Bible Version Comparison
Bro. Timothy Davis Sr.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (KJV).
What do you suppose is the big deal about having the more modern version of the Bible? What is it that seems to have so many folks in an uproar today about weather to use the King James Version, the New International Version, The New King James Version or the Holman Christian Standard Bible? If you were to look at the arguments going around now a days, at first glance you'd ask those questions and say: "What's the big deal?". Actually, that was my first question. What is the big deal? If the Word of God is made available to us in "Today's" language, fantastic. Right?
To give you a little background, first I need to educate you on some certain facts. These new versions are supposed to be improvements on the wording for better understanding in todays English language. This, from what I understand, was the published intent of the translators. But in doing so it seems that certain omissions and changes took place. After you have had a chance to read this publication, you will see these omissions and changes did more harm than good. With others though it would seem there was a hidden and darker agenda.
Also the newer versions, more so of the NIV and the NKJV, were supposed to have been translated from an older, more reliable text. They never really say too clearly which ones until you dig for the truth. Then you find that the "older and more reliable texts" were in reality the corrupted Alexandrian (catholic) translations which I describe later in this article.
The translators of these particular versions have made the statement that some of the words in the King James Version were archaic and needed to be updated. To be honest with you it's not the words that needed to be updated. It is the willingness of the reader to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Or could it be that they had a darker intent? Could it be there is an intent to cloud some issues that really hurt a certain agenda called the Ecumenical Movement. Mark Twain said, "It's not the things in the Bible I don't understand that bother me, but the things I do understand that bother me." Just a little food for thought for you there...
One Wednesday evening before I started writing this paper, I was teaching at prayer meeting on the verses that were paramount to our beliefs. In the congregation there was a dear lady who for years had used a NIV. As I listed and read each verse to the congregation and expounded I kept noticing a commotion where this dear lady was sitting. The more I read, the more she looked upset and was asking the lady next to her questions. After the service she cornered me and said: "brother Tim, these aren't in my book". One in particular was Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. This verse is a direct statement made by the Savior Himself about His purpose for being here. After she had showed me the other verses missing I knew something was rotten in Denmark. The next day I began this article which is growing each time I dig deeper and deeper into the Bible version subject.
There is a grave danger in these new translations that I never before saw until the above incident occurred. With the changes and meddelings going on in such a heated pace with the Bible versions, true doctrine becomes even harder and harder to find. You have to understand that the Word of God is inspired by God in such a way that we can't settle the true teachings (doctrines) on any one verse. Doctrine or teaching is not found neatly packed up in one place. Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: If meanings are changed and intermingled with other translations and texts, doctrines will become even more confused than they are now. I put it to you this way, If anyway will do, NO WAY will do just as well!!! How about this one: If it ain't broke, why fix it???
I know maybe what some of you may be thinking here. You may be thinking "here is another one of those on the edge, bible thumping, King James 1611, fundamentalist radicals who is always right and will not listen to anything type guys". The facts are I do realize the the 1611 version is almost unreadable to most folks because of Elizabethan English spelling, that is until the spelling was updated (1762 A.D. and 1769 A.D.), and no I'm not a fundamentalist by name although I do admire their stubborn adherence to the Word of God. And by the way, I do believe that we as Christians need to reason with one another just the same as the Lord God reasons with us. Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Now please, before you label me a malcontent or a mean spirited preacher, would you simply check out the evidence presented to you here? So far almost one year has passed since I started this article and nothing went into it until there was a great deal of prayer, study, & research. I want you, the reader to know that with all that is in me, I love you with a Godly love. It is my sincere desire that you know when Satan is out to fool you so you can resist him with all that is in you through the Holy Spirit of God. It could be that most likely a few of the ones who read this article are fellow Christians who just didn't know the facts. Some of you may very well learn or already know the truth here and choose to ignore it or get mad at me, the messenger for telling you. It's my sincere hope you don't though. (Galations 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?) The choice belongs to you how you handle the information in this article.
Interestingly enough, these new versions contain copyrights. How is it that if you are supposed to be representing Gods Word that you can copyright it? I don't get it. Anyway for the sake of the publishers rights I will be listing their copyrights as I examine each one.
