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 versions 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, 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.

• (KJV) Luke 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

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.

THE NIV

(1973, 1978)

So let's see what the big deal is. 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:

• The Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1978 by New York International Bible Society
  • The New Testament, New International Version
    • © 1973 by New York Bible Society International
    • © 1978 by New York International Bible Society
      • Portions of this Bible have been previously published under the following copyrights by the New York International Bible Society.
        • The Book of John © 1970; The Book of Isaiah © 1975; The Book of Daniel © 1976; Proverbs and Ecclesiastes © 1977

Lets start with what verses have been removed completely by the NIV authors. Yes I did say REMOVED!!!

They are:
	Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14
	Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46  - 11:26 - 15:28
	Luke 17:36 - 23:17
	John 5:4
	Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29
	Romans 16:24
	1st John 5:7

And what were these verses?

• Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (KJV) These are the Words of the Savior!
• Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (KJV) Again, the Words of the Savior!
• Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (KJV) Unless I'm confused, aren't these also the Words of the Savior?
• Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. (KJV) Again the Words of the Savior telling us that we had better listen up!!!
• Mark:9:44: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (KJV) Heaven forbid that we should hear about Hell from the Savior! Again, the Lords Words.
• Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (KJV) Again, gone is the very Words of the Savior!
• Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. (KJV) Ya know, I'm beginning to worry a bit about what you folks are missing when you read this version! Where did these "All Important" Words of Jesus go to?
• Mark15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. (KJV) Isn't this a verse confirming that Jesus fulfilled prophesy? Now why do you suppose this was left out?
• Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (KJV) I don't get it! This is important info about the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and again, straight from the mouth of the Savior!!!
• Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) (KJV) OK, I ain't quite so dumb as to not know that this is the first reference of Jesus dieing in the place of another. Gee, didn't He die in the place of us all?
• John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. (KJV) This is a major part of the story. Why remove it?
• Acts 8:37 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. (KJV) Hey, now wait a minute. Isn't this one of the passages that tells us that if we believe in Jesus Christ in His Deity we will be saved!
• Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. (KJV) OK, part of a story line made incomplete. Hum?
• Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Lord forbid that we should mention how violently Paul was taken into custody!
• Acts 28 29: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. (KJV) Wouldn't it be nice to know that Pauls words didn't completely fall on deaf ears?
• 1st John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV) Hey, isn't this one of the KEY verses that describe the Godhead? God the Father, God the Son (Word), God the Holy Ghost?

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.

• (KJV) James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
• (NIV) James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. NIV®
  • It's clear that we are to share one anothers burdens (faults) for the moral and well being of the saints. On the other hand it is nothing but Roman Catholic dogma to confess our sins to one another. We are to confess our faults to one another. Our sins are to be confessed to God. There is a big difference in faults and sins.
    • Definitions of Fault and of Sin
      • fault n. A character weakness, especially a minor one. Something that impairs or detracts from physical perfection; a defect. See Synonyms at blemish. A mistake; an error. A minor offense or misdeed.
      • sin n. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. Theology. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

In Psalms the psalmist proclaims the benefits of Gods preservation of His Word and yet somehow it has been change to mean something else.

• (KJV) Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
• (NIV) Psalms 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 12:7 O LORD , you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever. NIV®
  • These two verses plainly are talking about preserving the Word of God yet once you get into the NIV, we see that it is no longer the Word of God being preserved but us, Gods people. How exactly did that happen?

What does the KJV and the NIV say about Jesus Christ being God in the Flesh?

• (KJV) 1st Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
• (NIV) 1st Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. NIV®
  • In the King James Version it's plain that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. In the New International Version it only says "He" and nowhere in this verse is the deity of Christ even acknowledged.

Lets look at the instrument of our Salvation, the Blood, and see what we find.

• (KJV) Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
• (NIV) Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV®
  • Where did the Blood go??? It's been removed!!! (KJV) Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

How about the uniqueness of Jesus being the "Only Begotten Son of God?

