SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Nestle Greek Text

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )

Joined: 2006/3/20
Posts: 235
fredericksburg, Virginia


I dont get how you can say that the NIV and other similar versions havent been corrupted somehow?

Take the test which I posted a couple of posts below. Now dont get me wrong, I own a KJV, NKJV(my favorite), NASB(second favortie), NIV and a NLT. Yes I look like a version collector nut, but these new versions (not including the NASB) have completely watered the gospel down.

I find nothing wrong with people who use any other version (well, okay besides "the message", Just kiddin).

I definitely feel they were in the original manuscripts. Can I prove it, NO. But nobody can prove it wasnt in it, so we are all really talking about something we wont get some great conclusion about.

I do think it is a little weird, However, that some pretty important verses have been cut out, or completely removed.

have a blessed day bros

Matt Kroelinger

 2006/4/28 10:44Profile



BeYeDoers (Denver) wrote:
Cyprian (200-258) "The Lord says, "I and the Father are one.,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ‘and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:6)

That's not even what 1 John 5:7 says. "I and the Father are one" are found in the gospel of John, and his letter says the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, not the Son. John never calls the Word "Son". He calls Him God on a couple of occasions, and there is no doubt they are the same. But John uses "Word" to describe the preincarnate Christ and the Christ coming to conquer at the end of the age. He uses "Son" to describe the incarnate Word. No doubt they are the same, but that is just how John uses his words. And again, reading all of 1 John 5, verse 7 doesn't really fit in. You can force it there, but it sounds strained.

All the quotes I have read from early church fathers that KJV-only people cite as proof are quite vague in what they are actually referening. I have yet to read a quote that says "it is written by John, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." All the quotes show nothing more than the early church believed 100% in the trinity and could show it in scripture, but none quote 1 John 5:7 as we have it, at least that I have seen. The correlation is a forced one by KJV-only people.


Stever's response:

We are only reading the letters of the early Church Fathers that either specifically quote the text, or refer to it in their own words. We do not have the "original autographs", the original velum Scriptures. What we do have in many cases is specific reference to the Scripture, and support for the Received Text from the early Church Fathers.

These are some of the quotes that are specific, and some are vague, but they all back up the "Received Text"---the Textus Receptus:



KJV Mark 1:l, 2
Irenaeus (130-202) "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ., the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets..." "Mark...does thus commence his Gospel narrative; 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets,.., Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him...whom they confessed as God and Lord" (Against Heresies III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3).

KJV Mark 16:19
Irenaeus (130-202) "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." ''Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: so then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." (Against Heresies III:10:6).

KJV Luke 22:44
Justin (100-165) "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible., let this cup pass.'" (Trypho 103:24).

KJV Jn 1:18
Irenaeus (130-202) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father ..."(Against Heresies III:11:6), 'the only begotten Son, who..." (IV:20:6) "the only begotten Son, which (IV:20:11).

KJV John. 3:l3
Hippolytus (170-236) "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus I:1:4).

KJV John 5:3, 4
Tertullian (160- 221) "...waiting for the moving of the water, For an angel went down at a certain season unto the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." "if it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in Waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was want to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing ceased to complain."(on Baptism I:1:5)

KJV Jn. 6:69
Irenaeus (130-.202) "And we believe and are sure that thou are that Christ the Son of the living God." "By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognized Christ as the Son of the living God..." (Against Heresies III:11:6).

KJV John. 14:l7 " ... but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
P66 (c. 200) " ... shall be in you."

KJV Acts 8:36 - 37 "…See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 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."
Cyprian (200-258) "In the Acts of the Apostles: 'Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:43).

KJV I Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."
Ignatius (35-116) "God was in the flesh" (To the Ephesians I:1:7).
Hippolytus (170-236) "God was manifested in the flesh" (Against the Heresies of Noetus I:1:17).
Dionysius (3rd cent.) "For God was manifested in the flesh" (Conciliations I:1:853).

KJV I John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Cyprian (200-258) "The Lord says, "I and the Father are one.,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ‘and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:6)

KJV Rev. 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Tertullian (160-221) "Blessed are they who act according to the precepts, that they may have power over the tree of life, and over the gates., for entering into the holy city." (On Modesty I:19:2).

KJV II Pet. 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Tertullian (160-221) "Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of its own purposes." (On Prescriptions Against Heresies I:7:l),


Stever concludes:

Even in fundamental circles the issue relating to the various modern translations of the Bible is controversial. It is not merely the question of "inspiration". The crux is that of preservation. Has God preserved His Word perfect for us today, or was it only perfect in the "original" autographs? If God has not preserved His Word perfectly, we must assume that we are preaching and teaching from a book that is not completely reliable as the "original" autographs are no longer accessible.

