| Lay it to Heart |
| HOME | THE BEGINNING | THE PAST |
| THE PRESENT | THE FUTURE | THE END |
| SITE MAP |
What version of the Bible should we use? The issue of which version to use is quite controversial today. If different versions disagree with each other at least one has to be wrong. If you are using an incorrect Bible you need to change. If you don't change, you are sinning. Examine the evidence and decide for yourself. I believe the King James Version is the best version. It is very good but it is not perfect. God said he would preserve his word. That has been accomplished through the Hebrew and Greek copies that we have today. While the modern translations are based on some good intentions and some bad ones, the end result is not acceptable.
Part of Isaiah chapter 14 talks about the fall of the Anti-Christ. People believe that Isaiah 14 is all about the fall of Satan. They are not studying it carefully and their understanding is corrupted by incorrect translations. The King James Version is wrong to use Lucifer for this man's name here but other translations are messed up as well. For more about the Anti-Christ see Isaiah 14 Is not About the Fall of Satan. The King James Version (KJV) says:
| 12 | How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! | |
| 13 | For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: | |
| 14 | I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. | |
| 15 | Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. |
The KJV, in verse 12, calls Satan "Lucifer". The New International Version (NIV) refers to Satan as the "morning star". Revelation 22:16 calls Jesus the "bright and morning star. Both the KJV and the NIV do this in Revelation. In the NIV, the morning star is Jesus and is the one who rebelled in Heaven. This is blasphemous. Anyone who tries to deny that there is a difference has either failed to examine the differences or is a liar. In Revelation 2:26-28, Jesus says,
| 26 | And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: | |
| 27 | And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. | |
| 28 | And I will give him the morning star. |
Now in the NIV, according to Isaiah 14:12, Satan is the morning star. Will Jesus give us Satan? No, he will not. The NIV contradicts itself, it is incorrect and blasphemes God. The KJV is wrong using the name Lucifer for the Hebrew word heylale but the NIV and other versions are wrong using the name for Jesus in its place. Some people don't know the difference. Most Christians don't seem to be aware of just how great the differences are but the translators certainly do know. The version issue is one of the hottest or most controversial arguments today.
The Bible tells us that God would preserve his word. If you can't trust that, what can you trust? God's word is inerrant and preserved. If it's not, then there is no reason or hope to study it.
Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Psalm 119:152 adds, "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."
Psalm 119:160 goes on to say, "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
Psalm 119:89 says, "LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."
Isaiah 40:8 tells us, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Matthew 5:18 says, "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. " If we do not have the preserved word of God today, then Jesus was wrong.
Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." If Jesus was wrong about what he said, then the word cannot be trusted.
1 Peter 1:23-25 says, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
Deuteronomy 8:3 we are told that man shall live by "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord." How can we live by every word if we don't have the preserved word of God?
Modern version supporters talk about inerrancy. They believe that the scriptures as originally penned were inspired by God and totally correct. They argue, however, that those original writings no longer exist and that the copies we have today are not necessarily correct. Hence, we can only come close, but not agree totally as to what is the word of God. If you don't believe that it is all God's word, how do you know what parts are incorrect. If any part could be incorrect, then you cannot have anything that you can completely rely upon? How can you then make a stand on anything? God said he would preserve his word and that he is what has done.
We do not have the original writings today, but we do have copies in Hebrew and Greek. God did not say that he would preserve his word in every language. In fact, some things can not be perfectly translated from Hebrew or Greek to another language. God simply said that he would preserve it. To demand that an English translation exist for God to preserve his word is not correct. For well over a thousand years, an English language Bible did not exist. For almost two thousand years many languages did not even have a translation of the Bible.
The KJV translators of 1611 used the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament Text and the Received Greek New Testament Text (Textus Receptus). These come from the majority (95%) of the manuscripts we have today and closely agree with each other. There are over 2,800 manuscripts of the Old Testament and over 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. There have always been people trying to counterfeit God's word or who have not been diligent in copying his word. As a result, some variations have come about but the majority of the manuscripts show us where the variations are. These texts have been received by the church throughout time and, hence, are called the Received Text or the Textus Receptus. Copyright permission is not required to use it. The KJV is a good translation because of the texts that were used.
