KJV and the modern versions

[Ed Edwards]

From the KJV majority text
Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

That shows that Christ is God.

From the Nasb
10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you (P)regard your brother with contempt? For (Q)we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11For it is written,
"(R)AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, (S)EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12So then (T)each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

// The word Christ is removed so that there is no proof Christ is God in those scriptures //
-----------------------------------------
tit 4 tat:
-----------------------------------------
Acts 16:7 (KJV1611 Edition):
After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to goe into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

Acts 16:7 (NASB):
and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;

In the KJV1611 the word Christ is removed (It is right there in the NASB) so that there is no proof Christ is God in this Acts 16:7 (KJV) scripture

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
The joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial
Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria
Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic
diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops,
former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector
Magnificus" of the Gregorian University...

...
4 different sources have I found that state that there is Lucifer worship in the hierarchy of the Roman catholic church. They don't believe in Satan. They believe in Lucifer and are Luciferians.
Two former Jesuit priests said it, Alberto Rivera, and Malachi Martin.
...
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/pope-devil-masonic_lodge.htm
go to that website; the references are for real.

With thousands in attendance at Rome's Fatima 2000 International Congress on World Peace, a respected Archbishop, Emmanuel Milingo, strode to the podium.
...Archbishop Milingo went on to make an accusation which sent hurricane force shockwaves throughout the Catholic community. According to Milingo, the devil is actually protected by the Catholic Church:

The devil in the Catholic Church is so protected now that he is like an animal protected by the government; put on a game preserve that outlaws anyone, especially hunters, from trying to capture or kill it. The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil hunter in the Church--the exorcist. So much so that the exorcist today is forbidden to attack the devil. The devil is so protected that the one who is the hunter, the exorcist, is forbidden to do his job.

In a subsequent interview, the courageous archbishop stated: "Certainly, there are priests and bishops alike who are followers of Satan." When asked whether cardinals or even the Pope himself were guilty of this repulsive heresy, Milingo responded that, because he is an archbishop, he does not feel it is proper for him to name or comment about superior officials. The archbishop's silence, of course, spoke volumes.


Revelation 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Just one more indicator that the antichrist will come through the papacy like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Isaac Newton, Tyndale, Moody, Finney and Spurgeon said.

CARM; Alex Jones;"Greek New Testament" by Robert Stewart - that is where I"m find this stuff. At least tell us where you find this stuff, I hope you are doing the on-line research yourself. It really irks me to think one minute I'm discussing with one person and find out later I'm trying to argue with someone who MAKES A LIVING writing trash and pandering (interesting term related to how pimps sell) lame ideas - ideas that can't walk across the room, let alone the internet. Anyway, we really aren't interested in studying half-baked consipiracy theories. Goodness, I was studying the GRAND MAL LUCIFERIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY long before your dad lusted after your mom. I was reading Texe Mars when he still had Black Hair.

If all the conspiracy theories were one theory - what a Grand theory that would be. If all the evil ones were one evil one - what a Evil ONE that would be.

Well Sorry, my Jesus whipped the Evil One one Sabbath Day in AD 33 and that ol' blud sucker is a weak mosquito today!

BTW, Alberto Rivera is acomic character, not a real person.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

CARM; Alex Jones;"Greek New Testament" by Robert Stewart - that is where I"m find this stuff. At least tell us where you find this stuff, I hope you are doing the on-line research yourself. It really irks me to think one minute I'm discussing with one person and find out later I'm trying to argue with someone who MAKES A LIVING writing trash and pandering (interesting term related to how pimps sell) lame ideas - ideas that can't walk across the room, let alone the internet. Anyway, we really aren't interested in studying half-baked consipiracy theories. Goodness, I was studying the GRAND MAL LUCIFERIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY long before your dad lusted after your mom. I was reading Texe Mars when he still had Black Hair.

If all the conspiracy theories were one theory - what a Grand theory that would be. If all the evil ones were one evil one - what a Evil ONE that would be.

Well Sorry, my Jesus whipped the Evil One one Sabbath Day in AD 33 and that ol' blud sucker is a weak mosquito today!

BTW, Alberto Rivera is acomic character, not a real person.

GE:
Fantastic American English and - shall I say, satire?. But not understandable to me in the least! I must be both ignorant and dumb. Well, don't let that worry you; I think we all don't care a dime about that.