If we believe that the Bible is still the inerrant Word of God, we must then deal with the problem of determining which version is the true Word of the Living God. Logic dictates that two opposing statements cannot both be true. Therefore, two contradicting "Bibles" cannot both be the inerrant Word of God. I proclaim that the "King James" or "Authorized Version" is the Word of God translated into the English language to the extent that it is the final authority in all matters of conduct and faith. Furthermore, as the modern translations since 1881 often differ from the King James Bible in wording as well as doctrine, and since two conflicting texts cannot be infallible, perfect and inerrant, the reader must of necessity make a choice.

God bless,


 2006/4/28 10:54

Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, known popularly as the King James Bible, state that it was not their purpose "to make a new translation ... but to make a good one better."

Indebted to the earlier work of William Tyndale, Wyclif and others, they saw their best contribution to consist in revising and enhancing the excellence of the English versions which had sprung from the Reformation of the sixteenth century.

I think this is the intention of the translators of all the new versions that are out.

Stever concludes:

we must then deal with the problem of determining which version is the true Word of the Living God.

We must not look at the versions but to cross reference and look at the implied contextual meaning of what the Word sais.

I even like to cross reference the "Good News Bible" for a ampled understanding.

We don't worship the book, but who the book reviels.

 2006/4/28 11:15Profile

Joined: 2006/4/13
Posts: 58
South Central Kentucky


I would like to invite anyone, especially those who profess KJVO to listen to an audio debate that I have on my website. It was done on the John Ankerberg show between the editors of the newer versions and KJVO advocates. Check it out [url=]PinPoint Evangelism[/url]. Just scroll down and you will find it! God Bless!

Kerrigan Skelly

 2006/4/28 14:07Profile

Joined: 2006/3/20
Posts: 235
fredericksburg, Virginia



I like the site, I just was able to take a small glance at it, but I will look more into it tonight, thanks

god bless you brother,


Matt Kroelinger

 2006/4/28 16:43Profile

Joined: 2006/2/7
Posts: 296

 Re: vaudois or waldensian

What about the Vaudois or Waldensian. what can be said for those. Is it merely a 'good' story?

I am truly not one to debate versions of the Bible but like to find more information about the history of the 'ekklesia.' I have been reading Ehrmans book on 'Lost Christianities.' Anybody read that book?
Interesting, to say anything. I have found, though, with all the reading and study of extra-biblical stuff and histories I lose the time to know Him. To know Him is by far the greatest mystery and journey, 'For we will surely find Him.


 2006/4/28 16:59Profile



Logic wrote:
In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, known popularly as the King James Bible, state that it was not their purpose "to make a new translation ... but to make a good one better."

Indebted to the earlier work of William Tyndale, Wyclif and others, they saw their best contribution to consist in revising and enhancing the excellence of the English versions which had sprung from the Reformation of the sixteenth century.

"[u][i][b]I think this is the intention of the translators of all the new versions that are out[/b][/i][/u]"

Stever's response: [u][i][b]Absolutely incorrect[/b][/i][/u]. It was the intention of Westcott and Hort, due to their Catholic sympathies, to replace the majority text (the Textus Receptus) with the minority text.

What was the intent of Hort? Below, find specific proof of his revulsion of the Textus Receptus. It is from the book by Floyd Nolen Jones entitled "Which Version Is The Bible":

In 185l, Mr. Hort wrote:
"I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts."

[A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 211.]

Thus at only age twenty-three and having admitted he had almost no preparatory background, Hort concluded that the Textus Receptus was "vile" and "villainous". At that time he dedicated his life to its overthrow, intending to supplant it with another text. The text he eventually replaced the TR with was Codex Vaticanus B.

At the time of this decision, young Hort had been schooled in Classical Greek and was unaware that the New Testament had not been written in that form of the Greek language. Since the Greek of the New Testament as recorded in the Textus Receptus did not rigidly follow the syntax of the Greek of the classics, Hort deemed it as an inferior quality of Greek. This misconception was responsible for his having rashly termed the TR as "vile" and "villanious". Indeed, the Egyptian papyri which proved that the N.T. had been written in Koine (common) Greek rather than Classical Greek had not yet been discovered.

Vaticanus B had been "discovered" in 1481 on the library shelf of the Vatican. To understand Vaticanus B, we have to go back to approximately 200 A.D. to an early so-called "Father" of the church named ORIGEN. If the student researches encyclopedias and other reference materials, he will find Origen, Westcott, and Hort spoken of as having been great men of God – men of faith. They will state how much the Church is indebted to them, that Origen was the first scientific textual exegete of the Scriptures, etc. However, such is not what one finds upon close examination of the facts.

Origen compiled an Old Testament called the Hexapla (c.245 A.D.). It was, in effect, a parallel Bible which had six columns. The first column was the Hebrew Old Testament. Three other columns portrayed Greek translations by men who were Ebionites. They believed in the ethical teachings of Jesus but did not believe in Paul's doctrines of grace. Indeed, they called Paul an apostate and wholly rejected all his epistles. They did not believe Jesus was Deity – that He was God with a capital "G", and taught that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Several of the Ebionites whose translations were included in these columns later apostatized, returning to Judaism.

One of them (Aquila of Sinope, 80-135 A.D.) was excommunicated from the Christian community for steadfastly refusing to give up astrology and for practicing necromancy. During the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), he supervised the building of a pagan temple to Jupiter on the site of the Temple of Solomon and placed a statue of the Emperor where the Holy of Holies had been. Aquila produced a new translation of the Old Testament into Greek wherein he deliberately translated many sections of Scripture concerning the Messiah in such a way as to make it impossible to apply these passages to the Lord Jesus Christ. He conjectured that the Greek word "parthenos" of Matthew 1:23 was not the virgin Mary but represented a corruption in the original text. According to Aquila, the correct understanding was that Jesus was the bastard son of Mary and a blond Roman soldier of German extraction named "pantheras" (Eng. = panther). Origen considered the works of these Ebionites to be "inspired" and thus included them in his "Bible".

The fifth column (written in classical Greek) supposedly is Origen's revision of an older pre A.D. Greek Old Testament translation. Today, this 5th column is referred to by text critics (though they are loathe to admit this) as the "LXX" or the "Septuagint".

Origen also worked with the New Testament. Whereas he mainly translated the Old, he edited the New. Origen traveled extensively and everywhere he found a Greek New Testament, it was altered to fit his doctrine. He, of course, felt that he was merely "correcting" the manuscripts. However, men of God do not change original manuscript readings. If one does not agree with the text of a manuscript, the place for change is at translation; but to alter the original document – never! Origen had a wealthy patron who supplied seven stenographers and seven copyists to accompany and assist him as he systematically altered Scripture.

Origen was the third head master of a school in Alexandria, Egypt, which had been founded in 180 A.D. by the Greek philosopher Pantaenus. Pantaenus was succeeded in 202 A.D. by Clement of Alexandria (not to be confused with Clement of Rome) who taught that Plato's work was also inspired in the same sense as Scripture. Their writings indicate they were lost, Albeit "religious", Greek philosophers. Neither professed a new birth apart from water baptism; indeed, it was on the basis of their having been so baptized that they declared themselves "Christian".

However, the New Testament repeatedly declares that this is not how one becomes a Christian as water neither saves nor redeems. Rather, the Bible teaches that in order to be a Savior you must live a sinless life, die on a cross and come back to life on the third day. As Mary, the Roman Catholic church, the Baptist church, Calvin, Wesley, or any present day churchmen etc. did not die on the cross and come back to life on the third day, they cannot be the savior of men's souls. Since water did not die on the cross and come back to life on the third day, it also cannot save the soul.

The following is a composite gleaned from many sources depicting the beliefs of Origen. Let us examine them to see if he was in fact a "great early Father of the Church" as we are often told.

This Greek philosopher had been taught by the founder of Neo-Platonism (Ammonius Saccas 170-243 A.D.). Neo-Platonism is a strange combination of Aristotelian logic and Oriental cult teachings. It conceives the world as being an emanation from "the one" – the impersonal one (not the personal "Abba" [Daddy or even the more intimate "Dada"] of the Bible) with whom the soul is capable of being reunited while in some sort of trance or ecstasy.

As a follower of that philosophy, Origen attempted to amalgamate its views to Christianity. The problem with Origen, as with many who profess Christianity today, was that he tried to take "the best" of the world system (that which he had learned in school - his old philosophic views etc.) and incorporate them into Christianity; but they do not mix. It will be noted that many of Origen's beliefs coincide with Roman Catholic and Jehovah's Witness doctrine, both of which are "Christian" cults. Origen believed:

[Stever's note--please compare these beliefs with those of the Catholic Doctine, as well as the NIV and all of the newer versions [in all of those items listed below, not including Transubstantion--which is a Catholic only Doctrine]. Origen's beliefs were transferred to the text he was creating. This is only some of the watering down that we find in all of the newer versions, as well as the Catholic Bible, and Catholic Church as well]. soul sleep (that the soul "sleeps" in the grave until the resurrection). However, the Bible teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (II Cor.5:8); baptismal regeneration (belief that one is saved by water baptism). Although Satan was the originator, Origen is the first man we can find who was a strong proponent of this doctrine; universal salvation, i.e., the ultimate reconciliation of all things including Satan and the demons;

4.that the Father was God with a capital "G" and Jesus was God with a little "g" – that Jesus was only a created being. Thus, Origen was not Christian in the most basic of all doctrine, namely the person of the Lord Jesus the Christ; become sinless, one had to go to purgatory . This doctrine is nowhere to be found in Scripture; transubstantiation (that at communion the bread and wine actually turn to the body and blood of Christ); and transmigration and reincarnation of the soul. (The resurrection of Jesus corrects that error as He came back to life as the same Jesus. Hebrews 9:27 says "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Thus the Bible teaches there is no reincarnation.);

8.and would not concede that any intelligent person could believe that the temptations of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures actually happened;

9.the Scriptures were not literal (Origen was the "father of allegories");

10.neither in an actual "Adam" nor the fall of man and that Genesis 1-3 was not literal or historical;

11.the correct intrepretation of Matthew 19 was that a man of God should be casterated and thereby proceded to emasculate himself;

12.and taught eternal life was not a gift, rather that one must seize hold on and retain it (but Eph.2:8 says "By faith are ye saved through grace; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.");

13.that "Christ enters no man until he grasps mentally the doctrine of the consummation of the ages" (that would eliminate about 99% at most typical Christian gatherings);

14.or intimated that non baptized infants were hell bound; and

15.the redeemed would not experience a physical resurrection (yet I Cor.15 teaches the physical resurrection, as do many other Scriptures). Moreover, around 200 A.D. Alexandrian "Christians" taught that Mary was the second person of the Trinity ("Quarterly Journal of Prophecy" [July, 1852], p. 329).
Origen is often depicted as a "man of God", especially because he "died for his beliefs". That is certainly a commendable character trait, but Mussulini, Karl Marx and Hitler also died for their beliefs. That does not mean they were Christians. Many people have believed in a cause enough to give their lives for it, but it does not follow that they were Christian. Origen's beliefs clearly show that he was a religious gnostic Greek philosopher and not truly a born again son of God.

Before closing this section it must be noted that the frame of reference taken in selecting the correct text from among the variant readings during the 1870-1881 revision was said to be that of a "neutral" approach. This meant that the problem was to be approached with the mind set that said readings should not be chosen which "reflect a doctrinal bias" – that Scripture displaying a doctrinal bias should be viewed suspiciously. Thus if the variant being examined read to the effect that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, that should be viewed as highly suspicious for it is very doctrinal. The problem with such a priori is that the Bible is a book of doctrine (II Tim.3:17).

Most modern scholars who work on Bible revision also like to think of themselves as being "neutral" maintaining that they translated or chose a reading having come to the problem with a "neutral" approach. But do we really believe that God would take a "neutral" point of view toward His Son and upon His finished work of redemption? When we read the letters of Paul and John, do we conclude that they were neutral? The standpoint that Jesus is Jehovah God – the Creator – come in the flesh is not a neutral position. Neither Peter nor Luke took a neutral position! Indeed, there is no such thing as a neutral position concerning the deity of Christ Jesus.

Westcott and Hort championed the so-called "neutral" method and it has been with us ever since. The question that must be faced is – would a man who fits the spiritual description of Origen as outlined on the two previous pages (whose work W&H used) ever produce a neutral text? Some of these textual critics are sincere but deceived. However, most are wolves in sheep's clothing. Origen was the first wolf in this cult and the fifth column of his Hexapla along with his edited N.T. are the fruits of that wolf cult. This concludes the first installment in our exposé of this great horror.


I pray that these facts have opened eyes and hearts to the truth that is so hard to find in these last days.

God bless,


 2006/4/28 19:46

Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3708


Just another example of new version taking God and Christ out of our salvation and putting man and his works at the forefront again.

1 Corinthians 8:6 TNIV (Today's New International Version) Print

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV (New International Version) Print

6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV (King James Version) Print

6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

for whom we live or through whom we live is a great distance from "we in Him and we by Him.
We are in God by His Seed, By Jesus Christ who is the Seed in whom we have Life.

See the subtle difference, one we do it, the KJV God and Christ do it in us. Taking away from the Life in Christ and God and making us, "surely God knows you will be just like Him."

In Christ: Phillip


 2006/4/29 0:26Profile

 Re: The NIV Corruption

Stever posts:

The NIV Corruption

Scripture Comparison
Let's consider some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by the NIV. You should note that most of these omissions are found in the other new versions also, if you want to compare.

The NIV even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:
Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely corrupted by this supposed improved "Bible".

