 
WHY DO BIBLE VERSIONS DIFFER?

tiaan gildenhuys

Copyright © 2018

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means without written permission by the author.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. My personal experience

2. My experience with the NIV

3. A short history of the original texts from which Bibles are translated

4. What has been changed and what is gone?

5. Why are some verses left out completely?

6. Where has Jesus' Name gone?

7. Are all the new "Bibles" still "The Bible"?

8. The Bible which I can read and understand

9. What is the problem with the Apocryphal Books?

Index/Bibliography
1.

MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

On August 28th, 1999 during a Christian men's retreat, I had a personal "Damascus"-experience with the living God, Jesus Christ. The next day I received the baptism in the Holy Spirit and I immediately knew that I wanted to work for the Lord on a full-time basis. As soon as the Holy Spirit started "bubbling" in me, I immediately knew that there was a fiery zeal within me that I NEVER had before, even though I had been a (somewhat) loyal church-goer at that time in my life. I also knew immediately that it came from Jesus Christ Himself as I just could not stop worshiping and praising Him. I just wanted to tell everybody about that which now LIVED in me! It was something that had never happened before in my life.

At that stage I was thirty six years old and had already served on different church-councils for thirteen years of my life. But never before in my life had I encountered such a wonderful, sometimes even physical, spiritual experience. The following Scripture found new meaning in my life: _"O TASTE AND SEE that the LORD_ is _good: blessed_ is _the man_ that _trusteth in him."_ ( **Psalm 34:8** ) Yes, I could even TASTE, SEE and FEEL the Lord and His Holy Spirit within me! It felt as if my skin wanted to burst open with that which suddenly burned within me. I just wanted to know more about my Lord Jesus Christ, and about what the Bible taught and I just wanted to read more of the Bible. I wanted to be more and more like Jesus! But when I REALLY started studying the Bible, I realized that I had erred for most of my life because I did not know the Scriptures.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, _Ye do err, NOT KNOWING THE SCRIPTURES_ , nor the power of God." ( **Matthew 22:29** )

The past fifteen years of my life – of which nearly twelve years in full-time ministry – and after lots of research and Bible reading, I received an absolute peace in my heart that the best and most complete version of the Bible to be read in English, especially regarding certain spiritual truths contained therein, is the Auhorised King James Version Holy Bible. ( **Hereinafter I will just refer to it as the KJV** ).

Without trying to rewrite other authors' books, which said authors made a much more detailed study over the years, and after having checked a number of modern English Bibles for myself I started experiencing lots of problems, but more specifically with the New International Version Bible ( **hereinafter called the NIV** ), which Bible every newly converted English speaking Christian buys and starts reading because of the "easy" English it contains. I will endeavour in this book to just show the differences between the KJV and the NIV (and the reason for the differences) and you as reader must make up your own mind whether the NIV can still be deemed to be called a "Bible".

Some of my personal objections are that I found certain SPIRITUAL truths to have been written out of the NIV, while the name of Jesus Christ also "disappeared" in many places. This is not even taking into consideration that many complete Bible verse also disappeared from the NIV with the "theological argument" that: _"it never was part of the original text in the first place"_. I will give some very clear examples of this later in this study.

Since I personally started to ASK and TRUST the Holy Spirit to reveal the Scriptures to me, I started to understand more and more of the KJV, just as it is written, notwithstanding the "old English" used therein. And this says a lot, seeing as how my native tongue is Afrikaans. Most people use the argument: _"The old KJV is difficult to read, I can't understand it"_. There are two reasons for this. Firstly it is because we don't ASK the Author of this awesome Book to reveal it to us Himself. And secondly it's because the devil does everything in his power to ensure that we don't or don't want to, or won't understand the truths contained in the KJV. Since I started to ask the Lord to help me to read the KJV through the eyes of the Holy Spirit, I started to understand more and more thereof. The same can happen with you, if you are just willing to ask.

" _Ask, and it shall be given you_ ; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." ( **Matthew 7:7,8** )

Unfortunately most "modern day" Christians all have the attitude of rather taking the road of "least resistance". The moment something does not read "easily enough" to MY taste then I don't want to read it and I push it to one side. But meantime the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit will lead and teach us, as long as we are willing to ask, as we saw in the verse above. The words of the following verse are very clear:

"But the anointing (Holy Spirit) which ye have received of him abideth IN YOU, _and ye need not that any man teach you_ : but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." ( **1 John 2:27** )

I don't necessarily even have to go so far as to check the original Hebrew or Greek, although it is awesome with the help of modern computer programs such as "e-sword" to also be able to look at those two rich languages to see what the more intimate meanings of a specific word or sentence is. And I mustn't make the mistake to just put my trust in my reverend, pastor or priest to explain the Bible to me, just because he is a so-called "learned" man. The Bible contains a very specific warning regarding that in **Jeremiah 17:5** :

"Thus saith the LORD; _Cursed be the man that trusteth in man_ , and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."

