DIVISIVE man. Jesus was divisive -  He was not a heretic.

* In Acts 25:6, the KJV rightly says "MORE THAN ten days", while many MVs wrongly say "NOT more than ..." - the opposite!

An MVer might say there are Greek manuscripts supporting both readings (and we agree that the Greek mss say different things too!). Well, if there are, they are still NOT saying the same thing - they are in absolute CONTRADICTION. The claim is that the MVs have the same "message". No they don't.

One has to turn these verses inside-out to pretend they say the same thing. It would be nice if an MV supporter would be HONEST and admit that the MVs sometimes say DIFFERENT and CONFLICTING things and that they are NOT the same as the KJV. You cannot HONESTLY say you believe BOTH the KJV and any MVs, because they clearly do NOT say the same things. If you BELIEVE one, you  CANNOT actually believe the other. Ergo, an MVer does not BELIEVE *ANY* Bible. They DOUBT them ALL, at least in some places - no matter how often they claim to be Bible believers. They are Bible infidels.

MODERN VERSION VIRGIN BIRTH

We often hear modern version supporters insist that no major doctrine is affected by the changes in the modern versions. The next several posts will blow that claim out of the water and prove that important doctrines are destroyed or heavily diluted. Here is a good example of how changing just one, or only a few, verses, can greatly eradicate a major biblical doctrine.

I claimed that the modern versions attacked the virgin birth by changing Isaiah 7:14 to things like "maiden" or "young woman" in the text or footnotes. The response I received was:

{{ No, you found ONE verse where the mention of maiden was made instead of virgin. Again, to even say it waters it down is stretching logic to the breaking point. }}

Okay, tell me how many other OT verses speak of the virgin birth. How many of them are clear, especially without this verse for support? Would a Jew be likely to receive Jesus as Messiah based on that?

Also, the verses where Joseph is called the "father" of Jesus in the narrative were mentioned. Joseph was not Jesus' Father.

How many verses clearly attest to the virgin birth? If you mess with just a few, especially the well-known ones like Isaiah 7:14 you have diluted a significant portion of that doctrine.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

How many times does the word "virgin" appear in the Bible referring to the birth of Jesus? THREE! And the two in the NT refer to the one in the OT! If you mess with ONE, you have directly removed 33% of all the references and indirectly affected the other 2/3 adversely.


Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Sometimes, a well-placed mistake can have serious repercussions. Remember, rat poison is 99% good rat food and only 1% sodium fluoride.

The word "virgin" in this context only appears three times in the Bible, and the two NT appearances are references to the lone OT verse. So to mess up just the ONE OT verse, indirectly messes up all three. The Greek word for virgin is unequivocal. The writers of the original Greek of Matthew and Luke believed Isaiah 7:14 referred specifically to a virgin.

In Luke 2:33 & 43, the MVs have the narrative of the Holy Spirit call Joseph the father of Jesus (which is not excusable as the case of Mary calling Joseph his father).

But that is not all:

Mat 1:25 KJV And knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.

(NIV) Matt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Removing the key word "firstborn" certainly weakens the doctrine. Maybe she had previous sons with a different man in the NIV.

John 3:16 KJV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

NIV John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Jesus is not the "one and only Son" of God - *I* am also a son of God. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God. This doctrinal error also warps the virgin birth.

John 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only BEGOTTEN of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(NIV) John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Same mistake and warping again.

Removing "flesh" from 1 John 4:3 also weakens the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

So this is not a case of one estranged verse taken out of context. Here are seven verses on the subject of the virgin birth of Christ that are diluted - virtually every scripture that deals with the subject, even indirectly. The attack on the virgin birth is systemic.

How many other verses can be shown from the NIV that are solid on the virgin birth? If you can find seven, then the doctrine is diluted 50%. If you can find fourteen, the doctrine is still diluted 33%. Find 21 and you've improved to 25% dilution, which is still pretty awful.

**************************************

This article has a ton of errors and confusions, however this is interesting.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html

Isaiah 7:14  The Message Bible has "a girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant," which implies Brown's interpretation

That interpretation is that the virgin gets pregnant in the normal way, and then is no longer a virgin.

"So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us)."

Steven Avery

*****

What kind of sign would that be? Is that the best the modern version god can do is tell us that a woman will get normally pregnant? Big deal. The Psychic Hotline can give better signs than that.

Someone who is a virgin and has not carnally known a man conceiving and giving birth - now that's a sign. That's something only God could do. 

Despite the fact that without the virgin birth, Jesus would've been born corrupted in sin like the rest of us, the virgin birth is not an important doctrine since the modern versions insist that no important doctrine is affected by their versions.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luke 1:31 & 34 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Matt 1:18 & 25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Not only do the modern versions violate the other scriptures pertaining to the doctrine of the incarnation (nativity), but they violate sanity to offer something so normal and common as a "sign". Even Benny Hinn gives better signs than that.