• (KJV) John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
• (NIV) John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. NIV®
  • This one sort of makes the blood boil. Jesus "IS" the Only Begotten Son of God!!! A uniqueness because He is also God! Without the word "Begotten", anyone can be this unique being so to speak.

Then there are verses where the meaning has been completely reversed or changed.

• (KJV) Isaiah 9:3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
• (NIV) Isaiah 9:3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder.
  • How did "and not increased the joy" become "and increased their joy"? Opposite meanings, right?
• (KJV) Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
• (NIV) Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. NIV®
  • How did "intruding into those things which he hath not seen" become "great detail about what he has seen"? Totally opposite again!
• (KJV) Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
• (NIV) Revelation 13:1 And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. NIV®
  • Now how is it that all of a sudden it's Satan (the dragon) standing on the shore instead of John the revelator? Interesting!

How about our Christian walk?

• (KJV) Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
• (NIV) Jeremiah 6:16 This is what the Lord says: "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, 'We will not walk in it.'" NIV®
  • The NIV says to walk in the "good way," but does not tell you that the old paths are the good way, but suggests the "ancient paths" or pagan ways are best. Look again at KJV. Stand "in the ways" that would be the ways of God. The NIV with "crossroads" suggests many different paths.
• (KJV) 1st Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
• (NIV) 1st Thessalonians 5:22 Avoid every kind of evil. NIV®
  • Big difference here! Someone can be innocent of wrongdoing, but be in a situation that makes it APPEAR he is guilty. The Word of God wants us to avoid even LOOKING guilty as well being guilty!

What about the reason/reasons Jesus came to the earth?

• (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. NIV®
  • OK they went to another village! What about the Lords Words concerning His NECESSARY purpose?

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.

• (KJV) Mark 10:24 Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
• (NIV) Mark 10:24 Jesus said again, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! NIV®

Here is one last smack in the nose concerning the NIV. Wasn't David the one who slew Goliath? The NIV says it was Elhanan that killed Goliath when it was actually Goliaths brother that Elhanan slew.

• (NIV) 2nd Samuel 21:19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. NIV®
  • Here is how the verse really reads:
    • (KJV) 2nd Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

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???

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 Church’s 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 Rome’s Vaticanus manuscript also. 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.

Note: It is the assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that the Received Text no longer exists. If that be true, why put it on the Index of Forbidden Books? What possible reason would you have to forbid someone to read something that no longer exists? End Cover of the NIV by Zondervan For my reference to this study I have the leather covered NIV by Zondervan. On this book, not surprisingly you find a cross on the end cover face and on the inside cover. But not just a cross but a very stylized cross. It didn't take much study at all to realized that this isn't a Christian Cross at all but an ancient Celtic cross from the pagan, pre-Christian days of Ireland. Although it is slightly disguised you can tell the pagan Celtic cross solely by the even lengthed arms. Following the roots of this symbol takes you directly to the sacrificial alters of Wiccan.

Inside leaf of the NIV by Zondervan Pre Christian Celtic Cross The O'Donnell Cross Notice the modified Triquetra on each arm of the cross. 9th Century Celtic Cross of Clonmacnois The Celtic Cross carved in stone on the British Isles. Marker showing that a Satanic Black Mass has or is about to take place. Wiccan/Celtic Origins

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) And here is a shock for you! A not to well known fact is that in 1988, Zondervan, who publishes the NIV was bought by Harper & Row, Publishers (currently ~ Harper Collins Publishers) Harper Collins publishes certain pro-homosexual books like Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality and advertised as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,...Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships...the intricacies of love play..." Is this the sort of people God would allow to preserve and publish His Word?

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." NIV® 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:

• (NIV) John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- NIV®
• (KJV) John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

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 but from God Himself.

[Timothy]

THE NKJV

(1979, 1982)

And again the Copyright notice:

• The Holy Bible, New King James Version Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

• The New King James Bible, New Testament
  • Copyright © 1979 By Thomas Nelson, Inc.
    • The New King James Bible, New Testament and Psalms
      • Copyright © 1980 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

From the preface I read how they are just wanting to update the wording of the King James and that they are being faithful to the Greek and Hebrew. Quite frankly folks, it is not what it claims to be and it is "NOT" a simple updating of the King James Version. There are approximately 60,000 textual changes made in the NKJV™. From the evidence below, it looks more to me like a new translation than an updated revision.

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.

The Triquetra: Inside the front cover of the New King James we find this explanation about why the Triquetra is on this book: The Triquetra from the Latin word meaning three cornered is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal persons and individually one God. Yeah, Right!!! Sure it is... Scope out what I found out about the Triquetra: 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. To the left is a image of what is known as the Triquetra Grimoire. A Witches book of Spells and Incantations To the right is a blow-up image of the medallion found on this dark and evil book above.

The image on the left is the New King James Version logo on the inside cover of the book and is in all actuality an ancient symbol for the pagan trinity of Isis, Horus, & Seb, and then the Celtic symbol for the triple aspects of the Goddess (Maiden, Mother and Crone) and not the Christian Godhead. Use of these number symbols can be traced all the way to Pythagoras (582 B.C.) initiate into the Egyptian mysteries.  Another source I've found dates it back even 5000 years ago to the three forces of nature: earth, air, and water (Elementals). The symbol was revived again by the satanist Aleister Crowley for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the York. The symbol's shape is made as three initiates join arms and feet, while repeating the names of ancient pagan trinity. This symbol can also be seen on satanic rock group albums like Led Zeppelin, as well as on new Age bestselling books like the Aquarian Conspiracy. 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?

After a careful search of pagan symbols I found a link to this particular book called "The Craft ~ A Witch's Book of Shadows" by Dorothy Morrison. Do you see the triquetra symbol between the words "TheCraft" & "A Witch's Book of Shadows"? This book contains satanic spells, enchantments, and rituals. It also includes Wicca Ethics if there is such a thing. The companion book, "The Craft Companion ~ A Witch's Journal" also has the symbol right on the front. You might believe the image to the left is a Christian Cross. Wrong! It is a satanic crest (pendant) that can be purchased where occult symbols and jewelry are sold. Look closely at the arms of this particular cross. What do you see?

You will also find this symbol used all over the place in the television series called "Charmed". The story of three witch sisters very popular today on TV. When Charmed begins, look at the book of spells they use and sure enough you will find this symbol on the cover.

Then there is the ever controversial book written by a Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, The Aquarian Conspiracy. A description of the New Age culture in America. Interestingly we find the triquera here also. In her notes to answer some of the people who recognized this symbol for what it is she says: "What the logo reminds ME of is a triple Moebius strip -- that's a single-sided surface that every mathematician is familiar with." I ask you though, what on earth does mathematics have to do with the New Age movement? Was it put there just as a decoration? If it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, & smells like a skunk it must be a rabbit??? No, it's a SKUNK!!! One other thing she mentions is: "How ironic, that the Christian fundamentalist reviewers here have taken the title of this book so LITERALLY, as referring to some kind of sinister plot. Then again, fundamentalists take everything literally, so what's new?" Dear lady, I'm not a fundamentalist! I'm an original Baptist and I agree with my fundamentalist brethren and also see exactly what they see with perfect clarity. Hummmmmm...

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....

• (KJV)1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
• (NKJV™) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
  • Your will also find this same verse perverted in the same way in the NIV. 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    • It's interesting to note that these two examples from the NKJV and the NIV are exactly the same. Not only this particular scripture but  because of many other changed verses we are starting to hear preachers proclaiming that there is a need for two acts of Grace before we are saved. What a pity. 2nd Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 
      • *NOTE: Any version that uses the variation shown above in 1 Corinthians 1:18 is most likely tainted with the Alexandrian text.

And below they are doing it again, gee whiz. Either we ARE (sanctified) or we are NOT (sanctified). You can't straddle the fence.

• (KJV) Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
• (NKJV™) Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

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:

• (KJV) Daniel 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.
• (NKJV™) Daniel 8:25 "Through his cunning He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule; And he shall exalt himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes; But he shall be broken without human means.
  • I showed you the evidence of Satanic practices and witchery in the NKJV™ by the symbol used on this book. Now look at some of the scriptural evidence. The word craft is basically the practice of satanic rite or witch craft. The word craft has been replaced with the word deceipt. Two totally different words meaning two seperate things. Hey, if I were the antichrist I certainly wouldn't want you to know what tools I'll be using to take over the world.

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.

• (KJV) Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
• (NKJV™) Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

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.

• (KJV) Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life.
• (NKJV™) Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life,

How about our need to study God's Word? Don't we need to STUDY???

• (KJV) 2nd Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
• (NKJV™) 2nd Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

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 describes our Holy Triune God or it doesn't. The facts are, this verse has been weakend beyond belief.

• (KJV) Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
• (NKJV™) Acts 17:29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.

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 of 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 either. 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:

• The word "God" has been removed 51 times.
• The word "Jehovah" has been removed completely.
• The word "Lord" has been removed 66 times.
• The word "heaven" has been removed 50 times.
• The word "repent" has been removed 44 times.
• The word "blood" has been removed 23 times.
• The word "new testament" has been removed completely.
• The word "damnation" has been removed completely.
• The word "devils" has been removed completely.

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 HCSB

(2003)

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:

• Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations marked HCSB have been taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible ® Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.

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 God’s 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)

• (1) Does the original say perishing or does it say them that perish? The word used in the Greek here is: apollumi, ap-ol'-loo-mee; to destroy fully (reflex. to perish, or lose), lit. or fig.:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish. It is a verb that shows action, so perishing or perish could be used without loss of meaning.
• (2) Does the original say we are saved or are we in the process of being saved? In other words a continual work. The word used in the Greek here is: sozo, sode'-zo; from a prim. sos (contr. for obsol. saos, "safe"); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (lit. or fig.):--heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole. It is also a verb that has a finality about it and not a process. So with no mistake about it we ARE SAVED and not in the process of it.

Then the following is just another example of the same perversion of the Word:

• (KJV) 2nd Corinthians 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
• (HCSB) 2nd Corinthians 2:15 For to God we are the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing
  • The HCSB again argues with the finality of our salvation.

Reading further on I came 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:

• (KJV) Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
• (HCSB) Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift-- 2:9 not from works, so that no one can boast.
  • This is what I can't figure out. First they say we are being saved in 1st Corinthians and then as a direct contradiction in Ephesians say we "are" saved even though the word saved is the same in the Greek (sozo) for 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians & Ephesians!

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.

• (KJV) Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
• (HCSB) Matthew 19:9 And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
  • Wouldn't this open the door for folks to go through marriage like socks in a drawer? (KJV) John 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

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!

• (KJV) Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
• (HCSB) Mark 6:11 If any place does not welcome you and people refuse to listen to you, when you leave there, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”
  • " Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." was completely omitted from the text!

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:

• (KJV) Exodus 14:25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians.
• (HCSB) Exodus 14:25 He caused their chariot wheels to swerve and made them drive with difficulty. “Let’s get away from Israel,” the Egyptians said, “because the Lord is fighting for them against Egypt!”
  • Can someone please tell me if they see a difference in swerving and completely falling off???

This one is a bit tricky until you see what is being implied here in Acts 13:

• (KJV) Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
• (HCSB) Acts 13:33 God has fulfilled this to us their children by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm: You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.
  • Was there any time when Christ was not "THE" eternal, everlasting, without beginning or end, Son of God? In all actuality there is absolutely no Greek text that reads the way that the HCSB has this verse interpreted. In fact, for some strange reason the HCSB agrees with the Jehovah Witness (New World Translation) version of the bible!

How about the Virgin Birth? Notice Joseph is mentioned by name in the KJV but in the HCSB, Joseph is called the father of Jesus.

• (KJV) Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
• (HCSB) Luke 2:33 His father and mother were amazed at what was being said about Him.

How does the HCSB deal with the unity of the Godhead?

• (KJV)1st John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
• (HCSB)1st John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
  • It would seem that the HCSB editors didn't consider the most powerful verse in the Bible about the Godhead (Holy Trinity) to have enough validity to remain in the scriptures. The HCSB completely removes these words of the utmost importance from this verse: "in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The word “fornication” is found in the KJV fourty four times. Guess how many time you will find it in the HCSB? Zero! Not one single time. Fornication isn't even a "so called" archaic word. So why remove it?

• (KJV) 1st Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
• (HCSB) 1st Corinthians 7:2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

Hey, check this out! It has long been understood that we have to behave ourselves and follow the leadership of the Spirit of God after we are saved. It seems to me the HCSB removed that burden from us. How about that?

• (KJV) Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
• (HCSB) Romans 8:1 Therefore, no condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus,

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.

THE NASB New Testament

1960

Since the NASB is a version many feel comfortable with I thought I'd look it over also. I didn't have a complete book here at the office but did have a New Testament paper back. Inside the cover I found the note that told me No part of this book may be reproduced in any shape form or fashion without permission from the publishers. Well, being the law abiding Parson, I went to thier website and got permission. Here it is:

First things first! Remember when I mentioned to you that if you wanted to see if you were reading from the Alexandrian text or not the good place to start was 1st Corinthians 1:18? Well, here it is:

• (NASB®) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
  • Lets go back and look at what the other versions have in this verse for comparison, OK?
    • (NKJV™) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    • (NIV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    • (HCSB) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.
  • (KJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The NASB®, NKJV™, NIV, & HCSB seem awful simular now don't they? Why, well also inside the cover I found on page xxvi: "Greek text: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 23rd edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece was followed." Hey, isn't that the Alexandrian manuscript I mentioned previously? Whoops, big uh oh!

I have many of the brethren tell me that the NASB® at least doesn't change the meaning of the Word. Does it not?

In Mark 10 we see the lesson of "you can't take it with you" speaking of our earthly wealth.

• (NASB®) Mark 10:23 And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" 10:24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 10:25 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
• (KJV) Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
  • Not trying to knit-pick here but any student of grammer would realize that these three verses meanings have been altered. Matter of fact the meaning is changed so much that it makes things seem like it's near impossible for anybody to enter heaven when the Savior was simply speaking to us about trusting more in riches than Him.

There are notes in the margins explaining thier reasons for omitting certain parts of verses but in Luke 4:18 you will find aboslutely no reason for removing "he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted."  Here, the Savior was explaining his reasons for being here.

• (NASB®) Luke 4:18 THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, 4:19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD."
• (KJV) Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Searching the internet I came across some quotes from a Dr. Frank Logsdon (1907-1987) who was Co-founder New American Standard Bible (NASB®). This article is his personal confession "From the NASV to the KJV" and is some interesting reading. I strongly suggest you surf and search out the complete article for yourself.
Selected quotes from Dr. Logsdon's article "From the NASV to the KJV": "At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words." I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, "Dewey, I don't want to add to your problems," (he had lost his wife some three years before; I was there for the funeral; also a doctor had made a mistake in operating on a cataract and he had lost the sight of one eye and had to have an operation on the other one; he had a slight heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man seventy- four years of age) "but I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The only thing I can do--and dear Brother, I haven't a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere," (he wasn't schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him) "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard." There are two copies of those Bibles in existence, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. And where are they? They are in the custodial care of Rome. Now almost all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, come through that stream. And that necessitates this comment: There is the false and the true streams of manuscripts. And either our manuscripts come through the false stream, or they come through the approved stream of manuscripts.	Nevertheless, getting back to this, the devil is too wise to try to destroy the Bible. He knows he can't. He can't destroy the Word of God. But he can do a lot of things to try to supplant it, or to corrupt it in the minds and hearts of God's people. Now he can only do it in one of two ways: either by adding to the Scriptures or by subtracting from the Scriptures. And you mark it down in your little red book: He's too wise to add to because those who have been in the Word for a long time would say, "Wait a minute; this is not in the Bible." So he subtracts from it. The deletions are absolutely frightening. I think I mentioned the other night, since there is so much concern about these versions and paraphrases and so on, it is a marvelous opportunity for the devil to get in his strokes, you know. Through computerized procedures they have tried to determine the accuracy right down the line. You have lists of those in various books. The Authorized Version is right at the top. Friends, you can say the Authorized Version is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! Because biblical correctness is predicated upon doctrinal accuracy, and not one enemy of this Book of God has ever proved a wrong doctrine in the Authorized Version. You've never heard of anyone's intellect being thwarted because he believed this Authorized Version, have you? And you never will. You've never heard of anyone anytime going astray who embraced the precepts of the Authorized Version, and you never will. So when they saw that there wasn't much to revise, here they had their committee arranged. One was a Unitarian, a man by the name of Smith. That's why you find on verses concerning the incarnation there's something wrong. Such as 1 Timothy 3:16--"By common consent great is the mystery of godliness." Don't you believe that the mystery of godliness depends upon what man thinks, or his opinion. The verse continues in the 1881 version--"he who was manifest in the flesh." You've been manifest in the flesh; I've been manifest; [that statement alone is meaningless]. It's God who was manifest in the flesh. Do you see the Unitarian flavor there? He got in some blows somewhere, and that must be one of them. But I finally got to the place where I said, "Ann, I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?" Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life, I think. Dr. Frank Logsdon

THE DRV

(1749 - 1752)

I don't think it is 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 and Old Italia Bible 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...

• Catholic priests are called father but the DRV says:
  • (DRV) Matthew 23:9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Whoops!!!
  • (KJV) Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
• The roman catholic church believes that your sins must be confessed through the priest at confessional but the DRV says:
  • (DRV) 1st John 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just. Whoops!!!
  • (KJV) 1st John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
• The catholics believe that they will go to a place called Purgatory after death to be purged of any remaining sins, but the DRV says:
  • (DRV) 2nd Corinthians 5:8 But we are confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body and to be present with the Lord.  Whoops!!!
  • (KJV) 2nd Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
• Here is the biggest Uh-Oh I've seen... You remember me mentioning 1 Corinthians 1:18 being changed and perverted by the other versions? The roman catholics believe that you aren't sure of your salvation until death. Interestingly enough, here is what the DRV says:
  • (DRV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness: but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God. Whoops!!!
  • (KJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
• Here is a minor bit of consistency with their doctrine and dogmas. Notice that "for ever" has been removed from refering to our sins by moving a simple comma from Hebrews 10:12. They teach that there has to be a continual (unbloody) sacrifice for sins.
  • (DRV) Hebrews 10:12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, Oh Boy!!!
  • (KJV) Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
• What about all those who were killed and tortured in the inquisitions? Don't believe me? Read Foxes Book of Martyrs and see for yourself. Born again believers were tortured and killed by the roman church and yet their bible says:
  • (DRV) Hebrews 10:30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. Whoops!!!
  • (KJV) Hebrews10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

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.

THE KJV

(1611)

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 of God to have been preserved over the centuries to be saved and then translated into English.

• Psalms 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
• Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The most common attack used by certain bible scholars was to say that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. I don't believe our Lord used the Septuagint and here is why! I'm pretty sure the Sanhedron used it because Jesus, knowing that they, (the Scribes & Pharisees) were not only adding laws that were grevious to the people, but also using this perverted translation 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.

Further proof comes from the words of the Savior Himself. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Why on earth would Jesus mention the jot and the tittle? Did you know that the jot was a Hebrew letter? Not only that but the tittle was simular to the comma or period to give distinction between Hebrew letters. If the Septuagint was what the Lord used, he wouldn't have even mentioned the jot or tittle. Why, because it isn't Greek, they are only found in the Hebrew.

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" (Antiochian, Received, or Byzantine Text). The Textus Receptus 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 / Paulician (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 were 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 Version which we have today.

Just thought I'll 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. As earlier manuscripts are being discovered, some of the errors of the new versions are being made evident while the King James Version remains totally correct in its rendering in English. 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!

The question might be brought up about the Bible being translated in other languages other than English. To be perfectly honest, these other languages should be translated from the Old Hebrew & the Received Text also. Otherwise you just have the same error that is happening in the English language today. Makes sense, doesn't it?

I'm carefully and prayerfully working on this article Folks and it is an ongoing work to be continued!!! Last Updated on December 26, 2005.

If you would like to discuss this matter in more depth, we have installed a Bible Versions Message Board. Please feel free to start or join any discussion found there. Please, Please, Please keep it friendly.

Your servant in Christ Jesus, (Tim Davis) the Parson

LINKS:

• EARLY WITNESSES TO THE RECEIVED TEXT
• The New Testament Translation - A History #3
• The Date Problem and the Text By: Clinton L. Branine 

REFERENCE:

1. Early Witnesses to the Received Text ~ Compiled by Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D
2. The New Testament Translation - A History #3 - Greek transaltions from Judea to the West and to Constaninople. Compiled with some added comments. From the book "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" by Benjamin Wilkinson, PhD. Written in 1930.
3. Old Itala Bible:
   • This is the Bible used by the early (primitive) Baptist churches known as the Waldense or Paulicans. It was a true translation from the recieved texts into the vulgar or low Latin language from around 157 A.D. It was also used for the following translations:
     1. Martin Luther used the German Tepl Bible, which was a translation of the Waldensian Bible into German, to make Luther’s German Bible.
     2. Olivetan, a pastor of the Waldensian valley, translated a Waldensian Bible into French.
     3. This French Olivetan, likewise, was the basis of the Geneva Bible in English.
     4. Diodati’s Italian Bible was also of Waldensian / Paulician translations.
4. Selected quotes from the article  "From the NASV to the KJV" by Dr. Frank Logsdon, Co-founder ~ New American Standard Bible (NASB®).

Notes for further study:

• The Waldenses and the Old Itala Bible
• The Paulicians and the Scriptures
• Textus Receptus
• Received Text
• Antiochian Text
• Hebrew Masoretic text

Food for Thought, what was the seventh English Bible to be translated?

1. The Tyndale Bible, 1534
2. Coverdale Bible, 1535
3. Matthews Bible, 1537
4. The Great Bible, 1539
5. The Geneva Bible, 1560
6. The Bishops’ Bible, 1568
7. The King James Bible, 1611
   • Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Color Code:

• Green = King James Version before the Cross
• Red = King James Version words of the Savior, Jesus Christ
• Blue = King James Version after the Cross
• Purple = Bible version quotations using Alexandrian sources or quotes from the authors of the other versions.

Honestly, with all the documented proof given by each side of the Bible Versions Debate. When does faith enter into the equasion? If you were to go to an orthodox Jew and ask him which of the law does he read. What would be his answer? Would he say the Hebrew or the Septuagent? You know all too well he would choose the original Hebrew over the translation called the Septuagent.

I'm not trying to say that we need to learn to read Hebrew or Greek or Arimaic for that matter because quite frankly we feel comfortable reading things in our native languages. So ask that same orthodox Jew where he would like to have the law translated into his language from. His answer would most likely be from the original Hebrew. Right? Because he has faith that Gods Word had preserved the Word in the Hebrew.

Now, lets look at something else. Some would argue that the Gospels and the letters were possibly not properly preserved as the Antiochian Text (Received Text) I personally wouldn't buy into that because of what God's Word already says: (Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever)

So what is my point? The point is that the major part of the other versions are translated from a translation. The Alexandrian is the Latin translation of the original, right. Wescott and Hort even admitted this. So why bother? Shouldn't we look at an English version that wasn't translated from a translation but from what God preserved in the original tongue? Or do you not have faith in God being able to work through man to preserve His Word? If that be the case then we just need to throw away any translation and look for originals.