God has a warning to anyone who would dare change His Word.
Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 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.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

You will note, they change book of life to tree of life (what part would we even have in the tree of life?), then they confuse the last part of the verse, by dropping "and" and running the verse together, it is weakened. The warning is weakened. THIS IS WHAT THE NIV IS ALL ABOUT. IT CORRUPTS, OMITS, WEAKENS AND CHANGES GOD'S INSPIRED WORD. I pray that this study will be used by God to give you a conviction concerning the Word of God. I don't know where anything is improved or fortified in the NIV. Here is a good question. Why would you want to use a single shot 22, when the enemy is using a M-16? Give me a real rifle and the right ammo for the battle.

A. The Deity of Christ is Clearly Attacked.
1. By changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God. This is done in the NASV also.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) 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.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
2. By changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) 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 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
3. They change "Son of God" to "Son of Man", who gave them the right to call Jesus a liar?

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

4. In Matthew 9:18, Matthew 20:20, and Mark 5:6 "Worshipped" and "Worshipping" is changed to "knelt down". This removes the due respect of our Saviour.
5. Jesus is eternal, He did not have an origin.

Micah 5:2 (KJV) 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.

Micah 5:2 (NIV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

6. Again, Jesus is eternal, He is the beginning and ending.

Revelation 1:8 (KJV) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:8 (NIV) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
7. The NIV omits the first part of the verse, and leaves out the name Jesus, who is called the Son of God by these devils.

Matthew 8:29 (KJV) And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 8:29 (NIV) "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"
8. NIV leaves out Jesus.

Matthew 16:20 (KJV) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Matthew 16:20 (NIV) Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
9. They omit Christ and add man - this is wrong!

John 4:42 (KJV) And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
John 4:42 (NIV) They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."
10. Where did this name for God come from "One" - this is the New Age universal god - "the One".

John 6:69 (KJV) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
John 6:69 (NIV) We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
11. NIV Omits Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 16:22 (KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
1 Corinthians 16:22 (NIV) If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord !
12. NIV omits by Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) 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:
Ephesians 3:9 (NIV) and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
13. When did God cease to be wise?

1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:17 (NIV) Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
14. Omits by himself.

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
15. The NIV attacks the priestly order of Jesus!

Hebrews 7:21 (KJV) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) Hebrews 7:21 (NIV) but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'"
16. The NIV changes Lucifer's name to "morning star."

This shows how insidious the NIV corruption is. Remember that this is one of the blessed titles given to our Lord Jesus in (Revelation 22:16). Here they provide confusion between who Satan is and who Jesus is. One thing is for sure, Satan is not the bright and morning star, but the wicked evil deceptive one, who was called before his fall, "Lucifer".

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isaiah 14:15 (KJV) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Isaiah 14:15 (NIV) But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

Note: At least 70 times, the NIV omits GOD! * Jesus - 15; Christ - 25; Lord - 16; God - 13.
*Somebody must not like Jesus, Christ, Lord, and God.

B. The Virgin Birth.
1. The NIV removes "firstborn" - questions the virgin birth!

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew 1:25 (NIV) But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
2. The NIV changes "Joseph" to "the child's father" - questioning the virgin birth!

Luke 2:33 (KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luke 2:33 (NIV) The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
3. The NIV changes "Joseph and his mother" to "his parents" which attacks the virgin birth.

Luke 2:43 (KJV) And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
Luke 2:43 (NIV) After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.
4. The NIV changes "only begotten of the Father" to "One and Only" which is a New Age title for some cosmic god.

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.
John 1:14 (NIV) 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.
5. Notice the NIV omits "Christ" and "is come in the flesh". This is important to us who are saved.

1 John 4:3 (KJV) 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.
1 John 4:3 (NIV) but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
C. The Atoning Death of Christ.
1. The NIV Omits over half of the verse.

Matthew 27:35 (KJV) And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
Matthew 27:35 (NIV) When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
2. The NIV removes the verse (even the Catholic Bible has this verse).

Mark 15:28 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Mark 15:28 (NIV)
3. They omit "they struck him on the face", this weakens the fulfillment of Isaiah 50:6 "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting".

Luke 22:64 (KJV) And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
Luke 22:64 (NIV) They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"
4. The NIV omits the BLOOD and question the Deity of Christ in these verses.

Colossians 1:14-15 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:14-15 (NIV) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
D. The Resurrection of Christ.
1. This Omission attacks both the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of our Lord. Without the resurrection, we have not hope of eternal life.

Acts 2:30 (KJV) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Acts 2:30 (NIV) But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
2. The NIV omits "of the dead".
This brings in question the power of God in resurrection. Many cultists teach that Jesus was not raised in a physical body. The "New Bibles" give these false doctrines aid and comfort.