But please explain for my sake a bit nearer what you meant with this statement : "my Jesus whipped the Evil One one Sabbath Day in AD 33"?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I believe that Jesus Arose from the Dead in AD 0033 - no Bible proof of the date (lots of Bible proof that Jesus Arose from the Dead).

I believe that when Jesus Arose from the Dead, He assured final defeat of Satan (the Deceiver, the Lead Devil, the Evil One, Old Mealy Mouth, the Serpent, and other titles - name unknown) - Bible proof exists that Jesus by His resurrection assures the final Victory of Jesus and us over Satan (lots of Bible proof that Jesus Arose from the Dead). I believe that Jesus Arose from the dead late (about 6PM) one Sabbath day. (In a week where there were two Sabbaths). The fact that Jesus had arose UP from the grave was not found out about by anybody until the first day of the week.

 

[rbell]

Common "arguments" that don't hold water. Remember there were no chapter or verse divisions nor even punctuation in the original manuscripts. Now, for reading IN CONTEXT (KJVOliers hate doing this):


Now go take a rest. It's hard to go on a useless witch hunt.

That's what happens, antiaging, when you get your theology from a comic book.

As you can see...faulty hermeneutics eventually become painfully apparent.

(This is where one of three responses will be posted:

1. The false accusation that we hate the KJV aand want it destroyed;
2. Some urban-legend type of slander to denigrate any non-KJV English version;
3. Something regarding UFO's piloted by angels, or monitoring of us from inside our television sets.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I believe that Jesus Arose from the Dead in AD 0033 - no Bible proof of the date (lots of Bible proof that Jesus Arose from the Dead).

I believe that when Jesus Arose from the Dead, He assured final defeat of Satan (the Deceiver, the Lead Devil, the Evil One, Old Mealy Mouth, the Serpent, and other titles - name unknown) - Bible proof exists that Jesus by His resurrection assures the final Victory of Jesus and us over Satan (lots of Bible proof that Jesus Arose from the Dead). I believe that Jesus Arose from the dead late (about 6PM) one Sabbath day. (In a week where there were two Sabbaths). The fact that Jesus had arose UP from the grave was not found out about by anybody until the first day of the week.

GE:
Ed Edwards,
I ask your permission to down-load this statement of yours onto another thread; is it oukei with you? Thanks, GE.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Permission granted - you may use my statement with or without attribution. (But feel free to use 'Elder Ed Edwards, the Prolific' - if you please, or 'Ed Edwards of the Mouthed Hoof' - again, as you please.)

 

[antiaging]

Incorrect. Did you know the term "Lucifer" came into the translations through Jerome and the Latin Vulgate? Oh, and apparently you have not seen the original KJV1611 because "day starre" is written in the very side of the verse in the translators notes for alternate readings (which was in the true KJV 1611 but not in the new versions - maybe showing the later printers bias against God's Word?). There's a lot more really good reading here: http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html

Of course the attack on the brothers who translated the Bible into the NIV is quite harsh and uncalled for. Want to hear what one ACTUALLY said?

"The Hebrew for "morning star" was translated "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate, and the KJV then borrowed Lucifer (from the Latin) in it's rendering. Although "morning star" is the correct rendering, scholars have debated who is meant by the words (whether the king of Babylon or Satan or both). Christ, of course, is the true Morning Star. Numbers 24:17, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 22:16.

The Latin vulgate of Jerome uses a different mixture of corrupted Alexandrian texts than the NIV. It is also translated from an eclectic mixture. Jerome evidently left in the proper translation from the massoretic text, [offensive language removed]. Hort and Westcott with the nestle-aland eclectic did not. The Niv [offense removed] is translated from the 27th edition of the nestle aland eclectic.

The NIV (offense removed) takes away 64, 576 words...that equals removing over 30 books of the Bible! The NIV openly denies Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth...[offense removed] in removing complete verses and words amounting up to 64,576.

The NIV...omits and therefore denies "Christ" 54 times, "God" 39 times, "Father" 7 times, "Jesus" 50 times, "Lord" 38 times, and more.
In 1 John 2:22, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
http://www.truthseekersministry.com/publications_kjv.html

The KJV has nothing at all to do with the Latin Vulgate.
The KJV is translated from the historical and traditional text of the Jews, the massoretic text, for the old testament. It is translated directly form the Hebrew text.

