King James Version or RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?

[Hobie]

Take a look at this comparison of the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emgkCvzJ ... attle.html


It brings up the way the RSV and NIV have shifted emphasis, or even deleted parts that affect what scripture teaches...
KJV---(King James Version)RSV---(Revised Standard Version)---NIV(New International Version)

1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
KJV---For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
RSV---For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
NIV---( missing )


Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV---Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
RSV--- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
NIV---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,


Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV---wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
RSV---and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
NIV---wash your sins away, calling on his name.

A lot of people say its just a differnt translation or more modern words. The problem is that some of these new versions are not just a 'different translation', they basically have done editing to actually change or take out whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with a doctrine they hold or someones traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like some groups have done away and written their own... and eventually you get to a point which the video brings up where 'You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV...'

So its not just a 'different translation'....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The Textus Receptus (the vast majority of copies from original, and what the King James is based on) has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. Here is some background on the Textus Receptus:


"...Textus Receptus

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind...."

http://www.bkdesign.ca/translations/part1-3.html

 

[whirlwind]

Excellent post Hobie!

And...yes, it makes a difference. :yes

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Free]

There have been a lot of these discussions around here. Many such arguments used in support of the KJV are false and misleading. It is best to use a variety of translations, including the Greek texts if one has been formally trained in koine Greek.

And, yes, welcome to the forums.

 

[Adullam]

Have any here been diagnosed as NIV positive?

 

[whirlwind]

Have any here been diagnosed as NIV positive?

No...I was innoculated against it a long time ago.

 

[Hobie]

Thanks everyone for the warm welcome, I feel like family already..

Now lets see if I can add to understanding on this issue, lets take a quick look at the background so we can paint a clear picture of the matter. Lets begin with the Textus Receptus versus the Minority Text:


"...Textus Receptus

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.

Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood! ...."

http://www.bkdesign.ca/translations/part1-3.html

"..The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of
the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes.

It is believed that the Minority Texts were butchered by Egyptian gnosticism with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The gnostics were a group that did not believe:
In the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins. There are many alterations in the Minority Texts, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 versus from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to omitting First and Second Peter. The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places...."

http://endtimeoutreach.com/whichbible.html

Now the problem is you have men who for their own reasons then reach back to these corrupted texts and use them in to create the latest 'translations'. Here is a good explanation by Marion H. Reynolds, Jr. and Dennis W. Costella of how some of the modern translations have picked up corruption..

"...In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the Spirit of God warned against the "many which corrupt the word of God " Therefore, it is not surprising in studying church history to discover that such attempts to corrupt the Word of God were clearly evident in the altered, polluted and revised manuscripts purporting to be the Word of God that have existed through the centuries....

It is impossible in such limited space to trace the history and preservation of the true Word of God down through the centuries. However, in the providence of God, two very important things happened in the 15th and 16th centuries for which we should all be eternally grateful. First, was the invention of the printing press and second, the Protestant Reformation. It was the combination of these two developments that made possible the translation and publication of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible in 1611. From then until now, this wonderful gift of God and its subsequent translation into every known major language in the world has changed the course of history and we enjoy its benefits today.

In the latter part of the 19th Century......Theories and methods of "higher criticism" and "textual criticism" were developed and couched in such scholarly language that most people failed to recognize that these were actually attacks upon the Word of God - even though carefully disguised as an effort to "supply the English reader with a more correct text of the New Testament" and to "render the New Testament more generally intelligible." The rush toward new versions was on and though the early progress was slow, we are seeing the results today..... In 1881, influenced by and sympathetic to the Darwinian theory of evolution, two men, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort brought forth a different version of the Greek New Testament - one which differed from the Textus Receptus (the underlying Greek text of the KJV) in over 5,700 places.

This Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. It gave great weight to two corrupted manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) which was found in a monastery wastebasket at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844....

Tischendorf, who discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript, noted at least 12,000 changes that had been made on this manuscript by others than the original copyist. It is difficult to understand why such documents as these could lead one to ignore the simple fact that the Greek text underlying the King James Version, the Textus Receptus, agreed with 90-95% of all known Scripture- related manuscripts..."

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

 

[Hobie]

So what had been rejected as corrupt text for centuries now was picked up and brought into mainline christianity and has gained wipespread acceptance. But Westcott-Hort didnt just do this by accident, they had a agenda. The corruption was an a attempt to weaken the divinity of Christ, but with so many good manuscripts and the quantity out there, it could not take out every text and prophecy that pointed to the divinity of Christ.

Now many attempts were made to bring in Arian and Gnostic corruptions which were a major problem, while others were trying to corrupt the Bible to bring it into agreement with their wrongful beliefs (for example adding the Apocrypha to the Old Testament canon to try and justify doctrines such as ‘praying for the dead’ and ‘saints as mediators’.)

Despite these previous attempts which should have given modern translaters fair warning, some of the modern versions of the Bible including the NIV and RSV translate their New Testament from the Westcott and Hort reconstruction of the Greek text which they reconstructed from the corrupted manuscripts, ‘Vaticanus’ (B) and ‘Sinaiticus’(Aleph).