The other five percent of the manuscripts are too different from the majority to be grouped with them. It is this five percent that are the basis for modern versions that are copyrighted. Copyrights can only be gained from the authors for new work or work which is substantially different from the original work. The newer versions use the Biblica Hebraica modified by Rudolph Kittel as a basis for the Old Testament. Two hundred and fifty years after the King James Version was published, the Oxford Movement (an Anglican group favoring a return of Protestants to Rome) and the advocates of Higher Criticism (German) had grown so powerful that the Church of England approved the revision of Scripture. Two English scholars from Cambridge College, Wescott and Hort, seated on the Committee of Revision in 1870, dominated the proceedings. By their textual criticism, Wescott and Hort rejected the traditional Received Text, replacing it with two corrupt texts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiaticus. The product of their deception was a corrupt translation, the English Revised Version in 1881. Their doctored Greek text has become the basis for all modern editions of the Greek New Testament in use today. The evil character of these manuscripts is described by the godly scholar from Oxford, Dean John William Burgon, as "most scandalously corrupt ... most shamefully mutilated ... depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional of truth - which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God" [The Revision Revised].
Alternative version supporters allege that the Wescott and Hort version of the New Testament uses the oldest and best manuscripts. What are the "oldest and best manuscripts"? These are said to be the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) and Codex Sinaiaticus (Codex Aleph). These manuscripts, although said to be the oldest, are not. Constantine von Tischendorf found the Sinaiaticus in a pile of unused texts in a monastery at Mount Sinai in the mid 1800’s. The other manuscript, the Vaticanus, was "discovered" in the Vatican in 1481. Protestants have never been allowed to examine this manuscript but have had to study it from copies. The church of those days apparently knew better than to use these manuscripts. Today's church does not know better. The reason the manuscripts are said to be the oldest is because of the style. Style and appearance do not prove age. What really makes the manuscripts appear to be old to some people is the desire of the men who want to use them. Some groups of copiers refused to destroy flawed manuscripts because they felt that the correct part would also be destroyed and they would be guilty of destroying God's word. Instead, they would bury or store the faulty work. In reality, these manuscripts can't be proven to be the oldest but even if they are, they are not the best. Books that get used, wear out. Books that do not get used don't wear out. The used texts that got used, wore out and had to be replaced by copies.
Certain corrupt men allege that these are the best manuscripts. Absolutely no honest person could call these the best after examining them. In 1914 Herman Hoskier published "Codex B and It's Allies". No one has answered Hoskier criticism of the Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus to date. It is most likely that the work of A and B has been influenced by the Alexandrian schools in Egypt and the heretic Origen who combined pagan thought to understand the scriptures.
The two manuscripts have over 3,000 differences in them in the Gospels alone. At this point, any true Biblical scholar would reject these as "not the best". Moreover, these writing do not contain all of the same books. One of them excludes the Book of Revelation. Remember that this is a serious offence to God. One of the manuscripts contains the book called the Shepherd of Hermes. This book does not have the same gospel in it. It denies the eternal security of the believer in 6:13. It teaches doctrines not found in the Bible. According to the Shepherd of Hermes, salvation is found by works, purity of thought or conduct, and keeping the commandments. One example is in 34:23-25, "If thou keep these things, and from henceforward speak nothing but truth, thou shalt be able to secure life for thyself And whosoever shall hear this command, and abstain from falsehood, that most pernicious habit, shall live unto God." To say that these are the best is a lie and a major deception.
Some papyri go back to the second century AD. Papyri number 66 has 200 nonsense readings. It has 900 indisputable errors in the gospel of John. These papyri fail to provide uniformity or a clear witness. The 5 oldest Greek texts, with all capital letters called Uncials contain 45 differences in the Lord's prayer alone and don't agree with each. Hort referred to the "prodigious amount of error" in Codex B. People who use texts filled with errors can't believe in the preserved word of God.