Acts 24:15 (KJV) And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Acts 24:15 (NIV) and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.
3. The NIV omits "him that liveth for ever and ever". Jesus said "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
Revelation 1:18

Revelation 5:14 (KJV) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
Revelation 5:14 (NIV) The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
Satan hates the resurrection of Christ, and will do anything he can to fight it.
4. They delete the truth that our Lord has a body; this is taught by the modernist, and cults of our day. When Jesus is seen as not having a BODY, He is seen without a resurrection.

Ephesians 5:30 (KJV) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Ephesians 5:30 (NIV) for we are members of his body.
E. The Ascension of Christ.
1. They leave out "I go to the Father" this attacks the all important doctrine of the ascension of Christ. If Jesus did not resurrect and if He did not ascend back to the Father, then we have no hope of salvation and we have no hope of the second coming.

John 16:16 (KJV) A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
John 16:16 (NIV) "In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me."
2. They leave out "is the Lord", Jesus is Lord to the Glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:47 (KJV) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:47 (NIV) The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
F. The Doctrine of the Trinity.
The Devil hates all three of the Godhead. Many references to names of God are attacked.
1. Who gave the translators the authority to change God's name? Jeremiah spoke about so called "Prophets", "which think to cause my people to forget my name" (Jeremiah 23:27).

Exodus 6:3 (KJV) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Exodus 6:3 (NIV) I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.

Genesis 22:14 (KJV) And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Genesis 22:14 (NIV) So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
2. It is apparent that the NIV does not like to use the blessed name Jehovah, why? Is this to accommodate the New Age crowd?
For anyone to alter the name of our God is ungodly and out of Hell. (Of course they don't like HELL either, study on).

Exodus 17:15 (KJV) And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
Exodus 17:15 (NIV) Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner.
3. In the NIV study bible I am using, I cannot find one time they use the name Jehovah, why? What is wrong with the blessed name of God? It is the Hebrew.

Isaiah 12:2 (KJV) Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
Isaiah 12:2 (NIV) Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation."
4. These verses teaching the Trinity.
Exodus 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:14 (NIV) God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
5. The NIV removes the word Godhead which is a direct reference to the Trinity.
Most every cult I know of hates the Trinity, can a person be saved and deny this great doctrine? 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." We have already seen how that the deity of Christ is attacked, the Fatherhood of God, and we will see how the person of the Holy Spirit is attacked.

Romans 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20 (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 2:9 (KJV) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Colossians 2:9 (NIV) For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

Acts 17:29 (KJV) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Acts 17:29 (NIV) "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill.
6. They put part of verse 8 and call it verse 7. This is corrupt and evil.

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7-8 (NIV) For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
There is no greater verse in all the Bible to teach the doctrine of the Trinity than (I John 5:7), yet the modern versions omit them, and textual criticism have a heyday with this verse. Yet this verse if found in "The old Syriac A.D. 170, old Latin A.D. 200, Vulgate: 4th and 5th century, Italian 4th and 5th century". Also many church fathers quoted this and it is found in "Liber Apologetic A.D. 350, Council of Carthiage A.D. 415." The idea that the True Word of God was lost for 1800 years, and then found by our Catholic friends, is an insult to God Almighty and His ability to preserve His Word.

7. The Holy Ghost changed ...
Acts 8:18 (KJV) And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Acts 8:18 (NIV) When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money

Romans 15:19 (KJV) Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Romans 15:19 (NIV) by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.

John 7:39 (KJV) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
John 7:39 (NIV) By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
We can see that they don't like "Spirit of God" or "Holy Ghost", why? Because Satan wants to weaken the Trinity.
8. Looks like they could at least translate this Holy Spirit, but this unholy day hates the Holy things of God.

Acts 6:3 (KJV) Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Acts 6:3 (NIV) Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them

1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Corinthians 2:13 (NIV) This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
9. Again it's meaning is changed.

Romans 8:15 (KJV) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Romans 8:15 (NIV) For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
10. The truth is questioned !?!

Acts 11:17 (KJV) Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Acts 11:17 (NIV) So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
11. There is a great deal of difference between weakness and infirmity. Infirmity happens because of outside influences, but weakness speaks of one's character. Our Lord was entirely without sin.

Hebrews 5:2 (KJV) Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
Hebrews 5:2 (NIV) He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.
12. Questions Deity !!

Revelation 1:13 (KJV) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, ...
Revelation 1:13 (NIV) and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," ...

Revelation 14:14 (KJV) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, ...
Revelation 14:14 (NIV) I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" ...

Daniel 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Daniel 3:25 (NIV) He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
G. The Doctrine of Salvation by Faith. The NIV attacks this most important doctrine. Satan surely doesn't want anybody saved by grace.

