Which Bible versions are NOT the Word of God?

[TCassidy]

De NASB, NIB, And all dat LIE 'n tell lies! Huh huh!

 

[Keith M]

C'mon folks, there really are "versions" that actually do "lie and tell lies." These "versions" would include the Inspired Version of the Mormons, the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists, and the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These versions were translated, no, they were manipulated, to support the false teachings of these various groups. Because of their bias and false renderings, these versions can be said to "lie and tell lies." However, mainstream legitimate Bible versions like the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, etc. do not "lie and tell lies." The wording in these versions is not exactly as the wording in the KJV, but none of these versions teach false doctrines. None of them deny the deity of Christ. And none of them teach that we should rely on anything but the precious blood of Jesus Christ for our salvation. In this way, all of these legitimate modern Bible versions are the 100% accurate and inerrant word of God.

 

[mcdirector]

What's the version(s)/translation(s) that took all the masculine pronouns out for non-gender pronouns? Oxford published one. I think there are others. I wouldn't touch any of those with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Keith M]

You're probably thinking about Today's New International Version (TNIV) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Both of these versions are considered "politically correct," I believe.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Now we're getting somewhere, brothers and sister.

Keith M:

C'mon folks, there really are "versions" that actually do "lie and tell lies." These "versions" would include the Inspired Version of the Mormons, the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists, and the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These versions were translated, no, they were manipulated, to support the false teachings of these various groups. Because of their bias and false renderings, these versions can be said to "lie and tell lies."

However, mainstream legitimate Bible versions like the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, etc. do not "lie and tell lies." The wording in these versions is not exactly as the wording in the KJV, but none of these versions teach false doctrines. None of them deny the deity of Christ. And none of them teach that we should rely on anything but the precious blood of Jesus Christ for our salvation. In this way, all of these legitimate modern Bible versions are the 100% accurate and inerrant word of God.

So, there are 2 defined, polar-opposite categories, 2 extremes, if you will. Translations that have been manipulated to support false beliefs on the one hand, and on the other translations that may vary slightly due to translation issues and different manuscripts, but nevertheless endeavor to accurately translate and represent the Word of God.

Many Bible versions will fall somewhere between these parameters and will be difficult to discern as to how they represent God's Word. Maybe we can flush some of them out and unpack them.

To the "Legitimate Bible Versions" list I would propose adding, in addition to the KJV, NASB, NKJV, and NIV: The HCSB, ESV, & ASV - any objections? What about the RSV, RV, and Amplified Bible?

And what about Today's New International Version (TNIV) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) as mcdirector pointed out. Should they be classified as "Contaminated Through Manipulation" (or some other name) along with the Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, and Jehovah's Witnesses' Bibles? Or would they fit in a category somewhere in between the two Parameters?

 

[mcdirector]

Does anyone have an Oxford published Bible? When I was writing for Lifeway, I heard several stories about their distortion of biblical text.

I've been looking for the Oxford Bible I mentioned earlier. I found one (it's the one I was looking for). The New English Version published by Oxford in 1970. Based on the examples I've found, it did a good enough job of distorting text to put it on the "Contaminated through Manipulation" list. IMHO anyway.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible is used by the Metropolitan Community Chruches. It is gay-friendly. It should be on the list. It has 3 editions.

I'm not finding what I'm looking for, but it could be an earlier edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Timing is right and it wouldn't be a great surprise.

 

[pioneer]

Originally posted by TCassidy:

I believe commentaries such as TLB and the Message should not be considered God's word for the purposes of formulating doctrine. However, they are God's word in that they are "scripture . . . able to make thee wise unto salvation."

Salvation in Christ alone is one of the most important doctrines in the scriptures. Therefore your comment makes no sense at all. If a translation, version, or paraphrase should not be considered "God's word for the purposes of formulating doctrine" then it should not be considered scripture "that is able to make thee wise unto salvation." Your statement is illogical.

[ May 21, 2006, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: pioneer ]

 

[mcdirector]

Doesn't the Scripture point people to Christ and salvation?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Pioneer, what are you talking about?