This issue is the text used for the translation. There are basically only two sources from which all of the translations come. The King James Version uses the majority of the texts. The other versions use the minority of the text that is riddled with errors, contradictions and conflicts.
The KJV translators of 1611 adhered strictly to literal or classical method of translation called "verbal equivalence" or "word-for-word" technique to keep men's philosophy and religious ideologies from changing the meaning. This is also known as "Dynamic Literacy". New versions use "Dynamic Equivalency" trying to convey the meaning of the original writings. Of course this is the meaning that the translator thinks is applicable. Some modern translators are so far gone that they can't know what is God's truth. The KJV translators of 1611 made a commitment to translate the text faithfully, without any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). The applicable term was "Sola Scriptura", that is "solely scripture". The new versions are much different. The driving force behind the new versions was, and is, the new texts issued by Wescott and Hort who were heavily involved in cultic associations such as the Hermes Club and The Ghostly Guild. In 1860 Hort said, "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the New Testament a sine qua non for cooperation, I fear I could not join you." The Biblica Hebraica was made by an anti-Semite named Kittel whose son was a Nazi war criminal. Edwin Palmer, the General Editor of the NIV, said that Christianity had made a big mistake by saying that Jesus was the only way to heaven.
Bible believing Christians have insurmountable difficulties with all modern versions. Ecumenicalists, Rome, modernists, cults and liberals love modern versions but not God's pure word. The differing versions make memorization and learning harder. The actual meaning is obscured and confusion is created. What if the newer version is easier to understand? The diction of the KJV is harder yet the reading level, aside from the old diction, is much lower with the KJV. Even if the newer version were easier to read, reading the wrong thing is not good.
From the beginning, Satan has tried to change God's word. In the Garden of Eden Satan said to Eve, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Today he wants us confuse God's word again by creating many versions and, of course, have us to believe which ever one we choose. If there are different meanings in the versions, only one can be right.
In Matthew 5:22 Jesus said, "That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:" The NIV and NASB omit the phrase "without a cause". In these versions it is a sin just to be angry. In God's word it is a sin to be angry without a cause. The NIV makes Jesus a sinner when he was angry and threw the moneychangers out of the temple in Matthew 21:12. Also in Mark 3:4-5 we read, "And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger". According to the NIV Jesus sinned. This is blasphemous. What is wrath? It is strong or intense anger. It also refers to the result of anger. John 3:36 refers to the wrath of God. God's wrath is noted in Matthew 3:7. The word "wrath" appears 198 times in 194 verses of the Bible. Many of these refer to the Lord's wrath. The Book of Revelation is about the wrath of God. If anger is a sin, wrath is a sin, too. According to what the NIV says, God is a sinner. This is blasphemous. A Bible believing Christian cannot live with a Bible that makes Jesus and God out to be a sinner. If a version makes Jesus a sinner, the version is worthless. If Jesus sinned, our salvation is worthless. If Jesus and God and are sinners, how can you have faith that anything in the Bible is correct?
Matthew 18:11 says, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." The NIV omits this verse. Luke 9:56 says, "... for the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." In the NIV, this portion of the verse is omitted. Colossians 1:14 says, "In whom we have redemption through his blood ..." The NIV omits "through his blood". John 6:47 says, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." The NIV reads, "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." "On me" is deleted. Does that mean that it is ok to believe on anything?
Micah 5:2 says, "Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." The NIV says, "Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." There is a notable difference between everlasting and ancient.
1 Timothy 3:16 says, "God was manifest in the flesh." The NIV says, "He appeared in a body." Philippians 2:5-6 says, "Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" The NIV says, "Christ Jesus, Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." This reverses the meaning of text, whereas the KJV declares his equality to God. John 9:35, reads, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" The NIV comes up with, "Do you believe in the Son of man?" Acts 3:13 says, "The God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus." The NIV states, "The God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus."