So let's see what is the big deal. It would be safe to begin with a inspection of the NIV. The NIV seems to be the most popular modern version with the brethren and a good place to start. This is, by the way, an ongoing study and you may want to check back with this page from time to time for updates.
Inside the front cover we find:
Lets start with what verses have been removed completely by the NIV authors. Yes I did say REMOVED!!!
|Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14|
|Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28|
|Luke 17:36 - 23:17|
|Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29|
|1st John 5:7|
And what were these verses?
It's enough in just these omissions to make a preacher fuss. So what's next?
How about we scope out a verse dealing with Christian fellowship and bearing one anothers burdens.
In Psalms the psalmist proclaims the benefits of Gods preservation of His Word and yet somehow it has been change to mean something else.
What does the KJV and the NIV say about Jesus Christ being God in the Flesh?
Lets look at the instrument of our Salvation, the Blood, and see what we find.
How about the uniqueness of Jesus being the "Only Begotten Son of God?
Then there are verses where the meaning has been completely reversed or changed.
How about our Christian walk?
Wasn't it the Devil that was cast out of Heaven?
What about the reason/reasons Jesus came to the earth?
And what about the free gift of Salvation? The NIV makes Salvation look hard to accomplish when actually all the verse was saying is that it is hard to trust in riches and get saved. This, in my opinion is a total perversion of the Word.
One other point I want you to notice. The word "Sodomite" has been completely removed from the NIV. Interestingly enough this version has become the text of those involved in trying to justify homosexuality in the scriptures. Just a footnote though, if God created some to be heterosexual and then He created others to be homosexual, you would then have to reason to say that God owes an apology to the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah for their destruction. To say even such is blasphemy. The most likely reason why the word "sodomite" was removed from the NIV is one of the editors of this book was a woman by the name of Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. This woman is a professed, in your face, lesbian who has no shame in hiding her sin from the world and worked from beginning to end on this book (the NIV). Mollenkott and a woman named Letha Scanzoni authored another book entitled "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?" in 1978, in which she called for nondiscrimination toward homosexuality. In this book they state that the account of Sodom in Genesis doesn't teach the evil of homosexuality, but the evils of violent gang rape and inhospitality to strangers.
The book also claims that "the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or 'condition' is never mentioned in the Bible" and that Romans chapter one does not "fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian". (p. 71) That's not what I read here in Romans 1:25-28. (KJV) Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Is that what you see in these verses???
Well after seeing all these things about the NIV, why do you suppose these certain verses were removed or changed? The reason I have found is that this book was not translated from the original text (named "Textus Receptus" a decade or two after the translation) but from another source. The NIV is mainly comprised of translations from the Septuagint Greek text by Hellenistic Jews during the period 275 - 100 BC at Alexandria, Egypt & the totally corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts Sinaticus and Vaticanus or the Roman Catholic texts put together by Westcott and Hort (1881-1901). Why corrupted you ask? These translations that came out of Alexandria Egypt were mainly translated by the Alexandrian Jews who were known for their error and mingling of superstition into their works and they were aided buy pagan scholars as well in their completion.
I think it is interesting to note the fact that the pope John Paul put the Received Text (Textus Receptus), on the Index of Forbidden Books. Even the more aggrivating is that possibly the only authentic copies of the Received Text have been scarfed up by the Vatican and hid away in their protected archives. The reason being is that the Received Text was so different from the Catholic Churchs Vulgate Bible, which is based on the Vaticanus manuscript it became a major threat to their dogmas and traditions. Protestants have reworked their Greek text to match Romes Vaticanus manuscript. Roman Catholic cardinal Carlo Martini is even on the Protestant Greek New Testament committee. The prefaces to the Roman Catholic New American Bible, the NASB, and the NIV, all tell the reader that they are based on the same Nestle/UBS Greek (Alexandrian) text.
|Most would think this to be a small issue because in the early years of Christianity on the British Isles this symbol was borrowed & adopted by the Christian converts. Actually and to be honest with you if it is OK to accept this symbol for Christianity why not go ahead and accept the pentagram? Why not, because if it's not of God, it's of the devil! That's why... 1st Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? (KJV) & Isaiah 52:11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. (KJV)|
Below is a question sent in by one of the folks visiting our website:
Q. The KJV uses the words "believe on"..., while the NIV uses the words "believe in"... What is the scriptural difference between these phrases? [Anon]
A. This would be yet another example of the watering down of the Word of God. (NIV) Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." Have you ever been asked by someone if you Believe In something? In other words it is a step of accepting something, not necessarily holding any stock or need any natural or spiritual proof of, but just believe in something. This is saying that if you believe in His name then you have the right to become a child of God. For a while as a little child I believed in Santa Claus. After I became older and realized that dear ole Santa was just a figure that represented the Christmas spirit, I no longer believed in Santa as an actual person.