Antiaging: Please debate the issues of translations without attacking the versions themselves. If you continue to attack the versions as being of Satan, etc. you will not only find your posts edited but completely deleted, and the next step will be taken up with the administration. Please abide by the rules. Attacks on Bible versions are not permitted.

 

[annsni]

The Latin vulgate of Jerome uses a different mixture of corrupted Alexandrian texts than the NIV. It is also translated from an eclectic mixture. Jerome evidently left in the proper translation from the massoretic text, which is Lucifer. Hort and Westcott with the nestle-aland eclectic did not. The Niv (none inspired version) is translated from the 27th edition of the nestle aland eclectic.

The NIV (the Non-Inspired Version) takes away 64, 576 words...that equals removing over 30 books of the Bible! The NIV openly denies Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth...they glorify Satan in removing complete verses and words amounting up to 64,576.

The NIV...omits and therefore denies "Christ" 54 times, "God" 39 times, "Father" 7 times, "Jesus" 50 times, "Lord" 38 times, and more.
In 1 John 2:22, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
http://www.truthseekersministry.com/publications_kjv.html

The KJV has nothing at all to do with the Latin Vulgate.
The KJV is translated from the historical and traditional text of the Jews, the massoretic text, for the old testament. It is translated directly form the Hebrew text.

I do believe that calling other Bible versions names is against board rules and I do believe you've done it before. Maybe a mod can address this.

Umm - the KJV has nothing at all to do with the Latin Vulgate? How did the last portion of Revelation come into the TR? Might want to look that up.

As for the number of times that the NIV removes words, you might want to see how many times the KJV adds words and removes words from the originals. To compare versions to the KJV for word content is completely wrong. Also note that some of the occasions of a word for God being removed is when it's replaced with a pronoun - and that would not negate God at all.

Here's a site with two interesting charts. Might want to check out where the KJV took out the name of Jesus...

http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html


Your assertions about the NIV are completely ignorant and unfounded. Might want to actually study the Word of God in the different translations than listen to someone who writes comic strips for a living.

Yeah - I hate to tell you that the KJV DID get some translation from the Latin Vulgate. It is based on what was later to be called the Textus Receptus but when Erasmus was doing his translating, he didn't have any manuscripts that included the end of Revelation - so he took the text from the Latin Vulgate. Might want to check your history there...

 

[rbell]

Apparently, anti-aging either doesn't read the rules, can't comprehend them, or thinks they don't apply to him...

 

[antiaging]

I assume that you approve of the NKJV since the translators used the TR as it's basis, the same as the KJV?

Don't assume that. Read what is wrong with the nkjv:

We will now give some special attention to one of the deadliest translations on the market--the New King James Version, first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because it's editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points: (1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and (2) that it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).

1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.

2. There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)

3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.

6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.

7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.

8. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

9. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

10. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

11. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?

12. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

13. The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611! How say ye it's a King James Bible?

14. The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 (and according to Jesus Christ - John 4:48), but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign. They didn't "request" one when signs first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives Israel signs when they haven't requested anything (Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34, Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc). They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national heritage.

15. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."

16. As a final note, we'd like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS!
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html
Scroll down past half way.

 

[EdSutton]

The Latin vulgate of Jerome uses a different mixture of corrupted Alexandrian texts than the NIV. It is also translated from an eclectic mixture. Jerome evidently left in the proper translation from the massoretic text, which is Lucifer. Hort and Westcott with the nestle-aland eclectic did not. The Niv (none inspired version) is translated from the 27th edition of the nestle aland eclectic.

The NIV (the Non-Inspired Version)...

Enough, already!

antiaging, I would like to think I am a reasonable and fairly tolerant individual. However, this is going too far. Had your hand not been called in this, previously, I would say nothing, other than suggest you might want to refrain from such a violation of BB rules, or maybe even PM you, to that effect. Sorry, I'm reporting this one- something I seldom do.

... takes away 64, 576 words...that equals removing over 30 books of the Bible! The NIV openly denies Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth...they glorify Satan in removing complete verses and words amounting up to 64,576.

