Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tampered With!!

[spiriteddove05]

I think the NIV is a good translation. Instead of comparing it to the KJV, compare it to the original manuscripts in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Some of the so called 'missing verses' are simply not there in the original early manuscripts. They are later additions and should never have been in there.
Remember John's warning was about adding verses as well as taking away.
There is no such thing as a literal translation... ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic all had their own idioms and a single word could mean more than one thing, just as it is in modern English. Modern English is itself always changing and so translations need to be updated in order to be true.

well my sources have been from the NT!! cant really comment on the OT!! per say havnt really looked it up but I have the Hebrew translation too!!

 

[Butch5]

I know and the Alexandrian manu scripts are corrupt!! don't believe me go study it 4 urself

Why do you suggest I don't believe you? I do suspect that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted. Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism. However, you're comparing the Alexandrian text to the KJV which also has its issues.

 

[Enxu]

Research the KJV and you'll see

Ok I will.

 

[Butch5]

Ok I will.

The KJV comes from the Textus Receptus. Erasmus didn't even have all of the Greek texts for the New Testament. He had to use some Latin texts to finish the New Testament.

 

[Curtis]

In around 301 to 400 AD the Church by this time had the scriptures of both the Old, and New Testament. John had finished the Book of Revelations and was available to most Church's.

In Rome, there was an emperor named “Diocletian”. He was one of, if not the worst persecutor of the Church's in the Roman empire. He made it his goal in life to destroy Christianity and all of its books or scrolls that had anything to do with the Word of God. He would look and find wherever Christians gathered together, capture their leaders and kill them. He rounded up all scrolls or books they could find of scripture and burned them.

The Church in an attempt to save scripture from complete destruction would cut or rip the pages out of books or scrolls and pass them out to different people to hide where ever they could. This was in about the 4th century.

You can not find any complete sets of scriptures from that time period today. There have been thousands of segments from different parts of scripture found throughout that region, and the ones found have been pasted back together to complete the Word of God that this man tried to completely destroy.

 

[Hekuran]

I have done the research and the fact is the Roman Catholic Church removed 14 books from KJV 1611 based on their own authority. Those who translated the English bibles like Wycliffe and Tyndale were brutally persecuted and murdered by the RCC.

The Roman Catholic Church removed those books? Are you sure? Even though the KJV was translated for use in the Protestant churches?

The fact is, that the differences between the ancient manuscripts are few and minor. It's natural to expect some changes to creep in here and there.

I'm happy for the scholars to do the work of discerning which of the ancient texts is reliable in each case where there is divergence. I've not yet come across a major doctrine or Christian principle that hangs on the difference between these texts.

 

[Acts2:38]

I would contend that the KJV is not a perfect one, however it is the best one to use. My thoughts are the same as the article, that the KJV is not essentially perfect, but it is the best one to use.

http://www.seektheoldpaths.com/pdf/stop/stop718.pdf

Other points Randy Kea mentioned in other articles, which is knowledge easily attainable online:

"Westcott and Hort refused to accept the Received Text and sought to modify it. In 1881 they published their Greek text, changing the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places that included almost 10,000 words. Clearly, they had no regard for the verbal inspiration and preservation of the Bible, and yet, most modern translations use a text base similar to theirs (Nestle/Aland, etc.). See John W. Burgon to refute the theories of Westcott/Hort." http://www.leonichurchofchrist.com/video/KJVBestEnglish.pdf

The NIV pulls from those who refused the received text, thereby making it a watered down version of Gods word and makes way to breed in false doctrines.

 

[Hekuran]

I would contend that the KJV is not a perfect one, however it is the best one to use. My thoughts are the same as the article, that the KJV is not essentially perfect, but it is the best one to use.

http://www.seektheoldpaths.com/pdf/stop/stop718.pdf

Other points Randy Kea mentioned in other articles, which is knowledge easily attainable online:

"Westcott and Hort refused to accept the Received Text and sought to modify it. In 1881 they published their Greek text, changing the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places that included almost 10,000 words. Clearly, they had no regard for the verbal inspiration and preservation of the Bible, and yet, most modern translations use a text base similar to theirs (Nestle/Aland, etc.). See John W. Burgon to refute the theories of Westcott/Hort." http://www.leonichurchofchrist.com/video/KJVBestEnglish.pdf

The NIV pulls from those who refused the received text, thereby making it a watered down version of Gods word and makes way to breed in false doctrines.

No English translation has done more to bring the word of God to ordinary people than the KJV. Yet, since it was produced a huge number of older manuscripts have come to light and it's been possible for scholars to piece together a more accurate version of the original Greek texts. Almost all modern translations benefit from this.

Westcott and Hort and others had good reason to seek more reliable texts than textus receptus. It's not a watered down version.

 

[Acts2:38]

No English translation has done more to bring the word of God to ordinary people than the KJV. Yet, since it was produced a huge number of older manuscripts have come to light and it's been possible for scholars to piece together a more accurate version of the original Greek texts. Almost all modern translations benefit from this.

Westcott and Hort and others had good reason to seek more reliable texts than textus receptus. It's not a watered down version.

That would be incorrect. For the simple reason that the article, if you read it, mentioned.

Quote:

V. PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT

A. If God has the power to speak the universe into existence and verbally inspire all 66 books of the Bible, He certainly has the power (in His providential care) to preserve His words down through time.

B. The O.T. claims verbal preservation — Psa. 12:5-6; 78:1-7; 119:89

C. The N.T. claims verbal preservation — 2 John 2; I Peter 1:24-25

D. Jesus affirmed O.T. preservation — down to the “jot” and “tittle” — Matt. 5:17-18

E. Jesus affirmed N.T. preservation — John 12:48; Matt. 24:35

F. Preservation is essential for every generation to be able to obey God’s will — Matt. 4:4

G. Special note: When Jesus cited the O.T., He used the formula “It is written.” The Greek verb tense here is a perfect tense verb which denotes action completed in the past, the results of which is ongoing. It emphasizes the present or ongoing result of a completed action. So every time Jesus used this statement, He was asserting O.T. preservation.

H. Text base for the KJV:
1. O.T. — The traditional Masoretic Hebrew text — standardized by the Masoretes (whose job in life was to copy the Hebrew text with astonishingly strict rules — counting letters and words, etc) between 500-1000 AD. Remember, Jesus used the Hebrew O.T. text, not the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls or other spurious sources (Luke 24:44; Matt. 23:35; 5:17- 18; Rom. 3:1-2). (Remember, Jesus never corrected the Hebrew text, He just quoted it.)

2. N.T. — The traditional Greek text (Received Text) — four kinds of Greek manuscripts: papyrus (fragment), uncials (all capital letters), cursive (long-hand), lectionary (Greek and Latin public reading). Although there were 30 editions of the Received Text made over the years with slight inconsequential differences such as spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order, etc, they are essentially the same. The KJV translators had all this evidence before them.

3. Westcott and Hort refused to accept the Received Text and sought to modify it. In 1881 they published their Greek text, changing the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places that included almost 10,000 words. Clearly, they had no regard for the verbal inspiration and preservation of the Bible, and yet, most modern translations use a text base similar to theirs (Nestle/Aland, etc.). See John W. Burgon to refute the theories of Westcott/Hort.
End quote.

What your suggesting, is that pieces of Gods word went missing or were misunderstood for a while until Westcott and Hort uncovered it. Pieces of information vital to salvation and the whole complete word of God.

Last written book, lets say, 100 AD.

Westscott brings about his translations in 1880's.

You are in league with the belief that important key phrases and words vital to salvation were missing or misunderstood for 1,780 years or so. Then somehow Westscott and Hort discovered a better way.

I'd rather listen to what Jesus said

 

[Hekuran]

I'd read all that before I responded. We now have access to more and older manuscripts than the translators of the KJV did. That's a good thing.

Whichever manuscript you believe is the most accurate, we have a very reliable record of the gospels as they have been passed down. The differences between them are minor.

 

[Sue D.]

Maybe it depends on which NIV is being referred to. There is a New NIV Bible that I've heard isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I have the older NIV. Also have the study Bible. I grew up with KJV and then got an NIV and then went to the NKJV and now have the ESV.

Do you Also realize that there are KJV onlyists and NAS onlyists. which is another topic -- but there are people who feel that 'their' version is the only Good version. My thought is that the 'good' version is the one a person is willing to read.

 

[Acts2:38]

I'd read all that before I responded. We now have access to more and older manuscripts than the translators of the KJV did. That's a good thing.

Whichever manuscript you believe is the most accurate, we have a very reliable record of the gospels as they have been passed down. The differences between them are minor.

Maybe it depends on which NIV is being referred to. There is a New NIV Bible that I've heard isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I have the older NIV. Also have the study Bible. I grew up with KJV and then got an NIV and then went to the NKJV and now have the ESV.

Do you Also realize that there are KJV onlyists and NAS onlyists. which is another topic -- but there are people who feel that 'their' version is the only Good version. My thought is that the 'good' version is the one a person is willing to read.

Look, I am not saying the KJV is perfect, but I am saying it is a better one to go by. The NIV, NASB, etc, even the NKJV begin watering things down to the point it changes meanings and can instill doctrines that are false.

I could use a small example of "fornication" compared to "sexual immorality". Switching out "fornication" for "sexual immorality" begins to change meaning when lets say the "divorce issue" comes up. Sexual immorality could be someone being "pleased" to pornographic material and being found out later, it is broad and vague. Fornication is direct and blunt with a single meaning. The bible makes clear that only in fornication can one be divorced. Comparing Matthew 19:9 for example. The NIV falls under watering this down.

Lastly, what Koine Greek could Westscott find that would change the whole meaning of bible and anything else written in Koine Greek?

Im guessing it is a bad case of 2 Timothy 4:3-4 that led Westscott and Hort to their version of Greek.

I am not an onlyist. I have a NKJV, ASV, KJV, and I do read others as well to compare like ESV and NASB. All I am saying, is that the KJV is a better one to go by.

 

[Hekuran]

You're wrong on this. The Greek word translated 'fornication' by the KJV is 'porneia'. It is a broad term, so 'sexual immorality' is a valid translation.

There's a lot of silly conspiracy type ideas floating around the internet that say the NIV is corrupt. It's not. It's a faithful dynamic translation drawing on ancient sources that earlier scholars did not have access to.

It's fine to prefer the KJV. It is not fine to call something that is honest and good counterfeit.

 

[spiriteddove05]

Why do you suggest I don't believe you? I do suspect that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted. Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnosticism. However, you're comparing the Alexandrian text to the KJV which also has its issues.

no I'm not!! i'm comparing it 2 the (writer) of the NIV, some guy who wrote it in 2000.

 

[Acts2:38]

You're wrong on this. The Greek word translated 'fornication' by the KJV is 'porneia'. It is a broad term, so 'sexual immorality' is a valid translation.

No, your wrong that it is a broad term, and the only other meaning porneia has is used as a metaphor of which Matt 19:9 for example, is not using it as a metaphor but literal.

1. Porneia -illicit sexual intercourse,adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.; sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   1. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
   2. 
      
   3. 
      
   4. metaphor- the worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
      
      Both Strongs and Thayers agree to this. Sorry friend, these are the facts. In context, literal, it has a single meaning. Verses like Matt 19:9 should say fornication, and rightly so. Sexual immorality is a broad and vague of a term to use in the English language. Sure it could mean the same thing as fornication, but it could also mean attraction and desire. A misleading term that can allude to people divorcing under false pretenses such as "I caught you pleasing yourself to that porn video, I want a divorce." However, under what scripture says, only under literal intercourse (fornication) can one seek divorce of the guilty party in this scenario.

Again, I have to say, what your suggesting, is that pieces of Gods word went missing or were misunderstood for a while until Westcott and Hort uncovered it. Pieces of information vital to salvation and the whole complete word of God. You are trying to tell me, with the belief, that important key phrases and words vital to salvation were missing or misunderstood for 1,780 years, take or give. Then somehow Westscott and Hort discovered a better way. You do realize that flies in the face of key verses/evidence I mentioned to you in post #29?

Do you think God would hide his words, vital to salvation, from whole entire generations until the 1880's (especially in light of what scripture specifically says see post 29)?

 

[Hekuran]

None of the discrepancies are vital. No point of doctrine hangs on the difference between ancient texts.

 

[Enxu]

None of the discrepancies are vital. No point of doctrine hangs on the difference between ancient texts.

I think the purpose of this thread is to motivate believers to dig out the truth for themselves so they are rooted in truth, rather than becoming complacent about what they were fed as truth. This diligence of searching out truth is to be commended, not rejected.

 

[Hekuran]

I think the purpose of this thread is to motivate believers to dig out the truth for themselves so they are rooted in truth, rather than becoming complacent about what they were fed as truth. This diligence of searching out truth is to be commended, not rejected.

Sure. It's unfortunate that it started by flinging lies and half-truths around recklessly, though.

 

[Acts2:38]

None of the discrepancies are vital. No point of doctrine hangs on the difference between ancient texts.

Yes, they are vital. Let me name one right off the bat. Ephesians 1:11.

KJV
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will...

NIV
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

You really look at the difference here.

First of all, we are predestined to obtain an inheritance, not be saved. We have to choose of our own free will to obey. Secondly, we are not "chosen having been predestined". That is clearly a false doctrine of "Unconditional Election" in the NIV.

As it has been noted before,
"Westcott and Hort refused to accept the Received Text and sought to modify it. In 1881 they published their Greek text, changing the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places that included almost 10,000 words."

These vital changes were not because they happened upon some "better" information. Especially since this information is so vital to salvation that it indeed matters. Like I said before, it flies in the face of scripture I previously placed before you.

And so for the third time:
what your suggesting, is that pieces of Gods word went missing or were misunderstood for a while until Westcott and Hort uncovered it. Pieces of information vital to salvation and the whole complete word of God. You are trying to tell me, with the belief, that important key phrases and words vital to salvation were missing or misunderstood for 1,780 years, take or give. Then somehow Westscott and Hort discovered a better way.

Do you think God would hide his words, vital to salvation, from whole entire generations until the 1880's (especially in light of what scripture specifically says see post 29)?

Sure. It's unfortunate that it started by flinging lies and half-truths around recklessly, though.

I hope I am not lumped into this category. I have placed commentaries, scripture, and other facts along with the Konie Greek. All you have done is place conjecture (at least with me).

That being said, I did also state that the KJV is not perfect, it does not take or add false doctrines to the mix like the modern translations.

 

[Sue D.]

The King James Version was written in the English that was being used/ spoken at that time in history. The language has change someone over the years. The more modern versions are simply reflecting those changes in the language.

The same thing would be happening when translating into Spanish or French or Russian , etc.

the important thing is that it Is God's Word. The Holy Spirit works in our hearts through His Word.

Back in the day of the KJV -- the king had to authorize the printing of Any literature. He authorized the committees that put the KJV together from various sources. It was not inspired by King James. It Has been inspired by God through the Holy Spirit speaking to the various men that God picked.

People tend to pick the Bible to pieces - at times -- because it Is very convicting and people -- society don't Like being convicted.

and there Have been those who pick apart the original languages and try to get That to say that which it doesn't really say. And that maybe a translation is a Bad one into the English.