It really seems like you are splitting hairs. The message is a paraphrase, but even it can clearly present the Gospel of Christ alone for salvation

Notice, Doc didnt say "doctrines" but DOCTRINE. Doctrine would be understood to be wholistic, denoting the entirety of doctrineS taught.

The message would not be a good place to gain ones doctrine from. However, there are doctrineS which are clearly taught in the Message.

Do you understand the difference now?

 

[pioneer]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Pioneer, what are you talking about?

It really seems like you are splitting hairs. The message is a paraphrase, but even it can clearly present the Gospel of Christ alone for salvation

Notice, Doc didnt say "doctrines" but DOCTRINE. Doctrine would be understood to be wholistic, denoting the entirety of doctrineS taught.

The message would not be a good place to gain ones doctrine from. However, there are doctrineS which are clearly taught in the Message.

Do you understand the difference now?

I believe that such a statement is illogical double talk. It makes no sense that a paraphrase can't be trusted for doctrine but can be trusted to teach the true way of salvation.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Don't be obtuse, pioneer. The difference is clear. In a paraphrase (written by men, not translated directly from God's Word) there can be accurate presentations of doctrine or inaccurate. This even happens in some poor translations!

Good News for Modern Man (TEV) was an example. Because of the writer's disdain for the blood of Christ, they intentionally paraphrased verses to reflect incorrect doctrine.

But I have not read a single translation that didn't have, say, the Romans Road in clear enough language that a person could see himself as a sinner, a need to repent and turn in faith to God through the death/burial/resurrection of Christ.

They might intentionally mess up about hell or such, but the Gospel is still there.

 

[rbell]

Pioneer,

God is big enough to use paraphrases to draw people unto Him...as long as the essential doctrine of what Christ did is there. I mean, God used a donkey, didn't he?

If I have someone that was drawn to Christ from the Message or the Living Bible, I would introduce them to a good translation, and welcome them with open arms into the Family of God. I've seen it before.

 

[Phillip]

God can even use a tract with a few verses from the gospel of John to lead a person to Christ. He is capable of anything, he designed it all.

Good post rbell.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
I believe commentaries such as TLB and the Message should not be considered God's word for the purposes of formulating doctrine. However, they are God's word in that they are "scripture . . . able to make thee wise unto salvation." They are a poor example of the translator's art, but I would hesitate to consign them and their users to fires of hell.

I think this is an excellent perspective on paraphrases. Variations on this opinion depend on one's understanding of the translator's art. How much of the art of translation is accessability of meaning for the receptor language and culture?

I have no problems calling The Message, LB, GNT, RV, NRSV and TNIV as the Word of God.


I wouldn't to call the NWT the Word of God.

Jefferson's bible wasn't really a bible but that one is obviously not God's Word.

I'll reserve judgement on the Good as New Bible since I haven't done much research on it.

 

[Eliyahu]

I think any Bible version is better than Da Vinci Code.
It is a matter of degree in the accuracy and that of the correctness of the basic texts.
Even Watch Tower Bible still contains a lot of good Words of God. I don't believe that KJV is 100 % perfect though I consider it the best.
Some versions contain a lot of misleading words, which we have to be concerned about.

 

[gtbuzzarp]

My mom got me one of those "read in a year" Bibles for Christmas that is NLT-2 I think.

I've been using it in my quiet time, but often I have to grab my NASB to see what the heck they are really saying, particularly when it comes to Proverbs.

Some of the "updated" talk is really quite strange and changes I think the intent of the original meaning. Although sometimes the language helps my understanding.

I can't outright condone or condemn it. But I think it is a useful tool, particularly for a new Christian. I've said this before but I think it definitely ranks above the Message but below the NASB. Not sure where to place it in respect to the NIV.

 

[dcorbett]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
Which Bible versions are so flawed they should not be regarded as the Word of God?

If any are that flawed they cannot be called a Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Revelation 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

So, If any have verses removed, they are not a usable Bible. See below:

Matthew 5:44
The NIV omits many words from this verse. “Bless them that curse you,” etc.


Matthew 6:13b
Here the NIV omits an important part of the verse. “For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory for ever, Amen.”

Matthew 17:20
The word here should be “unbelief” and not “little faith.”


Matthew 17:21
The NIV omits verse 21.
(This verse is in the original Greek Manuscripts. Do they not believe in prayer and fasting?)


Matthew 19:17

Matthew 19:29
This verse should be stated correctly as, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God:”

NIV omitted the word “wife.”
(The Lord wants us to put Him first; to leave all for Him.)


Matthew 23:14
The NIV omitted this verse completely. They apparently do not like the word “damnation.”


Matthew 23:23
The word “Faith” and the word “faithfulness” do not mean the same. The KJV of the Bible says, “By faith we are saved,” not by “faithfulness.”

(These are the subtle changes in the New Age NIV. I do not believe that “faith” and “faithfulness” have the same meaning.)

Matthew 28:20
NIV says “End of the Age” and the KJV says “End of the World.”


Mark 9:29
The NIV omitted “fasting.” They evidently do not believe in fasting. Our Lord Jesus fasted for 40days and 40 nights.


Mark 10:24
“Trust in riches” was omitted in the NIV.
(The Lord is not against riches, but we are not to trust in them.)


Mark 13:33
My opinion is that “Watch and Pray” is not the same as “be on your guard and be alert.”


Mark 15:28
(This verse was omitted from the NIV. This verse is a prophecy in the Old Testament proclaiming the Deity of Christ.)

Luke 4:4
Words omitted in this verse, “but by every Word of God.”

This is one of the most important verses in the New Testament.

Luke 4:8
The original Greek manuscripts write about Jesus rebuking Satan. Why did the NIV interpreters put these words in?


Luke 6:40
“Perfect is not the same as “fully” trained, as stated in the NIV? Jesus wants us to be perfect in Him, not “fully trained.”

Luke 5:20
Jesus did not call the sinner “friend.” He called the sinner “man.”

Luke 11:2-4
When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we pray “Our Father which art in Heaven…”

The NIV omitted the words “Our” and only mentions “Father.” Are they referring to another father?

In addition, “deliver us from evil” was omitted.

(Do they not see a need for deliverance?)


Luke 12:31
Here again the NIV omits these important words. It should say “The kingdom of God.” The NIV says, “his kingdom.”

(To which kingdom are they referring?)



Luke 21:19
“Patience” is a gift of the Holy Spirit -- “Standing firm” is not the same.


John 4:42
The NIV omitted the “Christ” which means “Anointed One.”

(Subtle changes that are inexcusable – the Word of God says in Rev 22:18-19 that we are not to add to or subtract from the Word of God.)


John 9:35
In this particular verse, It should be “Son of God” and not “son of man,” as the NIV translates it.


Matthew 8:29
NIV omitted “Name of Jesus.”


John 6:47
NIV says “He who believes” – should be “He who believes on me has everlasting life.”

Acts 8:18
NIV says, “spirit – should be “Holy Spirit.”
Man has a spirit also. Which spirit is this?

Acts 10:30
NIV omitted “fasting.”

Fasting is powerful for seeing answers to needs.


Acts 8:37
NIV omitted this entire verse – it is vital to Salvation (Did the translators of the NIV feel ashamed of the Name of Jesus?


Acts 10:30
NIV omitted the word “fasting” – fasting is powerful for seeing needs being met.

Acts 22:16
NIV says “Calling on his name.”

KJV says “The Name of the Lord.”


Romans 11:6
The NIV is not very clear on this verse and the KJV explains “Grace and Works.”

The NIV omits” But if it be of works then it is no more grace.”


1 Cor. 7:5
NIV omitted the word “fasting.”





1 Cor. 14:2


2 errors are in this verse. Firstly, it should read, “unknown tongue” and secondly it is by “the Spirit” (Holy Spirit) and not the spirit of man as in the NIV. Speaking in tongues is not by man’s understanding of the “unknown tongue.”

The spirit of man has nothing to do with the “unknown tongue.”



1 Cor. 16:22
The KJV makes it very clear who it is we are to love. It is the “Lord Jesus Christ,” and not just “Lord” as the translated in the NIV. Lord who? Lord Winston Churchhill?



11 Cor. 1:12
The word “rejoicing” is not the same as “our boast.” Where do the NIV translators get their “ gives credit to the Lord Jesus Christ, whereas, “our boast” gives credit to man.



11 Cor. 1:14
We have the changing of words as in verse 12. This is unacceptable.



11 Cor. 7:4
KJV says, “boldness of speech.”

NIV says, “I have great confidence in you.” Why don’t the translators of the NIV stay with the original manuscripts?



11 Cor. 10:5
KJV “Casting down imaginations” is correct.

NIV says, “Demolish arguments.”



Galatians 4:7
KJV says “servant,” and not “slave,” as translated in the NIV.

A servant has the choice of leaving his master and a slave does not have a choice.

The importance of this translation is that we have a choice of serving Christ or of deserting Him, whereas, a slave does not have that choice.



Galatians 5:22
The NIV translators used the word “faithfulness” in place of the word ”faith.” We are saved by faith and not by being faithful.



Galatians 6:15
NIV omits “for in Christ Jesus” in this verse.



Ephesians 3:9
NIV omitted “created all things by Jesus Christ.”

Revelation 22:19 warns us about taking away from the Word of God.



Ephesians 3:14
KJV says, “I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

NIV says, “I kneel before the Father.”

(Which father are they talking about?)



Phil. 3:21
KJV says, “Vile bodies.”

NIV says, “lowly bodies.” These words have different meanings. Vile means sinful and lowly means humble.



Ephesians 5:9
KJV says “Fruit of the Spirit.”

NIV says, “Fruit of the light.”



Phil. 4:13
KJV says, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”

NIV says, “I can do everything through him.”(Who are they talking about here?)



Col. 1:2
The NIV omitted “and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”



Col 1:14
The NIV crowd must really fear the Blood of Jesus – They omitted this verse.



Col.2: 18
The KJV, “intruding into those things which he hath not seen.”

The NIV, “Things he hath not seen.” A careless translation.



1 Timothy 2: 7
KJV says, “Truth in Christ.”

NIV says, “Truth.” (There is only truth in Christ)



1 Timothy 3:16
NIV says “He appeared in a body”

KJV says, “God was manifest in the flesh.”



2 Timothy 3:17
KJV says, “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

NIV says, “So that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”



(A soldier can be equipped for warfare, but not perfect. Only Christ brings perfection.)



Hebrews 3:6
We are “rejoicing” and not “boasting” as translated in the NIV



Hebrews 3:18
KJV says, “To them that believed not.”

NIV says, ” to those who disobeyed.”



Hebrews 4:12
KJV says, “The Word is quick and powerful,” not as in the NIV “quick and active.” One can be active without being powerful. It is the “Power of God,” that sets us free, not “activity.”



Hebrews 13:21
Should be “make you perfect” (KJV) not “equip” you as in the NIV. There is a vast difference. (See comments on 2 Tim 3:17) above



I Peter 1:22
Should be “with a pure heart” as in KJV not just” heart,” as translated in the NIV. Everyone has a heart: only the children of God have a pure heart.



1 Peter 2:2
“Milk of the Word” is correct and easy to understand. What do some of the translators of the NIV mean by” spiritual milk”?



The emphasis should be on the Word of God, and not on milk, The NIV is continually trying to water down the Word of God. These are humanistic teachings.



2 Peter 1:21


Should be “holy men,” men touched by the Holy Spirit, and not “men”” as in the NIV.



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.”



Some of the translators of the NIV omitted ”heaven.” Is this an earthly agreement? The Word of God says they are “one.” The NIV is translated, “in agreement.”



Being “one” is not the same as “in agreement.” Two friends can agree but they are not necessarily one.



1 John 5:13b
Some of the translators of the NIV omitted, “…and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”



Revelation 1:11
Some of the translators of the NIV omitted one of the names of Jesus. “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last;”



These words are in the original manuscripts.



Revelation 15:3
Should be “King of saints” as in KJV, and not "King of the ages,” as translated in the NIV. God is King of the saints (believers in Christ Jesus).



Isaiah 14:12-15
This one of the most blatant blasphemies. Some of the translators of the NIV went too far -- they reduced Jesus to a fallen being.