It is abundantly clear there were some attempts to makes changes in the Bible in the 3rd and 4th century and these two manuscripts are just a continuation of this corruption. I am not against modern translations per se, it is the corruption from the Westcott-Hort Greek Text which I bring up, which gave great weight to these two corrupted manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) both clearly attempts to make changes....its always desireable in my eyes to get the best version without the corruption inherent in these manuscripts.


Here is some background on Westcott and Hort which gives you insight into why they allowed the corruption and give some direction on the changes to check on....

- Westcott rejected the literal account of creation as given in Genesis.
- Westcott rejected a literal heaven and the second coming of Christ.
- Westcott confessed to being a communist by nature.

- Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments.
- Hort rejected the infallibility of the Bible.
- Hort rejected the Trinity.
- Hort didn’t believe in Angels either.


Now concerning the two corrupted 4th century manuscripts.

- ‘Vaticanus’ was found in a library in the Vatican.
- It contains the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.
- The manuscript omits the entire books of 1Timothy, 2Timothy, Titus and Revelation
- In ‘Vaticanus’ the Book of Hebrews conveniently stops at 9:14, omitting verses 9:22, 9:25-28, 10:10-14 these are the verses that totally destroy the notion of the ‘mass’.


- ‘Sinaiticus’ was found in a monastery in Egypt, in a rubbish bin. It was about to be destroyed by the monks because it didn’t match up with the standard Bible text, when a German scholar brought it to Europe.
- It also contains the Apocrypha.
- ‘Sinaiticus’ contains the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’, ‘Shepherd of Hermas’ and ‘the letters of Clement’ in its New Testament, all four books teach unbiblical doctrines.

 

[kiwimac]

Westcott rejected the literal account of creation as given in Genesis.
- Westcott rejected a literal heaven and the second coming of Christ.
- Westcott confessed to being a communist by nature.

- Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments.
- Hort rejected the infallibility of the Bible.
- Hort rejected the Trinity.
- Hort didn’t believe in Angels either.

Ah, more KJV-only hooey. Please provide proof of these claims.

 

[whirlwind]

So what had been rejected as corrupt text for centuries now was picked up and brought into mainline christianity and has gained wipespread acceptance. But Westcott-Hort didnt just do this by accident, they had a agenda. The corruption was an a attempt to weaken the divinity of Christ, but with so many good manuscripts and the quantity out there, it could not take out every text and prophecy that pointed to the divinity of Christ.

:yes Yes...they had/have an agenda. Paul warns us...

• Philippians 3:17-19 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

Jesus specifically names their activities, the activities of those that walk with us but are our enemies.....

• Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
  
  Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
  
  Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
  
  Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness

Quoted from.....the KING JAMES

 

[whirlwind]

One example of tampering with the text is the Ten Commandments. Compare them as written between the King James and the Catholic Bible. See how they get around making and bowing to images. In the KJV it is....

• Exodus 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me: And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments.

That commandment is NOT in the Catholic Bible and yet...they still have ten commandments. How? They split the tenth commandment into two parts, stretching it out to become two separate commandments. :naughty

Of course, maybe it was just a silly little mistake.

 

[whirlwind]

Please don't take these posts as anti-Catholic. I don't think most Catholic's even realize there is a difference in their Bible...but there is! As all false teaching, once realized then one must act accordingly. Protestant, Catholic or Non-Demoninational.


Ten Commandments as written in the King James ~ (In Blue) The Catholic Ten Commandments

1st I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

1st I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
2nd Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments.

Deleted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

3rd Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God In vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

2nd Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
4th Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

3rd Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.

(The Sabbath is fourth by normal count. The day to be kept is no longer mentioned since they changed the Sabbath to Sunday.)

(Note that God had more to say about the fourth Commandment then all others and with good reason. It is very important.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``````
5th Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

4th Honour thy father and thy mother.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````

6th Thou shalt not kill.

5th Thou shalt not kill.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

7th Thou shalt not commit adultery.

6th Thou shalt not commit adultery.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~```

8th Thou shalt not steal.

7th Thou shalt not steal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

9th Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

8th Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

10th Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

9th Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

(The Tenth Commandment is split into two to get back to Ten Commandments.)


10th Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.[/b]

 

[Sakari]

Have any here been diagnosed as NIV positive?

Interesting question. What is so bad about the NIV? I mean, I'm asking simply because I don't know. See, I don't have the NIV itself, but I did purchase a whole set of commentaries based on it. And, indeed, at many places the commentators seem to be taking great pains in explaining the idea behind the translation.

Is the NIV translation somehow a bit too modern or streamlined? Do I miss something important if I rely on commentaries that follow the text? I bought the commentaries because no modern set is available in print in my own language (Finnish), and especially because no New Testament commentaries have ever been published in Finnish. The NIV set was sold at a reasonable price, and it is modern, some volumes are still waiting for publication.

I'm a little confused right now.

 

[kiwimac]

Westcott rejected the literal account of creation as given in Genesis.
- Westcott rejected a literal heaven and the second coming of Christ.
- Westcott confessed to being a communist by nature.

- Hort believed in keeping Catholic sacraments.
- Hort rejected the infallibility of the Bible.
- Hort rejected the Trinity.
- Hort didn’t believe in Angels either.

Ah, more KJV-only hooey. Please provide proof of these claims.

Answers please!

 

[Free]

Have any here been diagnosed as NIV positive?

Interesting question. What is so bad about the NIV? I mean, I'm asking simply because I don't know. See, I don't have the NIV itself, but I did purchase a whole set of commentaries based on it. And, indeed, at many places the commentators seem to be taking great pains in explaining the idea behind the translation.

Is the NIV translation somehow a bit too modern or streamlined? Do I miss something important if I rely on commentaries that follow the text? I bought the commentaries because no modern set is available in print in my own language (Finnish), and especially because no New Testament commentaries have ever been published in Finnish. The NIV set was sold at a reasonable price, and it is modern, some volumes are still waiting for publication.

I'm a little confused right now.

Some people like to think there is something wrong with the NIV but nothing is. Much of the KJV onlyism is based on poor reasoning and fallacious arguments. The NIV and KJV are based on different texts, as posted above, but that doesn't make one wrong and the other right. Both have their difficulties which is why it is always best to consult several versions. There is nothing wrong with someone having a preference for the KJV, NIV, RSV, or ESV.

 

[Nick]

Have any here been diagnosed as NIV positive?

Yes, all my life, and there's nothing wrong with my faith. I've about 98% of my life read the ESV and NIV, and hardly ever read the KJV. These newer transaltions absolutely prove the divinity of Christ Jesus, and the trinity.

 

[Nick]

Have any here been diagnosed as NIV positive?

Interesting question. What is so bad about the NIV? I mean, I'm asking simply because I don't know. See, I don't have the NIV itself, but I did purchase a whole set of commentaries based on it. And, indeed, at many places the commentators seem to be taking great pains in explaining the idea behind the translation.

Is the NIV translation somehow a bit too modern or streamlined? Do I miss something important if I rely on commentaries that follow the text? I bought the commentaries because no modern set is available in print in my own language (Finnish), and especially because no New Testament commentaries have ever been published in Finnish. The NIV set was sold at a reasonable price, and it is modern, some volumes are still waiting for publication.

I'm a little confused right now.

Some people like to think there is something wrong with the NIV but nothing is. Much of the KJV onlyism is based on poor reasoning and fallacious arguments. The NIV and KJV are based on different texts, as posted above, but that doesn't make one wrong and the other right. Both have their difficulties which is why it is always best to consult several versions. There is nothing wrong with someone having a preference for the KJV, NIV, RSV, or ESV.

Just wanted to add that I agree with you Free, I don't believe that there's anything wrong with versions like the ESV or NIV, and I don't believe there's anything wrong with the KJV, but I'm not saying that any version (including the KVJ) is perfect.
I believe that we should use a variety of versions. biblegateway.com has heaps of different translations literally at your fingertips.

 

[AAA]

I've about 98% of my life read the ESV and NIV, and hardly ever read the KJV. These newer transaltions absolutely prove the divinity of Christ Jesus, and the trinity.

Really? How do you mean?

 

[Sakari]

Some people like to think there is something wrong with the NIV but nothing is. Much of the KJV onlyism is based on poor reasoning and fallacious arguments. The NIV and KJV are based on different texts, as posted above, but that doesn't make one wrong and the other right. Both have their difficulties which is why it is always best to consult several versions. There is nothing wrong with someone having a preference for the KJV, NIV, RSV, or ESV.

Thank you for this. Actually, that's what I thought things could be.

The problem for us non-English speaking people is that when we read any English version of the Bible (or what ever language in general, other than one's own), we are unable to discern subtle nuances. The text appears "as is", and we tend to take it verbatim.

We have recently entered into our own "KJV onlyism". The Finnish Bible was retranslated in 1992 and more conservative believers think it was two steps backward. I personally prefer the somewhat archaic language of the older 1933/38 translation, which in turn is largely based on our 1776 translation. I believe this latter mentioned version comes close to the King James Bible as regards what one feels when reading them  you guys read the KJV in English, we read our 1776 Bible in Finnish. Different words per se but the same message and similar feelings.

 

[Sakari]

[...] That commandment is NOT in the Catholic Bible and yet...they still have ten commandments. How? They split the tenth commandment into two parts, stretching it out to become two separate commandments [...]

Hey, we Lutherans are guilty of the very same. Whirlwind, what is your denomination? Am I right if I guess you're reformed?

 

[mutzrein]

I've about 98% of my life read the ESV and NIV, and hardly ever read the KJV. These newer transaltions absolutely prove the divinity of Christ Jesus, and the trinity.

Really? How do you mean?

Yeah - I find that interesting too. Does the KJV not?