Most accurate Bible Translation

[B3L13v3R]

Jumpin in the mosh pit! Here goes! :)

Warning, long but hopefully "worthy" post!

I was saved after reading a paraphrased Bible from cover to cover. W00T! Glory be to God, thank you Jesus!!!

However, upon looking for more depth, I was not able to find any in that paraphrase.

With the "messy" Message bible being the exception, I can find salvation and oatmeal in the 24 other Bible versions I own.

I do not consider the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses to be a bible from this cult. It removes just about if not entirely the deity of Jesus Christ. I do have it however to understand their lies to prayerfully point them to the Truth of the real Lord Jesus Christ when they come a knockin on my doorstep.

As initially warned, there are those here who prefer the KJV over others who would "bash" NIVs and such.

To some degree, I am one of those "bashers"...

My reason is as follows: In 86 I had purchased an NIV Study Bible in hope in growing in my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Many Christians had told me over the years to trust God and His Word implicitly. I was looking to do just that with my new "study" Bible. But the more I studied, the more I became sorrowful and weary of things like "in the most (so called) reliable manuscripts these verses are not found statements, verses missing, doubt cast on the Lord's Word. I still loved my Savior, however because of this one particular version I would close the Bible for days at a time not knowing what to believe.

The good Lord soon brought to my attention "two Greek" translations. One partially corrupt stemming from "newer transcripts." The other on the up based on the Textus Receptus. Thank God!

It was at this time that I bought the one based on the Textus Receptus Greek, the King James Version Bible. I have not been the same since and I am no longer sorrowful of all those lying footnotes and such in the newer versions.

In the sense of the Greeks that are used to translate the Bibles, the NKJV is one of my stranger Bibles in that it used BOTH of the Greeks, in the N/T it translates with the T/R base, but where it differs in many places from the Majority Text and the Alexandrian Text the variants are recorded in the footnotes. Which could get folks right back to the confusion I had in 86...

I have studied a lot of the versions that I own, but because the NIV with it's footnotes, missing verses, black lines and the temporary sorrowfulness it had caused in my life, I looked to compare this one more than most against the KJV.

Here is just a sampling of some of what I and others like myself have found: (Based on the 77 NIV, there are others...)

-On NIV Mark 16:8 there is a black line following right after it saying: (The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20) They are indeed "not reliable" as the footnote says.

-Between NIV John 7:52 and John 7:53 we see another of these black lines.

The heretical note says: (The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11

-NIV Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not over come it.

Footnote simply says: Peter means rock. Leaves the believer thinking that Peter is the rock that Jesus Christ will build his Church on. This is the same doctrine of the Roman Catholics, that because of this verse, believe Peter to be the first "Pope" of the Catholic church. No, Jesus is the Rock we build the church upon, not a man named Peter.

-NIV Luke 23:43 Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

Footnote reads: Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.

Some things missing from the NIV

KJV Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV 18:11 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 12!!!!

KJV Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

NIV Mark 9:44 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 45

KJV Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

NIV Luke 9:56 and they went to another village.

KJV Acts 28:28 Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

NIV Acts 28:28 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 29!!!

One of many changes:

KJV Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD.

NIV Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature of God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED...

Sadly, I have many more examples on NIV.

This is not just true for the NIV but other "newer" versions as well.

Here is a verse that the majority of the newer versions missed, check it against yours:

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

When I have looked for any depth at all I was only able to find it in the KJV Bible.

On those who like the NAS I would say "which one?"

Don't ya know after I had memorized much of the 1977 version I had purchased, and lost, (or possibly stolen, if so may God save their lost soul.) I went to replace it. Only to find out now I could only purchase the "new" and updated and changed 1995 version... I later purchase the 77 NAS electronically for my computer Bible.

I will not provide a link, but this is a few quotes from the homosexual woman that had to do with the NIV translation:

"From her website:

Dr. Mollenkott served as stylistic consultant for the New International Version of the Bible and was a member of the National Council of Churches' Inclusive Language Lectionary Committee. Her Milton Scholarship is discussed in "A Milton Encyclopedia"; her earlier writings are described in "American Women Writers" and her career is profiled in the Millenium Edition of "Who's Who In America".

"Ms. Mollenkott is an active member of the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus and in CLOUT (Christian Lesbians OUT)."

"With her life partner, Suzannah Tilton, Virginia lives in northern New Jersey"

When I pass out Bibles these days, it is the KJV.

Over all, if someone where to ask me which version to buy, I tell them the KJV.

Two modifications have been made since the 1611 KJV. They are printing errors, and changes in English. There were about 400 of these errors.

Gothic type originally used, so todays "changes" are thins like "J" looked like an "I", "v" looked like a "u", "s" looked like an "f". It is only the letters that were written a certain way that has changed. The Words themselves have not.

Spelling has also changed since 1611. Wee is now we. Euill is now evil. There are many more examples of this.

That is the ONLY changes that have taken place, leading it up to today. As far as I know, and others that have studied much more laboriously than I, there are not any textual changes in any KJV, from the 1611 to date.

This is not true of any other version I know of.

When the Holy Spirit teaches us, we are to confirm what He teaches in the Word.

We cannot always do this with the "newer" translations.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter (Holy Spirit) is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, (God the Father) even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of ME: (Jesus Christ, and His Word, the Bible and it rightly divided.)

From the late Dr. Morris, Founder and President Emeritus, Institute for Creation Research:

"I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible for over 55 years, that Christians-especially creationists!-need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed it in the history of England and America, in the great revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers more than He has through all the rest of the versions put together.

The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns."

[Josephus]

Hi,

We are looking for the Bible version with the following characteristics:

• Complete fidelity to the original manuscripts; gramar, puctualtion ... everything.
  
• Updated to the most recently discovered manuscripts
  
• Uses modern english
  

Any Bible scholar out there, please help. Thank you!

[Josephus]

Hi,

We are looking for the Bible version with the following characteristics:

• Complete fidelity to the original manuscripts; gramar, puctualtion ... everything.
  
• Updated to the most recently discovered manuscripts
  
• Uses modern english
  

Any Bible scholar out there, please help. Thank you!

There is, and always will be controversy as to which Bible translation is most accurate. The whole point of the Bible is to show that man is inherently sinful and spiritually dead, but God in His mercy provided a cure called Jesus. If you obtain a Bible that illustrates this point, then you have an accurate translation.

[Josephus]

Jumpin in the mosh pit! Here goes! :)

Warning, long but hopefully "worthy" post!

I was saved after reading a paraphrased Bible from cover to cover. W00T! Glory be to God, thank you Jesus!!!

However, upon looking for more depth, I was not able to find any in that paraphrase.

With the "messy" Message bible being the exception, I can find salvation and oatmeal in the 24 other Bible versions I own.

I do not consider the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses to be a bible from this cult. It removes just about if not entirely the deity of Jesus Christ. I do have it however to understand their lies to prayerfully point them to the Truth of the real Lord Jesus Christ when they come a knockin on my doorstep.

As initially warned, there are those here who prefer the KJV over others who would "bash" NIVs and such.

To some degree, I am one of those "bashers"...

My reason is as follows: In 86 I had purchased an NIV Study Bible in hope in growing in my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Many Christians had told me over the years to trust God and His Word implicitly. I was looking to do just that with my new "study" Bible. But the more I studied, the more I became sorrowful and weary of things like "in the most (so called) reliable manuscripts these verses are not found statements, verses missing, doubt cast on the Lord's Word. I still loved my Savior, however because of this one particular version I would close the Bible for days at a time not knowing what to believe.

The good Lord soon brought to my attention "two Greek" translations. One partially corrupt stemming from "newer transcripts." The other on the up based on the Textus Receptus. Thank God!

It was at this time that I bought the one based on the Textus Receptus Greek, the King James Version Bible. I have not been the same since and I am no longer sorrowful of all those lying footnotes and such in the newer versions.

In the sense of the Greeks that are used to translate the Bibles, the NKJV is one of my stranger Bibles in that it used BOTH of the Greeks, in the N/T it translates with the T/R base, but where it differs in many places from the Majority Text and the Alexandrian Text the variants are recorded in the footnotes. Which could get folks right back to the confusion I had in 86...

I have studied a lot of the versions that I own, but because the NIV with it's footnotes, missing verses, black lines and the temporary sorrowfulness it had caused in my life, I looked to compare this one more than most against the KJV.

Here is just a sampling of some of what I and others like myself have found: (Based on the 77 NIV, there are others...)

-On NIV Mark 16:8 there is a black line following right after it saying: (The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20) They are indeed "not reliable" as the footnote says.

-Between NIV John 7:52 and John 7:53 we see another of these black lines.

The heretical note says: (The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11

-NIV Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not over come it.

Footnote simply says: Peter means rock. Leaves the believer thinking that Peter is the rock that Jesus Christ will build his Church on. This is the same doctrine of the Roman Catholics, that because of this verse, believe Peter to be the first "Pope" of the Catholic church. No, Jesus is the Rock we build the church upon, not a man named Peter.

-NIV Luke 23:43 Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

Footnote reads: Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.

Some things missing from the NIV

KJV Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV 18:11 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 12!!!!

KJV Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

NIV Mark 9:44 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 45

KJV Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

NIV Luke 9:56 and they went to another village.

KJV Acts 28:28 Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

NIV Acts 28:28 Gone, omitted!!!! Skips right on to verse 29!!!

One of many changes:

KJV Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD.

NIV Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature of God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED...

Sadly, I have many more examples on NIV.

This is not just true for the NIV but other "newer" versions as well.

Here is a verse that the majority of the newer versions missed, check it against yours:

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

When I have looked for any depth at all I was only able to find it in the KJV Bible.

On those who like the NAS I would say "which one?"

Don't ya know after I had memorized much of the 1977 version I had purchased, and lost, (or possibly stolen, if so may God save their lost soul.) I went to replace it. Only to find out now I could only purchase the "new" and updated and changed 1995 version... I later purchase the 77 NAS electronically for my computer Bible.

I will not provide a link, but this is a few quotes from the homosexual woman that had to do with the NIV translation:

"From her website:

Dr. Mollenkott served as stylistic consultant for the New International Version of the Bible and was a member of the National Council of Churches' Inclusive Language Lectionary Committee. Her Milton Scholarship is discussed in "A Milton Encyclopedia"; her earlier writings are described in "American Women Writers" and her career is profiled in the Millenium Edition of "Who's Who In America".

"Ms. Mollenkott is an active member of the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus and in CLOUT (Christian Lesbians OUT)."

"With her life partner, Suzannah Tilton, Virginia lives in northern New Jersey"

When I pass out Bibles these days, it is the KJV.

Over all, if someone where to ask me which version to buy, I tell them the KJV.

Two modifications have been made since the 1611 KJV. They are printing errors, and changes in English. There were about 400 of these errors.

Gothic type originally used, so todays "changes" are thins like "J" looked like an "I", "v" looked like a "u", "s" looked like an "f". It is only the letters that were written a certain way that has changed. The Words themselves have not.

Spelling has also changed since 1611. Wee is now we. Euill is now evil. There are many more examples of this.

That is the ONLY changes that have taken place, leading it up to today. As far as I know, and others that have studied much more laboriously than I, there are not any textual changes in any KJV, from the 1611 to date.

This is not true of any other version I know of.

When the Holy Spirit teaches us, we are to confirm what He teaches in the Word.

We cannot always do this with the "newer" translations.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter (Holy Spirit) is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, (God the Father) even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of ME: (Jesus Christ, and His Word, the Bible and it rightly divided.)

From the late Dr. Morris, Founder and President Emeritus, Institute for Creation Research:

"I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible for over 55 years, that Christians-especially creationists!-need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed it in the history of England and America, in the great revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, and in the personal lives of believers more than He has through all the rest of the versions put together.

The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns."

We are not called to love the Bible, but to love Jesus.

[B3L13v3R]

Welcome to Worthy Josephus

Quote Josephus:"We are not called to love the Bible, but to love Jesus."

From my previous post:

"I still loved my Savior, however because of this one particular version I would close the Bible for days at a time not knowing what to believe."

As stated my reasons for the KJV still stand.

This stance did not come overnight, but by years and thousands of hours of study and Bible comparisons.

From my first day with Jesus Christ:

Mark 12:30-31

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Till my last day with Jesus Christ:

Matthew 24:13-14

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

This is clear enough:

1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Eastons Bible Dictionary on "Anathema"

The anathema in 1Co 16:22 denotes simply that they who love not the Lord are rightly objects of loathing and execration to all holy beings; they are guilty of a crime that merits the severest condemnation; they are exposed to the just sentence of “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.

May all Christians continue to love the Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost, and with His Word rightly divided continue to build upon Christ as their Rock from the beginning of their walk, until their last breath.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

A few great sites for all:

Great Test: www.NeedGod.com

Free Windows Bible: www.E-Sword.net

Free Mac OSX Bible: www.MacSword.com

[He giveth more grace]

This is not Rocket Science, folk! There are 5,200 ancient manucripts of the Bible, 95% of them agree with the Textus Receiptus (KJB used the TR), only 5 % agree with the Codex Sinaiticus. Guess which one I am going to use.

[Guest]

I Love His Holy Word

How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Psalms 119:103

Why Won't You?

Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word. Psalms 119:114

Yes?

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalms 138:1

____________

_________

______

___

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable.

This Book contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.

Christ is its subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide thefeet.

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

It is given to you in life, will be open in the judgement, and be remembered forever.

It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts.

From The Front Of My Gideon New Testament

[Botz]

Hi, every translation from the 1811 revised version has been tampered with and corrupted by either ungodly unregenerate translators and or translation based on corrupt texts. Have you studied how the 1611 AKJV came about ? Do you know about the 1811 Revised Version translators Dr's Westcott and Hort ? The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2ndCorinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2nd Thessalonians 2:2), along with false prophets and teachers who would not only bring in damnable heresies but would seek to make merchandise of the true believer through their own feigned words (2nd Peter 2:1-3).

Hi TLF,

I have read a fair amount about the formation of the English Bible but am always willing to get better acquainted with factual evidence that demonstrates some of the things you touch upon.

I am somewhat sceptical in how you might approach this in the light of your 'out of context' quote from Psalm 12:7 as parial evidence to support your claim on the 1611 KJV..it at first seems

you are prepared to jump to unwarranted conclusions and use vague links in an effort to support your understanding...hopefully the rest of your evidence will be a tad stronger.

It did not take long for this to occur. In the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterwards, several doctrinal heresies arose. Their early beginnings are referred to in the New Testament in such places as Galatians 1:6-8; 1st John4:3; 2nd John 1:7; and Jude 1:3-4. They not only plagued the early Church, but are still with us today, in modern form, in many contemporary Christian cults. These false doctrines influenced the transmission of scripture and account for some of the differences in the line of manuscripts. Here is a link to study for yourself how it all goes downhill from the AKJV-http://www.jesus-is-...wh-heretics.htm . If you do not think GOD would preserve His written word friend, then you underestimate the ONE whom you proclaim to serve. The problem i find these days is that most do not study themselves approved unto GOD workman(2Tim2:15) and have underestimated the enemy of their Souls. The enemy has used unregenerate men wise in their own eyes "many" calling themselves "scholars" to take away and add to GODs holy Word(Rev22:18-19). Did you not know that there has been approx 60,000 words have been taken from the Authorized KJV in regards to the NIV ? Do you know that all versions after the 1611 KJV have been copyrighted, which means that words must be changed in order to copyright and make money. Did you not know the KJV cannot be copyrighted or sold for profit ? The AKJV was based on the "Textus Receptus" which has always been the accepted text by the early church. However, All translations from the corrupted 1811 revised version by westcott and Hort were based upon the corrupt "Alexandrian" Texts and most modern Bible translations have used the same including the ASV, NIV, NWT etc and even the NKJV, because the codices were considered more accurate. I do not have time to go into every detail friend, nevertheless i would hope you seek the truth in this matter(Mat7:7). " For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."(1Cor1:26-29) I would hope you study and find out about how the KJV came about and look at the lives and "beliefs" of Dr Westcott and Hort and then look at the homosexual Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, a literary critic and a translator on the NIV translation alsohttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_sodomite_on_committee.htm . If you have any more questions after studying these facts then do not hesitate to ask......

I believe the word of G-d has been preserved....I just don't believe at this point in time that the AKJV has the monopoly on the perfection of its translation.

I have read up a bit about Westcott and Hort, and can see where you and others are coming from...admittedly it is somewhat disconcerting.

I have no time for the NIV as I read parts when it first came out and personally despised the translation.

As for the rest of the things you mention, I am looking afresh at some of the claims.....I find it hard to believe that modern biblical scholars involved in the translation of

the ESV or the NASB were so suckered in by the theology of W&H and the authority of the Alexandrian Text, that they threw out the Textus Receptus and chose to use

a known corrupted text in order to deliberately mislead people or put their own theology into the Bible...I just can't see this....rather every effort has been made to get

a better more fluent and word accurate version of Scripture into the hands of English-speaking Believers.

I also see no negation of the tremendous effort that has gone into the AKJV and it is constantly approved and recommended, but as has been pointed out in many

discussions, they did not have access to as much information as we do these days with which we can arrive a better/more accurate nuances of meaning...and in my

Bibles there are often marginal notes that give the option for any Bible-student to compare ...sometimes neither the translation in the AKJV or the NASB and ESV

seem to fully hit the mark, and we have available the Greek and Hebrew from which to better help us understand things.

The other problem I see, is that so much time and effort can be used in trying to be word perfect with everything, that the plain voice of Scripture to each of

us as individuals is lost, whereas being obedient to Scripture and following the lead of the Holy Spirit...gets replaced with what can seem like over zealous

nit-picking.

Having said that, I am personally one of those that likes to dig deeper into things and tries to grasp more fully some of the significance behind well known

verses...primarily because it helps my faith and deepens my understanding and becomes more established in my life as it makes more sense and is more

concrete and ultimately draws me closer to G-d by establishing line upon line etc. ('revelation truth' if you like.)...but without the effective ministry of the

Holy Spirit would merely be puffed up knowledge and not the waters of life.

Regards Botz

[Guest yod]

No translation from one language to another can ever be perfect.

So no matter which version you use, it has fault and opinions/commentary interjected as the translator tries to put into words of another language what they think the author intended to say.

I like something about almost every version you could name. KJV has done as much harm as any of them, implying things that aren't necessarily there and even substituting european theological ideas in places, like using Easter instead of Passover in the book of Acts, and called Jacob, (brother of Yeshua) by the name of the English King who commissioned the KJV (James), and using the word "church" instead of community.

The Old Testament portion of the NIV is the best translation for that, and the New American Standard is the best overall, imo, if you want to keep the "church" flavor. For a more accurate idea of the culture the Jewish New Testament by David Stern was a breakthrough, but now I'm partial to the "Tree of Life" messianic family bible for restoring a sense of the culture and people who brought you the scriptures.

[He giveth more grace]

Matthew 18:11

KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. NIV: Verse DELETED by the Editors of the NIV!

————————

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.

NIV: Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.”

+ Note the removal of ‘the word of God.’ An interesting deletion considering what the NIV does to the written word to God!

————————-

Isaiah 7:14:

KJV: Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

NIV: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

+ Note that the KJV calls her a “virgin” while the NIV has it as a “woman.” This is due to the ongoing debate over the meaning of the word almah. Once again the NIV paraphrases according to interpretation rather than translation. Its true that the word “almah” does not directly translate as “virgin,” however its root “alam” means something which is “concealed, kept out of sight, protected.” This Hebrew word refers quite clearly to a young “protected” maiden, probably around the age of twelve to fourteen, i.e. a virgin. If Mary was not a virgin, then she was not an “almah” but in any case, she certainly wasn’t an adult “woman.”

[Where, Fresno Joe, Is the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ, what is so miraclous about a young woman giving birth. The NIV attacks the Lordship of Jesus Christ, my brother.]

I am not nearly the best defender of the KJB, but I can see the modern versions omisions and attack on Jesus' Lordship, attack on the word, attack on the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ]