Given your intellectual curiosity and spiritual steadfastness, I wonder why you use the NIV?

Hi - I found your site for the first time today. You have some great stuff on there, especially for those who are searching for answers to desperate questions.

One thing surprised me, however, given your intellectual curiosity and spiritual steadfastness: you use the NIV. Are you aware that the name of Jesus Christ is omitted from the NIV, and other "new" versions, numerous times (Gal 4:7, Phil 4:13, Acts 8:37, Rom 1:16, Eph 3:14, Eph 3:9, Gal 6:15, Col 1:2, etc)? I was a former NIV stalwart, but I was shocked to find out what has been changed or omitted when my pastor held a seminar about this. I have been convinced that the "new" versions are leading people away from Christ, and that the constant "revisions of the revisions" will water down the gospel even further as time goes on. Witness the "gender-neutral" version that sprang up in the past year. Keep an eye out over the next 10 years. I believe that you won't even recognize the Bible by then. And then there is the matter of the occult influence of Westcott & Hort, upon whose foundation the new versions rest.

I've attached a pdf file comparing some of the Scripture that has been changed from the King James in the new versions. If you can't open it, go to avpublications.com, click on "New Versions Critiqued" and then click on "NIV, NASB Verse Comparison Tract" and click on the html or pdf versions.

Please take this in the spirit it is intended - not as a bash, but as a spiritual challenge to discern the truth.

My response is in Green:

I did take it in the spirit it was intended, but I still don't agree. You need to do some more investigation. The argument is not about whether the new versions omitted anything, the argument is who used the most trust worthy copies of the original texts. The texts used by the new versions were not known when the KJV was made. The texts which were used for the new versions are undisputedly older than those used in the KJV. Again none of that is in question. The question comes down to whether the older texts were corrupted by omitting certain things or the newer texts were corrupted by adding things.

This is a debate that all Christians should be able to have without calling each other names, but it is one which often turns into name calling. I don't and won't do that. I have even been told that I am not a true Christian because I dare to read multiple versions. I have yet to have anyone show me where the NIV or any of the other main stream new versions fail to give the true gospel.

You make a big deal out of the name of Jesus being omitted. Okay if it were truly omitted that might be a problem, if it changed what was said. But all the omissions, or possible additions can be viewed as commentary to make the verse clearer, yet the newer versions are inherently easier to read because we don't speak in old English any more and some words don't even mean the same thing now.

But back to the texts. Are you aware that many of these "omissions" were originally margin notes which were then written in subsequent editions?

I take offense at the PDF you sent because it is the same old tired format I am used to. It is not that people are saying that the KJV is the best, no they are saying that the new versions are from the devil. Prove it!! As I said show me where the gospel message is omitted or changed just once in the new versions. If this is the devil's bible then he did a really poor job.

In fact I will tell you I think this whole argument is fueled by the devil. Here is why I say that. It causes people to worry about whether they can trust God's word or not. It causes them to read a version of the Bible which is much harder to understand and to study for the normal person.

Did you know that the cults almost all use the KJV? No I am not saying anything bad about the KJV by saying that, but I am making a point that Satan did not need a new version if he wanted to pervert the word of God.

Again show me where the new versions specifically the NIV change the gospel or who Jesus is. You can't. You can show me places where the word Lord is left out, or either Jesus or Christ is used by not both, or something like that, but you can't show me where it changes even one piece of doctrine of the gospel. Isn't that the real word of God?

Let me show you how silly this can be. You mentioned Gal. 4:13 as an example, so let me quote it from both the NIV and the KJV:

(Galatians 4:7 NIV) So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

(Galatians 4:7 KJV) Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Wow, you are right, it does leave out the name of Christ. That proves that the new versions are trying to hide or take away, right? Well you need to go back to just the chapter before to see if that was the intent they did a horrible job of it. Let me quote it:

(Galatians 3:14 NIV) He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

So you have to ask yourself, was this a satanic change to the new versions, or was this possibly a margin note in the KJV that eventually ended up as part of the verse? I don't know, but I do know that it was not Satan trying to take Christ out of God's word.

The next passage you named was Phil. 4:13:

(Philippians 4:13 NIV) I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

(Philippians 4:13 KJV) I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Now look just a couple verses later and you will see again that if the idea was to take Christ out of the conversation they did a horrible job of it.

(Philippians 4:19 NIV) And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

I hope you can see how these passages could have been altered over time, but even if you don't see that then at least admit that they do not change the meaning. As for the older texts coming from Egypt this really bothers me. You do realize that God stated He called His Son out of Egypt?

(Matthew 2:14-15 NIV) [14] So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, [15] where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Maybe He preserved His word that way too? I believe that both the KJV and the new versions are the word of God. I personally use multiple versions and find them all worthwhile in study. I usually quote from the NIV, why? Because it is much easier to understand. I usually recommend that a new believer read the NIV, again because it is easier to understand and isn't that what counts? Show me how a person could possibly be mislead by the new versions and I will quit recommending it, but you will have to do a better job than anyone has been able to do so far. Some of the arguments are very comical. Like the name Lucifer being changed to Morning Star son of the dawn. That again is used as proof that the new versions are corrupt, but anyone who is willing to look at it objectively will soon see that is what the name Lucifer means. Lucifer is not in the original Greek or Hebrew, it is an old English name taken from a Latin name, since the KJV was at least in part taken from the Catholic Latin Bible. Yet it is used to show the corruption of the new versions. Sorry that is pathetic.

No hard feelings, but I think you are mistaken. I will continue to use God's word in as many different translations as I can.

You can't take the gender neutral version and try to make a case out of it. The Jehovah's Witness have their own version too and I won't defend it, but that does not mean the NIV or other new versions are wrong. Do you have any idea how many times the KJV was changed? You should check.

Ralph

The following was not in the reply I sent to this person but I have decided to add it here. I have taken the other verses she listed and explained them below.

(Acts 8:36 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?"

(Acts 8:36-37 KJV) [36] 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.

Now the question has to be asked. Since the only reason the eunuch would have wanted to be baptized was to show his spiritual death and resurrection in Jesus Christ, why would Philip have asked him this? When a person in a church asks to be baptized are they asked the same question? This again could easily be an addition in the margin which eventually ended up in the passage. But again no matter what the reason it does not change the message at all.

(Romans 1:16 NIV) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

(Romans 1:16 KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Here again at first glance this might seem bad to leave the name Christ out, but think about it. What is the gospel? It is the good news of Jesus Christ, to the KJV is really being redundant. You have to be looking for problems to think this is a problem. Look just six verses earlier:

(Romans 1:8 NIV) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

Again if there were an effort to take Christ our of the gospel they did a very bad job of it.

(Ephesians 3:14 NIV) For this reason I kneel before the Father,

(Ephesians 3:14 KJV) For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

This is another silly passage to make a big deal out of. Why? Because all you have to do is read the very next sentence and you will see that the new translations are not trying to take anything away from Jesus Christ:

(Ephesians 3:14-17 NIV) [14] For this reason I kneel before the Father, [15] from whom his whole family£ in heaven and on earth derives its name. [16] I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, [17] so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,

This is how ignorant this whole debate has become, because the name is 'omitted' from one place they don't bother to look and see that it is just a few words later, if they did they would know it was not taken out to hide anything. In fact I believe they do know this, but for whatever reason they choose to make this absurd argument about the new versions. In the process they call into question the lives of other Christians who translated these versions. I may surprise people by what I am about to say but I could care less if any of the new version translators were Christians or not. Why? Because I believe it is God who is in charge of keeping His word true, and what really counts is that they were good translators who translated what they saw truthfully. Now let's look at the next passage:

(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.

(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:

I have to wonder why they only list verse 9 and not include verse 8? Let me quote verse 8 and you will see why:

(Ephesians 3:8-9 NIV) [8] Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, [9] and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Maybe they are just trying to claim the NIV does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is who made all things. Okay, let me dispel that right here:

(Colossians 1:15-20 NIV) [15] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. [16] For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. [17] He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. [19] For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, [20] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

There are many more passages which show that Christ created all things, but this one really hammers it home. So again if this is a deception by Satan he is pretty lame at it.

(Galatians 6:15 NIV) Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

(Galatians 6:15 KJV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Again let's go just one verse back and see if they are trying to leave Jesus out:

(Galatians 6:14 NIV) [14] May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which£ the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

I hope you are beginning to see why I get tired of having my very salvation questioned because I use the new versions of the Bible. I will admit this woman was very nice, but it has happened way too many times in the past. If you like the KJV then use it, but don't tell me that the new versions are the devil's bible, because that is false. One last one:

(Colossians 1:2 NIV) To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.

(Colossians 1:2 KJV) To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Looks sinister doesn't it? No not really. This is a prime example of how I believe things could have gotten added. We know that Paul wrote this letter as he wrote a lot of the other New Testament books. Let's look at how he started many of them:

(1 Corinthians 1:3 NIV) Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(2 Corinthians 1:2 NIV) Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 1:3-5 NIV) [3] Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, [4] who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, [5] to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

(Ephesians 1:2 NIV) Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(1 Thessalonians 1:1 NIV) Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.

(2 Thessalonians 1:1 NIV) Paul, Silas£ and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

(Philemon 1:3 NIV) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you see a pattern? Paul started most of his letters the same way. Now put yourself in the place of a scribe or monk whose job it is to hand copy the Bible day after day. You come to Colossians 1:2 and start to copy it. You write; "Grace and peace to you from God our Father" and without even looking back at the original you continue; "and the Lord Jesus Christ". Now is that what happened? I have no idea but it sure seems possible and then when the next copy is made if it is made from the one with the mistake in it, the new one will have the same mistake, etc... This is just how silly this argument is. If the translators, or Satan himself wanted to leave those words out won't they have done it in all the other letters too?

Again this is why I think the people who preach this King James Only doctrine are disingenuous, I think they have to purposely over look the obvious to maintain their view. I worry that they are destroying the faith of some and hindering the growth of others because they have caused them to use a version which is much harder for a person today to understand. I find that appalling.

Home

E-Mail Ralph (whose comments are in green)

MENU
911 - God's Help Line Articles Apologetics Book Reviews
Contemplating Suicide? Discipleship Eternal Security How to know Jesus
Help for the Cutter In Memory Marine Bloodstripes Police Humor
Police Memorial SiteMap Statement of Faith Testimonies
Thoughts to Ponder True Life Stories Vet's Memorial Why I Have a Page
Home
eXTReMe Tracker