However, when read as properly translated from the KJV: Acts:16:31: And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house., we see that not only are we believing in but on the very name of Jesus Christ. This is a much deeper and fuller meaning because we are putting our hope on the entire being of the Lord and Savior. Not as merely a symbol but on every fiber of what He came here for, what He preached, what He did, how He did what He did, and what He is doing for us this very day. There is a major difference here in these two examples.
The same can be said of the following verses:
You can also plainly look at the difference in the words right & power. Sure, we will then have the right but then we also need the power. And that power comes from no other place then from God Himself.
And again the Copyright notice:
Before I go too far into the next section which deals with the New King James Version, I'd like you to look at something if you will. Remember that I mentioned a "Hidden Agenda"? Do you also remember my mentioning the Celtic cross on the NIV? Well look at what the NJKV has on it's cover.
Inside the front cover of the New King James we find this explanation about why the Triquetra is on this book:
To the left is three esoteric "6"'s. Clearly showing the number "666". It is an ancient Gnostic symbol that you can find reference to now as a New Age Movement symbol. You will also find this symbol on a book named "The Craft: A Witch's Book of Shadows, also called the Grimoire. It's a book of spells, enchantments, Wicca ethics and rituals. Don't believe my word on it. Do a search in your favorite search engine and look on the cover of the book.
Hey, if you happen to have a Nelson New King James Bible. It could be possible that you can find this emblem on the inside cover. Now why in Heavens name would you imagine that this is in there? Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (KJV)
Would the Lord God want any type of pagan symbol on His Devine Book?
So what do we find in the New King James Version (NKJV) which uses a satanic symbol for its emblem??? I haven't got a good report here either folks. Would you expect me to in light of the above information?
Now dog gone it. I wear a hat with a cross on it and the passage below it 1st Corinthians 1:18. It plainly says that those who are lost think the preaching of the cross (crucifiction) is foolishness but to us that ARE SAVED it is the POWER of GOD. The New King James makes it look like we are having to Work for our Salvation because we are in the process of BEING SAVED....
And below they are doing it again, gee whiz. Either we ARE Saved or we are NOT SAVED.
Ever wondered how we would recognize the Antichrist when he appears? In the book of Daniel we see a clear sign of his coming. (KJV) Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
The verse I want you to focus on for this example is:
Here is something that is just plumb evil. To kneel is not to worship. Yes, we kneel sometimes to worship but we kneel for many other things. To worship IS NOT just an act of kneeling! This dear lady came and recognized the deity of Jesus in adoration of the Son of God.
This particular example I would consider lust plain ole sneaky. Is the way to eternal life a place where sidestepping is allowed without reprimand, in other words with rules or is it just merely Difficult? By the way, notice the way is no longer narrow in the NKJV. They switched it around for some reason.
How about our need to study God's Word? Don't we need to STUDY???
Did you know that the word Godhead, which some call "the Holy Trinity" was too strong a word for the NKJV translators? You know, God the Father, God the Son, & God the Holy Ghost. Instead these fine folks just wanted you to know about Gods devine nature. Either the word descripbes our Holy Triune God or it doesn't. The facts are, this verse has been weakend beyond belief.
Then there seems to be this dislike of the concept of a physical hell. The word hell has been removed from the NKJV 23 times. What it is substituted with is really alarming. By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Hades noun (in stories about Ancient Greece) a place under the earth where the spirits (= forms of dead people that cannot be seen) of the dead go; the underworld. Location of the Elasion fields, the river Styx.
What on earth does hell have to do with ancient Greek mythology? Nothing actually. Hades was a place where the ancient Greeks believed ALL would spend eternity in bliss or torment. Hell on the other hand is a place of eternal condemnation for the damned. Two different and distinct definitions. (KJV) Luke:16:22: And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And what about Sheol? She·ol Pronunciation: shE-'Ol, 'shE-" noun, Hebrew She'Ol, the abode of the dead in early Hebrew thought. This was the place also referred to as Paradise where souls awaited the coming of the Messiah. It's location was in the inner earth separated from the torments of hell by a great gulf of space. (KJV) Luke 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Jesus, after his resurrection, freed the faithful souls from Paradise/Sheol Revelation 1:18 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., so that these souls could be with him in Glory. (KJV) 2nd Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
I would reckon that the word "Gehenna" no longer has a meaning to these scholars. geenna, gheh'-en-nah; of Heb. or; valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerus., used (fig.) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment:--hell. It's interesting to note though that the translators were a bit inconsistent in their use of Hades in place of Gehenna in that they left Hell (gehenna) in some places and removed it from others. Go figure...
There are a few noted evangelists that have stopped preaching about hell because they no longer believe in its literal existence. Billy Graham for one has been quoted that he denies hell fire by saying it is "not fire." Brother Billy, by the way was one of the strongest supporters of the New King James Version when it was first published. Ouch Billy!!! What are you thinking???
There is a bunch more removed but let me break this down for you. In the New King James Version:
Now that would qualify as a Bad Thing don't you think?!?!?! Galations 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (KJV)
The Holman Christian Standard Bible is the latest of the new versions to be found. On the Holman website they proudly announce "This fresh rendering of God's Word is translated directly from the original biblical languages (emphasis added) with a reader-friendly style geared to contemporary English usage." OK, lets see if it is translated from the Original Languages which by the way would be Textus Receptus & the Hebrew Old Testament...
FYI, the front of this book tells me that I need to make the following statement before I quote these verses out of the Holman CSB:
The one verse I have been able so far to narrow down as the indicator of weather or not we have a counterfeit Bible is (KJV)1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that (1) perish foolishness; but unto us which (2) are saved it is the power of God. The verse in the HCSB is quoted as: 1st Corinthians 1:18 For to those who are (1) perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are (2) being saved it is Gods power.
Using my trusty Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and my Greek & Hebrew bible text taken from the original, lets look at if this particular verse was taken from the original autographs by Holman. We will focus on two things here. First about those who are lost (perishing) and then on the part concerning Salvation (Saved or being Saved)
Then the following is just another example of the same perversion of the Word:
Reading further on I come across an instance that totally confuses me about the HCSB. I direct your attention to the following verses that the bible says allows or makes possible our salvation:
Here is an interesting concept... Since it's unpopular these days to tell an adulterous woman that the Bible says they should not remarry, otherwise they are making the new spouse commit adultery, lets just take it from the text of the Bible and everybody can be happy. "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." has been completely removed from the HCSB.
I would guess that like the other versions, the concept of sodomy and the resulting judgment because of it was just as distasteful to the HCSB editors!
Certain words missing from the HCSB are Gods Holy Name "Jehovah", "New Testament" which is the very thing Jesus came to establish, "sodomite" which describes the one major thing that causes a stench in the nostrils of God, & "damnation" which is the result of our fall from Gods presence. The reason I picked these words out of numerous ones removed or replaced are that these have a certain significance that even in todays English language have the same meaning and power. So why remove them?
I also found certain verses which changed meaning completely by changing circumstances in the HCSB. For instance:
This one is a bit tricky until you see what is being implied here in Acts 13:
One last thing about the Holman. How does the HCSB deal with the unity of the Godhead?
Well, so much for their statement that they translated the HCSB directly from the original biblical languages. Sadly to say that this translation is the direct result of the work of our own Southern Baptist brethren. What has happened here? Have we forgotten our own truths and roots? Could it be that some of our brethren have given in to the Ecumenical movement and compromised the Word of God the same as the papists and protestants? Lord please help us.
In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four (54) Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible from the Received Text (named "Textus Receptus" after the translation was completed) for the people who spoke the English language. The number was reduced to forty-seven (47) by the time the work actually began in 1607. Instead of working together all in one place, these men were divided into six (6) individual teams, which worked at three (3) separate locations. There were two (2) teams at Oxford, two (2) at Westminster, and two (2) at Cambridge. Each team was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate. Each individual scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by every member of his team. The entire team then went over the book together. Once a team had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five (5) teams. Any and all questionable and objectionable translation was marked and noted, and then it was returned to the original team for consideration. A special committee was then formed by selecting one (1) leader from each team. This committee ironed out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611. So then the King James Bible had to pass at least fourteen (14) examinations before going to the printer. Throughout this entire process, any learned scholar of the land could be called upon for their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.
The process in which this KJV Bible had been translated has many times been attacked. Why, because of the original autographs. Doubt has so often been introduced into the argument saying that it would have been impossible for the word to have been preserved over the centuries to be saved and then translated into English.
The attack most often used by certain scholars was say that the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself used the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. I don't believe our Lord used the Septuagint except when it was the only thing the Jews He was addressing would listen to! And Jesus, knowing that they (the Scribes & Pharisees) were not only adding laws that were grevious to the people but were using a perverted translation instead of the unperverted and preserved Hebrew Old Testament and adding to His Word said: Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Jesus came unto his own (the Jews) preaching from His own (Hebrew) text.
The other common attack was/is over the Received Text (Textus Receptus). Either God preserved His Word or He didn't. The man Erasmus (1469 - 1536), who published and noted the Received text and in no means created it, simply passed on the traditional and received text. Even Westcott and Hort admitted this. That text, known at the time of the translation as the Byzantine text (also known as the Syrian Antiochian and Received texts) was the text from the original Gospel accounts and letters of the Apostles.
To nail this down for you, the King James was translated solely from the preserved Hebrew texts, (the Hebrew Old Testament) and letters named "Textus Receptus" (Received Text or Byzantine Text). The Received Text are the diligently copied and preserved letters of the Apostles and Saints from the 1st century A.D. that have been handed down in the original Greek and Aramaic they were originally written in. No pagan middle men here! These were also referenced to the oldest Waldense / Paulican (Anabaptist / Baptist) texts called the "Old Itala Bible". Then they were translated by the Kings scholars to bring us the King James 1611 version. The only changes then to take place with the KJV was spelling corrections (1762 and 1769) because English spelling had changed. ie; s's for f's, and the removal of the books in between that most certainly didn't belong there and were put there under political pressure & so forth to give us the King James Authorized Version which we have today.
Just thought I'd give you a bit to ponder on too. The Greek and Hebrew languages have a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. In Today's English we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the King James Version wanted a more accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text, they couldn't use the word "you" completely through the Bible! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it is singular, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it is plural. When the publishers advertised the NKJV they called it "the Accurate One", and yet the King James Version, using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate! Like I heard another brother say: It doesn't sound right to sing the song "How Great Thou Art" by singing "How Great You Are", now does it???
It was said by bible scholars in the 1960's & 1970's that the Bible meerly contains the Word of God. I cannot not buy into that school of thought. After receiving the findings presented to you here I must with all good conscience tell you that the Received Text is the "inspired" Word of God and the King James Version is that inspired Word of God preserved in the English language!
(1749 - 1752)
I think it not an unworthy effort to mention a certain version of the scriptures which "WAS" translated from the Latin Alexandrian text and apearantly also from the Received Text to give you a certain picture if you will, of how translators of what I plainly now feel are counterfeits even corrupt their own sources. The Roman Catholic answer to the King James Version was the Douay-Rheims Version. Once the KJV was printed it even became popular with catholic priests. So much so that they were even using it from behind their pulpits. This was a big uh-oh to the papal powers that be and immediately & hastily, they started putting together their own version in English to get the KJV out of their pulpits. They were indeed hasty because in doing so actually disagreed with their own doctrines and dogmas. Check this out...
Actually the list of contradictions goes on and on. What a pity...There are also contained in the DRV certain books which were removed from the KJV with good reason. They contradicted the rest of the books of the Bible and even themselves at times. Christians and Orthodox Jews alike have long condemned these added books as not being inspired works of the Bible. These books were known as the Apocrypha and it along with added pagan traditions are the real source of these contradictions.
I'm carefully and prayerfully working on this article Folks and it is an ongoing work to be continued!!! Last Update 02-03-2005
Your servant in Christ Jesus, (Tim Davis) the Parson
Notes for further study:
Copyright © Tim Davis Sr., 2008