1. The Word of God is our authority for salvation and to defeat Satan.

Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 (NIV) Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"
2. They omit repentance, Satan hates real heart felt, Holy Ghost inspired repentance.

Matthew 9:13 (KJV) 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.
Matthew 9:13 (NIV) But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
3. They remove the need for the heart to be converted by simply removing the heart.

Matthew 12:35 (KJV) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil t.
Matthew 12:35 (NIV) The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.
4. In John 3, the great chapter on the New Birth, the NIV does much damage tot he doctrine of salvation by faith in the Son of God.
a. They leave out "which is in heaven" which takes from the Lord's deity.

John 3:13 (KJV) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 (NIV) No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.
b. They leave out "should not perish" the reference to hell.

John 3:15 (KJV) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:15 (NIV) that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
c. They remove the sonship of the believer - John 1:12.

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, ...
John 3:16 (NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, ...
d. They just keep on changing, and changing, and changing.

John 3:36 (KJV) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 3:36 (NIV) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
5. The new birth is changed to a process where you are nurtured into the kingdom. The question, What Kingdom?

John 1:12 (KJV) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
John 1:12 (NIV) Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
6. The doctrine of Salvation by grace through faith could never be clearer than in Romans. Look what the NIV does:

Romans 11:6 (KJV) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 11:6 (NIV) And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7. The NIV does not stand on the great doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.
The translators were out of "works" backgrounds. The NIV staff was quoted as saying, "A Christian never 'IS' but always 'IS BECOMING'". Notice how they take God's grace out of your heart.

Colossians 3:16 (KJV) ... with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Colossians 3:16 (NIV) ... with gratitude in your hearts to God.
8. Salvation is not a sure thing in the NIV, but rather a process. Notice the change in this verse.

2 Corinthians 7:10 (KJV) For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2 Corinthians 7:10 (NIV) Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
9. This omission reveals the blatant design of Satan through the new bibles. No where can you find a more blessed verse than Acts 8:37, that teaches salvation is without baptism or works, and the NIV omits it altogether.

Acts 8:36-37 (KJV) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 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.
Acts 8:36-37 (NIV) As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 37
10. Another shocking omission is found in Mark 6:11, this verse teaches the serious result of rejecting Christ.

Mark 6:11 (KJV) And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mark 6:11 (NIV) And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."
11. You will find in the NIV that salvation is a matter of obeying and not believing.

Romans 11:32 (KJV) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Romans 11:32 (NIV) For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Hebrews 3:18 (KJV) And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Hebrews 3:18 (NIV) And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed ?

Hebrews 4:6 (KJV) Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6 (NIV) It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
12. The NIV also teaches a plan of salvation that not only depends on works to "be saved", but it depends on works to "stay saved".

2 Timothy 2:12 (KJV) If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
2 Timothy 2:12 (NIV) if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
13. The NIV reduces our sure confidence to a hope. This sure fits most people who say, "Well, I hope I am saved."

Hebrews 10:23 (KJV) Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Hebrews 10:23 (NIV) Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
14. In the salvation of Saul, the NIV omits much from the all important text concerning his conversion.

Acts 9:5-6 (KJV) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Acts 9:5-6 (NIV) "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
They omit "and the Lord said". This deletes the authority of the one speaking. The other omission is the statement "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". This is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. My How Satan hates the convicting work of the Holy Ghost, but without this no one can be saved. In the NIV Saul doesn't call Jesus Lord, why? Because they teach a plan of salvation that consists of a process of good works. When Saul called Jesus Lord, he was saved. That's why Ananias called him, "Brother Saul" in Acts 9:17.

15. The NIV doesn't think much of repentance.

Mark 2:17 (KJV) When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mark 2:17 (NIV) On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
What did Jesus call these sinners? Modern man rejects the idea of old fashioned Bible repentance, yet it still gets the job done. Repentance is not some separate act done in a procession of steps, but rather it is the turning from a life of rejecting Jesus and turning to God by faith.
16. The cross is also deleted from the corrupt version.

Mark 10:21 (KJV) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Mark 10:21 (NIV) Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
H. The Doctrine of the Second Coming is abused in the NIV.

The NIV attacks the kingdom of God and the coming reign of Jesus. This is done because of the New Age, Satanic doctrine, that the Anti-Christ will win the battle of Armageddon and will rule in place of Christ.

1. Let's consider the model prayer in Luke 11:2-4.
a. You will notice that the NIV changes "Our Father" to "Father", why? Because we live in an age that believes in the universal fatherhood of God, that is "everyone is a child of God". This Devil crowd uses the prayer given in the NIV as a prayer to their father, Satan. They also omit, "which art in Heaven,". We must ask, "Who is this father in the NIV?" They also omit, "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth". What is the will of God for this earth? It is for the Lord Jesus to return and put all of His enemies under His footstool and for Him to reign in power and glory.
Luke 11:2 (KJV) And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Luke 11:2 (NIV) He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.
b. "My" to "the".
John 14:28 (NIV) "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
c. They also change 2 Thessalonians 1:2 from "God our Father" to "God the Father" in the NIV.
d. This is true in 1 Timothy 1:2, Philemon 1:25; and in Revelation 22:21. The devil hates for us to preach that God can be our own Father, of whom we can cry, "Abba, Father."
e. "but deliver us from evil" deleted.

Luke 11:4 (KJV) And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Luke 11:4 (NIV) Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.'"
2. The NIV continues to eliminate God's Kingdom.
Matthew 6:13 (KJV) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 6:13 (NIV) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
They change "evil" to "evil one", and omit the kingdom, power and glory of God for ever. Why would anyone put confidence in this corrupt NIV.
3. They omit the second coming.
The devil hates the second coming because he knows his time will be over.

Matthew 25:13 (KJV) Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Matthew 25:13 (NIV) "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
4. Look how the NIV attacks the rapture of the church. The whole verse is omitted.

God bless,


P.S. There is more, that I will post later. Can you see the end product of the NIV and the newer versions. It did not happen by accident, but was intended by the Translators, starting with Origen, followed by Eusebius, and then followed by Westcott and Hort. The NIV and the other Newer versions, is there intentional deceit?
God will be the judge of the whole matter very soon.

 2006/4/30 1:25

Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4582


Hello Stever...

Let's consider some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by the NIV. You should note that most of these omissions are found in the other new versions also, if you want to compare.

The NIV even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God.


P.S. There is more, that I will post later. Can you see the end product of the NIV and the newer versions. It did not happen by accident, but was intended by the Translators, starting with Origen, followed by Eusebius, and then followed by Westcott and Hort. The NIV and the other Newer versions, is there intentional deceit?
God will be the judge of the whole matter very soon.

I do not know how to make this more clear. The NIV was translated from a completely different set of ancient texts than the KJV. It NEVER omitted anything. The fact that a particular word or phrase is omitted is testament to the fact that the bulk of the ancient source texts used for NIV simply did not have them. Thus, it would have been DISHONEST to include them for the sake of tradition (such as some of the ecclesiastical terms that were purposely insisted upon for the KJV).

It is unwise to consider the validity of a translation by using a side-by-side comparison of one translation using another. Why? Because they are only translations of the different [u]sources[/u] that they used. Since different sources were used, why should we expect them to be translated from language to language to language to language exactly the same.

I live in extreme south Texas (about an hour south of Corpus Christi). As an experiment, I recently asked several spanish speaking friends to translate a two-page paper for me. Two of these individuals are graduate students majoring in Spanish. Another was a bilingual education major, minoring in Spanish. And two more were Mexican citizens that are attending college in the United States. A few days later, I received the finished translations. And you know what? Every single one of them was different. While the mass bulk of what they translated was the same -- there were some noticable differences in verbage, grammar and terms. I asked several of them about the differences. They told me that there are often several ways to say the same thing. If this is what we can expect from a latin-based language such as Spanish, what can we expect when translating something into a grammatically complex language like English? And how much more if the source texts that are being translated from are completely different? Would they be exactly the same? Of course not!

Stever, it seems that your real qualm is with the source material -- and not with serious, academic translations like the NIV. The KJV is a wonderful translation. In fact, I personally prefer it as the best source derived from the Textus Receptus. However, the NIV is also a great translation using the other sources. I often like to refer to both of them. This is not to consider one as being vastly superior to the other, but as a way to consider two translations based upon different sources.

I truly believe that it is important that you refrain from making slanderous allegations about translations like the NIV or their translators. You often state as "fact" what is merely your own "opinion" based upon the things that you have studied. You do not know any of the translators of the NIV. Nor do you know any of the translators of the KJV. Nor do you have any source texts to judge. Even if you did, I'm not certain about your expertise with translating such old languages. Therefore, it is impossible for you to determine such things based upon books or webpages that were written using some sort of bias.

Why am I writing this? It is important that people that happen to read your posts realize that there are many other perspectives about this issue. Many of us have seriously studied this issue -- and have simply arrived at a completely different conclusion. Of course, you have every right to state your conclusions. But it is important that you are careful about distinguishing what is [u]your[/u] conclusion -- and what is undeniable [u]fact[/u]. We should do our best to make certain which is which.



 2006/4/30 2:17Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy