Heresies of Modern "Conservative" Translations of the Bible.

[Alan Gross]

I only received one comment on my "KJV" post: Why KJV? #1: It was made from the best Greek and Hebrew texts.

Is this why?

Death in the pot?

"So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof." II Kings 4:40.

Heresies of Modern
"Conservative" Translations of the Bible
By Pastor Greg Wilson

From: Landmark Independent Baptist Church - Sovereign Grace

Many sincere Christians are being led to believe that the modern translations of Scripture are but updates of the King James Bible.

Most do not realize that these modern versions are translations of entirely different Greek texts.

Nothing could be more deceptive than to present them as updates of the Authorized Version (KJV).

The texts used in the modern translations came via the Catholic Church and from ancient Egyptian theologians.

These Alexandrian (Egyptian) "Christians" rejected the literal interpretation of the Scripture from the earliest centuries of Christianity.

As will be seen, these texts differ markedly from those used in the translation of the King James Bible.

They show definite marks of corruption and a consistently inferior theology, particularly in the area of the deity of Jesus Christ.

It is both illogical and dishonest to present all these various and contradictory texts as the true Word of God. If the King James Bible and the texts from which it was translated are the preserved and genuine Word of God, then the others most assuredly are not.

God is not schizophrenic. He has not left us several different Bibles. He has not given us contradictory messages.

Within this tract I can give but a brief overview of the most glaring theological heresies supported by the modern versions of the Bible.

I will consider only those versions most often used by those who claim to be conservative Christians.

There are literally thousands of places where they differ with God's Word as found in the Textus Receptus and Authorized (King James) Version of Scripture.

I believe, however, that the brief evidence presented here is enough to convince the sincere truth seeker that something is amiss.

In every case, the discrepancies noted are also present in the more liberal translations, such as The Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The Jerusalem Bible, Today's English Version, etc.

If you use one of these modern versions, I pray that you will take the time to compare its text with the text of The Authorized Version presented here.

You may be surprised with what you find.



1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse clearly sets forth the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is found above in the Authorized Version of Scripture.

Most modern translations so mutilate this verse that there is no longer any reference to the Trinity to be found within it at all.

The New American Standard Version (NASV), The New International Version (NIV), and The Living Bible (LB) all remove any reference to either the Father, or the Word (Jesus Christ) from this verse.

The New King James Version (NKJV), maintains the reference to the Trinity in the text. However, it contains a footnote that sets forth only a biased part of the textual evidence concerning the verse and leaves a very strong impression that these words do not belong in the Bible.



Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Philip's reply to the eunuch, in this verse, is a clear example of the Biblical doctrine of Believer's Baptism.

The NIV completely removes this verse from the text skipping from verse 36 to verse 38. There is no verse 37 in the NIV text at all!

The NASV puts the entire verse in brackets indicating that these are "words probably not in the original writings" (Preface to NASV, p. xi)

The LB footnotes the verse and states: "Many ancient manuscripts omit verse 37 wholly or in part."

The NKJV likewise footnotes the verse and questions its place in the original text.

Con't

 

[Alan Gross]

1 Timothy 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.

This verse clearly sets forth the truth of the incarnation, namely that GOD was manifested in the flesh by Jesus Christ.

The NIV and NASV both substitute he for God, greatly weakening the teaching of the verse.

The LB so paraphrases the verse that it is hardly recognizable, and weakens the teaching concerning the incarnation even more than the NIV and NASV.

The NKJV as usual footnotes the verse and notes that who rather than God is to be found in the modern printed Greek New Testaments.



Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

This verse teaches that Christ came to call sinners to repentance.

The NASV and NIV omit the reference to repentance.

The LB's paraphrase does not use the word repentance, and completely subverts the verse's meaning.

The NKJV once again footnotes this verse, questioning whether repentance is properly in the text.



Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

The Authorized Version refers to Joseph and his mother, carefully acknowledging the virgin birth of Christ. Within the KJV and the Greek texts from which it comes, Christ is never referred to as the son of Joseph, nor is Joseph called His father, except when he is so called by other men. The Biblical narrative itself never refers to Him as such.

The NIV substitutes the child's father for Joseph. The NASV substitutes His father.

The LB further muddles the issue by leaving Joseph in the text, but substituting Mary for his mother even though there is absolutely no Greek manuscript that does so.

The NKJV leaves the text as in the KJV, but once again tells us in the footnotes that the modern Greek New Testaments substitute His father for Joseph.



John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

This passage teaches clearly that belief in Jesus Christ alone will bring eternal life. The modern versions make room for the idea that "it really doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere."

On me is omitted from the NASV and NIV.

The NKJV once again casts doubt on the place of on me in the text within its footnotes.



John 7:53-8:11 (Please refer to you own Bible)

This passage relates the story of the woman taken in adultery.

All 12 verses are bracketed in the NASV indicating that the editors did not believe that it was in the original text.

The NIV sets the verses off from the regular text and notes that "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11."

The footnotes in the LB states that "Most ancient manuscripts omit John 7:53-8:11"

The NKJV notes that these verses "are bracketed in the NU-Text [the modern Greek New Testaments] as not original."



Mark 16:9-20 (Please refer to you own Bible)

These verses contain the resurrection narrative, the Great Commission, and the promises of Christ to His disciples concerning His protection of them.

The NASV brackets the entire passage indicating that the editors did not consider it to be in the original writing.

The NIV separates these verses from the regular text and notes: "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20."

The LB notes: "Verses 9 through 20 are not found in the most ancient manuscripts, but may be considered an appendix giving additional facts."

The NKJV notes: "Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU-text as not original."



