The Dangers of Modern Bible Versions

As someone who spends much time in the study of the Word of God, which includes the comparing of readings found in translations other the my main Bible, which is the New King James; I have been troubled to see that the three versions that I have, the 1984 NIV, the ESV and Holmans, have abandoned the use of words in italics, which are not part of the original Hebrew and Greek, but have been added for the purpose of easier understanding. This is a very dangerous practice, as it has taken the words of men, and made them out to be the Word of God, with no distinction. I do not believe that anyone who is serious about the Holy Bible, and firmly believes it to be the Infallible, Inerrant and Authoritative Word of Almighty God, can ever make such changes to the Holy Bible, and assume that nothing is wrong in doing so? Surely I cannot be the only person to see the danger in what these "modern versions" are doing? The high regard that once was there for the Holy Bible, seems to have been diminished in modern times, especially with versions like The Message appearing, which is not the work of God the Holy Spirit. We should take serious heed of the warning given at the end of the Book of Revelation, which I believe is true for the entire Bible. " For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Bookl of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (22:18-19)

 

Hi Roby, thanks for taking the time to respond. I am by no means a KJV or NKJV only person, as I do have other versions. I do prefer them to any of the "moderns" as they are far more trustworthy in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek texts, and the translators of the KJV had a far higher regard for the Authority and Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Word of God. I think almost all the modern versions are based on texts for the New Testament edited by Bruce Metzger, who had very Liberal views on the Books of the Pentateuch

Genesis: “Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses” (Metzger’s Introduction to Genesis, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).

Exodus: “As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books” (Metzger’s Introduction to Exodus, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).

Deuteronomy: “It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses’ time” (Metzger’s Introduction to Deuteronomy, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).

Metzger is the editor for the United Bible Societies Greek texts, that are the basis for the greater majority of the "modern versions", which included others who did not believe in the Infallibility of the Word of God, and whose many conclusions for their textual preferences are misleading and do not account for all the facts. Anyone who has such Liberal views of the Word of Almighty God, must be avoided as heretical.

 

Hello, the names of the 1984 NIV and those after might still be the same, but their contents are certainly not. Changes have been made, and not because they found better textual evidence, but rather to adopt the trends of our modern world.

 

Hi Rippon, you are obviously mistaken to think nothing of man adding to the Word of God. I mean, who gives anyone the right to make changes and amendments to any part of the Holy Bible? By adding words and phrases and not marking them as additions, but placing them as part of the actual text, is very damaging and is a corruption to the Word of God. Do you believe that the Holy Bible is the Inerrant, Infallible, Word of God, and that it must not be changed by man, regardless of whether it is for English stylistic reasons?