Thirty books? Get real! What the site (or source) from which you are getting your material ('Uncle Miltie' - Milton Berle said he knew a good joke, when he stole one. Apparently, you recognize 'a good line,' when you grab one, as well, from some site.) means (and opposeds) 'changing' any words, in translating, hence means that there are 60K+ words that are not the same as the KJV, for it is not giving credence to any words the translators used in translating, that were not a translated part of the KJV (of 1769, of course, considering this site, and most others do not actually cite and quote from the 1611, as a rule.). In fact, I believe the NIV actually uses more words, overall, than the KJV, from sonething I heard, but I lost count of a side-by-side comparison, before I got through Gen. 1. :sleeping_2:

I would add that the 'false charges' above, have also been answered adequately, before, including the reference to "removal" of verses. Why are marginal references not acceptable to you, now, when the were acceptable to the KJV translators, and in fact, the "not copyrighted" KJV-1769 actually does remove these marginal references and readings from the KJV-1611, in most editions I have seen.

FTR, personally, I do not prefer the NIV, and seldom use it. However, my bride happens to like it, and seemingly so do millions of English speaking Christians, considering the numbers printed, these days, just as with the KJV-1769. Have you ever bothered to think about why the KJV-1769 and the NIV are the two versions at the top of the lists, here, in circulation and use? Do you think that just maybe God may have had a little to do with this, somehow??

I suggest the GEN, KJV-1611, YLT, Cambridge- 1762 KJV, and the Darby, ASV, and MLB are at least fairly equivalent to these two version/edition(s), respectively. How many of them can you easily find at your friendly, local, neighborhood Christian bookstore?

Better yet, how many of the first four do you actually posess in 'hard copy?', since you have extolled the TR, and all these are from the TR, in the NT? I would guess the answer is probably 'zero,' although obviously, I do not know,this for a fact.

The NIV...omits and therefore denies "Christ" 54 times, "God" 39 times, "Father" 7 times, "Jesus" 50 times, "Lord" 38 times, and more.
In 1 John 2:22, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
http://www.truthseekersministry.com/publications_kjv.html

The KJV has nothing at all to do with the Latin Vulgate.
The KJV is translated from the historical and traditional text of the Jews, the massoretic text, for the old testament. It is translated directly form the Hebrew text.

The false statements and implications of this have been adequately answered several times here, including even on this page.

BTW, as to the NT, the TR(s) differ from the MT9s) in hundreds of places, as well, so please don't suggest that fallacy, either.

Ed

 

[antiaging]

Incorrect. Did you know the term "Lucifer" came into the translations through Jerome and the Latin Vulgate? Oh, and apparently you have not seen the original KJV1611 because "day starre" is written in the very side of the verse in the translators notes for alternate readings (which was in the true KJV 1611 but not in the new versions - maybe showing the later printers bias against God's Word?). There's a lot more really good reading here: http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html

Of course the attack on the brothers who translated the Bible into the NIV is quite harsh and uncalled for. Want to hear what one ACTUALLY said?

"The Hebrew for "morning star" was translated "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate, and the KJV then borrowed Lucifer (from the Latin) in it's rendering. Although "morning star" is the correct rendering, scholars have debated who is meant by the words (whether the king of Babylon or Satan or both). Christ, of course, is the true Morning Star. Numbers 24:17, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 22:16.

Hort and Westcott produced the greek text which mixed the corrupted vaticannus and sinaiticus manuscripts in with the majority text to form the eclectic mixture that most modern versions are translated from. The NIV is translated from the 27 th version of the nestle-aland ecclectic mixture.
Read about Hort and Westcott and see if you still call them brothers:

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions:

1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!

2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.

3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.

4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.

5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.

6. Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.

7. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.

8. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.

9. Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.

10. Hort refused to believe in angels.

11. Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.

12. Hort confessed that he hated democracy in all it's forms.

13. Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.

14. While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead (necromancy).

15. The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee.

16. The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.

17. The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.

QUESTION: Does this sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

 

[sag38]

antiaging not only violates the rules but is putting forth the same old tired and untrue arguments that have been perpetuated by the KJVO crowd over and over again and have been adequately debunked time and time again. I guess the truth doesn't matter to him.

 

[antiaging]

I do believe that calling other Bible versions names is against board rules and I do believe you've done it before. Maybe a mod can address this.

Umm - the KJV has nothing at all to do with the Latin Vulgate? How did the last portion of Revelation come into the TR? Might want to look that up.