1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

This passage sets forth the doctrine of the substitutionary death of Christ. In that Christ did not simply die, but that He died for us.

The NASV, NIV, and LB all omit for us from the text.

The NKJV once again questions the place of for us within the text in its footnote.



2 Peter 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

This passage teaches the doctrine of the eternal damnation of the lost by the words for ever.

Forever is omitted in the NASV and NIV.

The NKJV questions the place of forever in the text within its footnote.



1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

This passage demonstrates that belief in the incarnation is essential to genuine Christianity by the words: "That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."

"Come in the flesh" is omitted from the NASV, NIV, and LB. This leaves room for the Gnositic heresy that Christ was not genuine flesh and blood.

The NKJV questions the place of "come in the flesh" within the text by its footnote.



Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

That Jesus Christ is the eternal God is taught by the words: "I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last."

The NASV and NIV omit these words.

The NKJV raises doubts concerning its originality in its footnote.



SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS:

1 - References in the footnotes of these modern Bibles to "the best manuscripts, the most ancient manuscripts, the most reliable manuscripts, etc." all refer to the stream of Bible texts that proceeded out of Alexandria, Egypt through the Catholic Church.

These texts are manifestly corrupted by Bible deniers and infidels.

They are not the texts which Bible believers possessed and which they refused to surrender through years of governmental and clerical persecution.

2 - These modern Bibles and the modern Greek New Testaments from which they originate ignore much of the evidence concerning the true text of the Bible.

In particular, they give little heed to the evidence of the writings of the earliest Christians, which indicates that they had Bibles which support the text of the King James Bible.

3 - It is true that the NKJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (the same Greek Text from which the KJV was translated).

It is also true that most of the men who worked on the translation of this modern Bible did not believe that this was the best text.

I personally knew some of the men on the translation committee.

I sat in their classes and I know that they favored the Catholic, Egyptian texts.

This is clearly shown by their profuse use of footnotes to question the place of the traditional readings within the text.

4 - Those who seek to justify the modern versions of the Bible often state that there is no major doctrine effected by the variances amongst the different Greek manuscripts.

This brief article has clearly shown that this is simply not the case and that these modern "scholars" are not to be trusted!

5 - If you use one of the modern translations I pray that God may use this brief study to lead you to His true and preserved Word as found in the Greek Textus Receptus and English King James Bible.



Home

 

[Conan]

Heresies of Modern
"Conservative" Translations of the Bible

By Pastor Greg Wilson

Why listen to someone who uses false witness and lies. The person can't even teach basic Bible history without the aid of tall tales.

KJVOnlyism is a false teaching.

Its a fantastic Version, it does not need lies to support it.

 

[Deacon]

It's been awhile since we've heard the word "heresies" and "corrupt" regarding the Word of God in this Forum

Forum Rule 3.
Do not start a thread with an attack or a flame as your premise.

Forum Rule 9.
Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

1. The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
2. The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.

Rob

 

[37818]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse clearly sets forth the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is found above in the Authorized Version of Scripture.

That is supposed by those who accept the reading to be such. What is the actual proof of that assertion?

 

[37818]

3 - It is true that the NKJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (the same Greek Text from which the KJV was translated).

Mostly. Off hand, I know of at least one reading that was missed.
". . . of thee . . ." in Luke 1:35. And foot note that M, NU omit said reading.

 

[Alan Gross]

Why listen to someone who uses false witness and lies. The person can't even teach basic Bible history without the aid of tall tales.

What? Where?

KJVOnlyism

I know about using the KJV.

Dunno, if KJVOnly applies.

Simply shying away from those that omit Cardinal Doctrines (for what reason? God? or Satan?)

How close is this?

from: Why I Use The KJV by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory

1.) First, I believe it was made from the best Greek and Hebrew texts, which are the preserved Word of God. I refer to the Masoretic Hebrew Text preserved by the nation of Israel, and the Textus Receptus Greek Text (or the Byzantine text).

This is the Greek text preserved from A. D. 452 to 1453 by the Greek church, the Waldenses, and Albigenses.

All modern translations are based upon the reconstructed Greek text of Westcott and Hort, two Romanist-oriented scholars, whose purpose was to replace the Protestant and Baptist text with those of the Roman Church and thereby wean back Protestants to the Roman fold.

These two men denied the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, exalted Mary worship and the Romanish mass, denied the Genesis record, and were ardent evolutionists and had universalist tendencies.

About 95 percent of all Greek manuscripts that we have are of the Byzantine type.

This means that the Westcott and Hort texts disagree with 95 percent of extant sources, including Scripture quotations from the writings of the early church fathers, who antedated the texts on which the Westcott and Hort reconstruction was based.

The Westcott and Hort texts came from Rome and Egypt, depicted as God's enemies in Scripture, whereas the text of the KJV came from Syria and Greece, the areas of the initial outreach of Christianity.

All translations since 1611 have not been made entirely from the Textus Receptus.

These did include some of the Textus Receptus but they largely depended on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus was found in the pope's library in A. D. 1481 and Codex Sinaiticus was taken from a waste basket on a Mt. Sinai monastery in 1859.

Both of these manuscripts include the apocryphal books outside of the New Testament canon.

This makes the new translations based largely on these texts essentially Roman Catholic translations.

They resemble Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Rheims-Douai versions of 1582 authorized by the Roman Catholic Church at the infamous Council of Trent.

 

[JonC]

This thread is closed.

The reason is that it is against BB rules to refer to God's Word as "satanic", "heresy", etc. regardless of translation.

If you are one version only that's fine, but argue why your version offers the better translation or why you believe a source is better.