They dropped the name “Lucifer” which is another name for” the Devil,” and replaces it with “son of the morning.”



Our Lord is referred to as “the bright and morning star.” (See Revelation 22; 16)

Our Lord Jesus did not fall from heaven. ”Lucifer” fell from heaven because of his pride.



Exodus 6:3
The word “Jehovah” was replaced with the word ”Lord” in the NIV. This is an incorrect translation because of the following reason. The Name “Jehovah” also known, as “Yahweh” is a Name by which God is worshipped as the ”Self-Existent One;” One who reveals himself through His creation. In this instance the name ” Lord” does not do justice to the greatness of God. There are certain individuals who are called “Lord”. The title ”Lord” in this instance does not speak of the Majesty of God.



Psalm 8:5
The NIV replaced the word “angels” with “heavenly beings.” This is a very important verse.

KJV “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.”

NIV “You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings, and crowned him with glory and honor.”

Heavenly beings could be anything that this world thinks up.



Proverbs 8:18
“Righteousness” is correct as in the KJV,” prosperity” not in the NIV. One can be prosperous without being righteous, the world can make you prosperous but it can never make you righteous (in right standing with God).



Proverbs 21:21
“Righteousness” correct in KJV, “prosperous” incorrect in NIV.



Jeremiah 29:11
Here the NIV replaces the word “peace” with ”prosperity.” A person may be prosperous without having peace. God is not opposed to a person being “prosperous,” but we need to keep this verse in the correct context





Daniel 3:25
Some of the translators of the NIV missed the mark completely by stating, “ the fourth looks like the son of the gods.” Did they not understand that it should read, “Looks like the Son (big “S”) of God, not “gods”(small “g”)?

My feeling is that some of the translators tried to make the Bible acceptable to all religions. This is not acceptable! The Word of God should not be changed to suit man; man should change in accordance with the Word of God.














Closing Remarks: - Some say the “NIV” is easer to read. I find the “KJV” is clearer to understand with the help of the Holy Spirit. The “NIV” has so many controversial verses, that no serious Bible scholar should feel comfortable in his spirit while reading it. The NIV should only be used as a reference (if that is what you prefer).



Finally, the Holy Spirit gave me a revelation about this very problem, of distorting the Word of God. He showed me His Word is like fresh clean water. Drinking clean water is healthy for the body. The same way polluted water can make a person ill. The soul of a person will get sick from the polluted word. A dying man in the desert will be revived with clean drinking water. A dying soul on his way to hell needs the pure Word of God.



By Rocco Badenhorst Th.D, PhD

 

[rsr]

What, pray tell, does Dr. Rocco know about this topic (other than what he parrots?)

The stuff about Lucifer and "son of the gods" is just silly.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

dcorbett,

Very well. The KJV added to God's word in Revelation 17:8 by adding the words "kaiper estin" which have never existed on this planet in any manuscript at all.

I am certain you wont address this, since it is you MO to post misleading lies and run, but I figured since everyone else knows your information is simply fraudulous, the fact that you will not address this issue will simply show that to be even more true.

 

[TCassidy]

Well, let's take a look at "Dr." Badenhorst's CV.

Full Gospel Church of God. (Wacko Pentecostal)

Ordained 2002.

Received a diploma "Dale Carnegie Course" during the late 60's to better improve my speaking.

Attended Christ for the Nations Bible School in Dallas, TX 1978—1980 Two year Practical Theological Diploma.

Received a Doctor of Theology Degree from Anchor Theological Seminary

"The Director of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education has determined that Anchor Theological Seminary & Bible Institute does not offer degree programs customarily offered at colleges and universities and has issued an Exemption from Certification. The student should be aware that the degree programs offered by Anchor Theological Seminary & Bible Institute may not transfer to another school." (From their web page, seem like a diploma mill)

Andersonville's Baptist Seminary, Ph.D.

Another diploma mill?

I am being used in the prophetic with a word of wisdom to individuals to encourage them in the Lord. Do you need a word for today?

A Pentecostal "prophet!" Yeah. Right!

KJVOism makes strange bedfellows!