As for the number of times that the NIV removes words, you might want to see how many times the KJV adds words and removes words from the originals. To compare versions to the KJV for word content is completely wrong. Also note that some of the occasions of a word for God being removed is when it's replaced with a pronoun - and that would not negate God at all.

Here's a site with two interesting charts. Might want to check out where the KJV took out the name of Jesus...

http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html

Your assertions about the NIV are completely ignorant and unfounded. Might want to actually study the Word of God in the different translations than listen to someone who writes comic strips for a living.

Yeah - I hate to tell you that the KJV DID get some translation from the Latin Vulgate. It is based on what was later to be called the Textus Receptus but when Erasmus was doing his translating, he didn't have any manuscripts that included the end of Revelation - so he took the text from the Latin Vulgate. Might want to check your history there...

Vaticannus, one of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts that is mixed into the modern version texts, omits the entire book of Revelation.

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.

4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.

5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

 

[antiaging]

Enough, already!

antiaging, I would like to think I am a reasonable and fairly tolerant individual. However, this is going too far. Had your hand not been called in this, previously, I would say nothing, other than suggest you might want to refrain from such a violation of BB rules, or maybe even PM you, to that effect. Sorry, I'm reporting this one- something I seldom do.Thirty books? Get real! What the site (or source) from which you are getting your material ('Uncle Miltie' - Milton Berle said he knew a good joke, when he stole one. Apparently, you recognize 'a good line,' when you grab one, as well, from some site.) means (and opposeds) 'changing' any words, in translating, hence means that there are 60K+ words that are not the same as the KJV, for it is not giving credence to any words the translators used in translating, that were not a translated part of the KJV (of 1769, of course, considering this site, and most others do not actually cite and quote from the 1611, as a rule.). In fact, I believe the NIV actually uses more words, overall, than the KJV, from sonething I heard, but I lost count of a side-by-side comparison, before I got through Gen. 1. :sleeping_2:

I would add that the 'false charges' above, have also been answered adequately, before, including the reference to "removal" of verses. Why are marginal references not acceptable to you, now, when the were acceptable to the KJV translators, and in fact, the "not copyrighted" KJV-1769 actually does remove these marginal references and readings from the KJV-1611, in most editions I have seen.

FTR, personally, I do not prefer the NIV, and seldom use it. However, my bride happens to like it, and seemingly so do millions of English speaking Christians, considering the numbers printed, these days, just as with the KJV-1769. Have you ever bothered to think about why the KJV-1769 and the NIV are the two versions at the top of the lists, here, in circulation and use? Do you think that just maybe God may have had a little to do with this, somehow??

I suggest the GEN, KJV-1611, YLT, Cambridge- 1762 KJV, and the Darby, ASV, and MLB are at least fairly equivalent to these two version/edition(s), respectively. How many of them can you easily find at your friendly, local, neighborhood Christian bookstore?

Better yet, how many of the first four do you actually posess in 'hard copy?', since you have extolled the TR, and all these are from the TR, in the NT? I would guess the answer is probably 'zero,' although obviously, I do not know,this for a fact.The false statements and implications of this have been adequately answered several times here, including even on this page.

BTW, as to the NT, the TR(s) differ from the MT9s) in hundreds of places, as well, so please don't suggest that fallacy, either.

Ed

The Word of God is called the Sword of the Spirit, in the bible the KJV.
Using God's truth to fight and war against Satan's lies is a serious business.
I'll stick with the real Word of God, the KJV, which is preserved.
If I need to go to war I would rather have a sword than a butter knife.

I will include a poem about Satan, for your amusement. It seems to apply to this discussion:

It's about Satan, - Making The Evil Seem The Good:

In all he did, in all he taught,
He kept this aim in sight;
To get the deeds of darkness done,
Disguised as works of light.
He spread his poison, slow and sure,
Through many a specious sect,
And made the evil seem the good,
Bamboozling God's elect.

 

[EdSutton]

The Word of God is called the Sword of the Spirit, in the bible the KJV.
Using God's truth to fight and war against Satan's lies is a serious business.
I'll stick with the real Word of God, the KJV, which is preserved.
If I need to go to war I would rather have a sword than a butter knife.

I will include a poem about Satan, for your amusement. It seems to apply to this discussion:

It's about Satan, - Making The Evil Seem The Good:

In all he did, in all he taught,
He kept this aim in sight;
To get the deeds of darkness done,
Disguised as works of light.
He spread his poison, slow and sure,
Through many a specious sect,
And made the evil seem the good,
Bamboozling God's elect.

As I have noted before, there were 21, however, as of today, 20 Bible versions in the English language available on Bible Gateway. (There are more than 80 additional versions available there in languages I do not speak.) Of those 20 English versions, 17 of them call the Word of God, "the Sword of the Spirit," as well, just as does the KJV.

Two phrase it a bit differently, with the WYC (It was translated~ 1382, and in "Middle English" or >225 years before the KJV, you do remember!??) rendering this as "the Sword of the Ghost", the CEV (1995), an easy to read translation for thosew with a very limited education, or language issues, such as those who are trying to learn English as a second or third language, rendering this as "for a sword use God's message that comes from the Spirit." Hence, the only version that does not phrase this, effectively in this manner, is the MSG, which phrasing attempts to make this understandable to even a child, even so, says "God's Word is an indispensable weapon."

Since virtual every version you are referring to, says exactly the same thing here, your "butter knife" crack is uncalled for and a misrepresentation, to say the least. I'm also fairly sure God has allowed multiple versions to be preserved, since there are so many all around today. [BTW, why do you effectively esteem Dr. Benjamin Blaney in the 1769 revision, who was, granted, an outstanding scholar, above the 50 scholars, more or less, who actually translated the KJV in 1611? Do you consider him to be even "more inspired" than were those ~ 50 individuals? And if so, why not Dr. F. A. Scrivener, who did the same job of updating, with the KJV as Dr. Blaney, a century later? (No, I am not talking about the R.V. (1881), here, but the 1873 Cambridge- KJV.) Did you happen to notice that God, apparently did not 'see' it fitting for us to have the autographs, to compare each word to? Do you suppose that little fact might be significant?] Even though these five above questions are all rhetorical, they are fair questions, wouldn't you say??]

If you have read any of my posts, on this subject, you will find that I used exclusively, a particular KJV for almost 28 years, until it was stolen. That is hardly opposing the version, and were I actually to be able to acquire that same edition, I would use nothing else, for a regular Bible, than that particular edition, starting today, for the print is extremely clear, if for no other reason! Unfortunately, so far, I have not been able to find one.

As to the poem, I agree with the sentiments quoted. And I will also say that presenting falsehoods, in any manner (more than one of which have been refuted on this thread, by more than one poster), even though they may be well intentioned, to support this is a good example of "making the evil seem the good", for my God "lieth not" (WYC), "cannot lie" (NASB, KJV, NKJV, NCV, KJ21, ASV, DARBY, HCSB), 'does "not lie"' (NIV, YLT, NLT, NIV-UK, TNIV, NIRV), "never lies" (ESV), "never tells a lie" (CEV) "cannot deceive" (AMP), "does not fool people" (WE), and "doesn't break promises" (MSG)!

So who is actually attempting the "bamboozling of God's elect" in this??

And what is the excuse - er' I mean reason, for presenting some of this repudiated stuff, you have previously posted, again??

I believe I must have missed 'hearing' it, the first time, around!

Ed

 

[tinytim]

Wow... Antiaging, you should be banned from BB for breaking the rules...

Just like most other KJVOs... respect means nothing....

BTW, Us MV users are watching you.... better put that tinfoil hat on!
and turn off that TV!

 

[tinytim]

Ed, why waste your time with Antiaging... Remember he is the one that thinks the Roman Catholics are watching him through his TV!

Let him talk.. .the world will see how nutty the KJVO movement really is.

He is the next best thing to Ruckman...

Or Sanderson.... lol....

BTW, AntiAging, I know someone with a ball bat that will take care of your TV problems....

And he is KJVO! What better match.

 

[EdSutton]

antiaging not only violates the rules but is putting forth the same old tired and untrue arguments that have been perpetuated by the KJVO crowd over and over again and have been adequately debunked time and time again. I guess the truth doesn't matter to him.

While the arguments are the same tired things several of us have run across multiple times on the
BB, "the rules" here (Read 'em and weep??) are slightly more lenient in this forum, than in the Bible Versions and Translations forum.

I have little doubt, that this thread would have long since, been 'history' in that forum, but that is merely my opinion.

Ed