Mark 16:9-20 gives part of the resurrection story. The NIV separates this passage from the rest of the text, and inserts before it a note saying the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have this. It either excludes this passage or casts doubt upon it. The "most reliable early manuscripts" alluded to are the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus manuscripts, the source texts of other modern English versions. The bodily ascension of Jesus is omitted. John 16:16 says, "A little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father." The NIV says, "In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a while you will see me." The ascension is missing. What, was Jesus going to hide out for a while?
Matthew 25:13 reads, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." The NIV reads, "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." Revelation 11:17 says, "O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come." The NIV says, "Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was." The part about "art to come" is deleted.
John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son..." The NIV replaces only begotten " with "one and only". Romans 8:15, Romans 8:23, Romans 9:4, Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:4-5 let us know that we are adopted sons of Gods. Jesus is not the one and only, but he is the only begotten.
Revelation 15:3 says, "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints." The NIV uses King of the nations.
The Revised Standard Version (RSV) incorrectly translates Cush as Ethiopia 19 times in the Old Testament. Cush was a nation east of Egypt, south and east of Israel that included portions of Mesopotamia (Ezekiel 29:8-10, 2 Chronicles 21:16 and Judges 3:8). Most importantly, the confusion of Cush is also found in the translation of Isaiah 18 by the New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation, American Stand Version, Reina-Valera (Spanish) and the Latin Vulgate. The New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Young's Literal Translation, English Standard Version, Darby Translation and Webster's Bible do not make this mistake. Readers focus on Ethiopia and forget the rest of the chapter. It's not about Cush or the land beyond it. The chapter is about the place to where the messengers go. The confusion starts with the mistranslation.
A problem exists in the King James Version and other translations where the meaning of the original language is not maintained. 2 Samuel 24:24 says, ."And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." 1 Chronicles 21:25 says, "So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight." Araunah and Ornan are variations of the same name similar to Mike and Michael in English . Both are acceptable and both are used. Reading the translations, however, does leave a conflict between 600 shekels of gold and 50 shekels of silver. The word translated silver is actually kecef which means money not silver. So what really happened is the price was 600 shekels by weight but 50 shekels in money value. There were twelve shekels of weight per shekel in money value. Silver is the wrong translation of money.
2 Kings 24:8 is translated, "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem." 2 Chronicles 36:9 is rendered, "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD." There is a clear conflict here. The New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation and the New KJV are some of the versions which have this conflict. The problem is that the text in Chronicles does not actually say eight. The Hebrew word for eight is shemoneh spelled shin, mem, nun, heh. The word found in the actual Hebrew is spelled shin, mem, vau, nun, heh. It is similar but not the same. Confusion is caused by the translation.
1 Peter 3:1-3 instructs us, "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." The New King James version changed verse three to read, "Do not let your adornment be merely outward–arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel–" Notice the word merely is italicized. Italics in translations means that a word is not found in the original language but is thought to be implied. There is no proof to show the word merely is implied. The Greek does not have the word merely. In the KJV outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel were not to be concerns. The NKJV added the word merely to change the meaning from something they should not do to something that should just not be the focus. Have you ever heard a preacher explain the italics? They should. The original scripture matters and if the translation goes against it people need to refuse to accept the wrong. Translations are a great convenience for Christians who do not speak, read, or write the original languages. Translations, however, are not the preserved, inspired, infallible word of God.
We cannot be neutral. We must take an uncompromising stand. Therefore, we must use the King James Bible since it is the best English translation of the real scriptures. What diction is not clear, we must define. We must be awakened to the deceptions of corrupted Bible versions and Ecumenical translations. We must warn all Christians of the universal falling away that has overtaken Christianity.
| 4 | Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: |
| 5 | And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. |
| 6 | And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: |
| 7 | And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. |
| 8 | And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. |
| 9 | And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. |
Home
The Beginning
Online Bible Source: Blue Letter Bible
© 2001-2024 Lay it to Heart