Therefore I must ensure that I always ASK the Holy Spirit as Great Teacher to reveal His wonderful Scriptures to me during my times of personal Bible study. But then I must also ensure that I use the correct Bible for my said studies.

I personally believe that God is and was Almighty enough and All-knowing enough, and Omnipotent enough and Omniscient enough to ensure that in the early 1600's (1611) the specific people He wanted for the job, would be part of the team to bring out the first correct Bible version in English. Men who were in His eyes trustworthy enough and knowledgeable enough to let the correct English translation from the original languages see the light. If I can't believe that, then I have to believe that God made a mistake in 1611 and did half a job with the preparation of the first English version in the years prior to 1611. And if that is the case then it means I am starting to doubt His might and His divinity...
2.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV)

Would I then dare to say that the NIV does not enjoy the same Holy Spirit-breathed inpsiration as the KJV? No, unfortunately I must say I most definitely do not think so because the God that I love, serve and worship, is not divided against Himself. He would not let the Bible translators translate specific verses from the original text in one way during 1611 and four centuries later He "changes His mind" and removes many of His own verses, or changes them to mean totally something else, as you will see for yourself from this book.

It does not matter that different people from different centuries were a part of the different translations. It is not even relevant. From the Bible itself we see that God used a number of different people over a period of approximately 1400 years to write the different Bible books. And one thing that all Bible scholars agree is that they all convey the same message regarding God and His awesome plan for mankind. This can only be possible if the SAME Holy Spirit of God inspired all those authors over that period of approximately 1400 years. Naturally this implies that the same should principle should then be applicable to the different Bible versions of today, as the same Holy Spirit is still in charge of God's own Word.

How is it possible then that that same God, who could ensure that the same message is written down over a period of centuries by different authors, would now "change His mind" regarding the different translations of the Bible in English, and make them convey different messages today? Is it possible that the same Holy Spirit would inspire some translators in one time frame to translate His Word in one way, and just a few centuries later He inspires other Bible translators to translate it in a totally different way? Has God changed in the meantime? The Bible is clear that He NEVER changes and never changed and never will change in all eternity, and He doesn't change his mind, as we will see later.

The argument that people use today, is that we now have "new knowledge" regarding the original languages and that is why the "modern" Bibles can be translated in a "better" way. So what are we really trying to say by that? That the correctness of God's Word is determined by the HUMANS who are concerned with that translation? How can that ever be possible? The correctness of God's Word is always deteremined by nobody else but GOD HIMSELF! What is also regularly used as an "excuse" as to why so many different translations see the light of day these days is that it's an "easier read" for the "people". Then the question arises whether it is about pleasing people with those translations, or is it about pleasing God by staying true to His Word and His original content? Read **Galations 1:10** regarding this.

I personally don't have any problem with the so-called extended "new knowledge" of the original languages. Even the Bible itself is clear that "knowledge" will increase in the last days, which includes intellectual knowledge but of course also SPIRITUAL knowledge. What I do have a problem with, is that through all the "new translations" we are actually suggesting **that God's view regarding His own Word, has changed**. That we are effectively suggesting that God Himself was not big enough, or Almighty enough, or wise enough to give us one English Bible that correctly portrays His Word, and that he actually needs to "update" His "mistakes" or His "omissions" regularly by way of new translations.

And all this while most of these new translations omit certain spiritual truths or uses the Name of Jesus less, or they omit certain verses that were contained in the original text. Seen from a spiritual point of view, the "modern translations" are definitely NOT improvements to the Word. What bothers me is that all these new Bible versions may cause people who don't know better to start to see God as "fallible", as somebody who makes mistakes just like us, and that he has to "correct" His "mistakes" through later translations. And if people have to start believing that God can make mistakes, how can they ever believe that they can trust Him fully regarding anything that is contained in his Word? Because if I start to believe that He is fallible then I will start to doubt His might and His Godliness! The next step will be that I will start to doubt my eternal salvation... And that is exactly what satan wants...

It also does not help to use the argument that it wasn't God who made the mistakes but the original Bible translators, because they were just "fallible people" who did not have the same knowledge as the "modern translators". I repeat, over a period of approximately 1400 years He also used "fallible" and even untaught people to write down the whole content of the Bible and still they all penned down exactly the same message. The whole argument has nothing to do with the specific INSTRUMENTS that are used to fulfill a specific task, but with the Hand BEHIND the instrument that uses the instrument in a specific way.

Is God divided against Himself in that He uses a specific verse in His Word at one time in history and in an instant He decides He doesn't want it in His Word anymore? Because we shouldn't forget that even 400 years is just and "instant" in His eyes. Or that He decides to use His own Son's Name a specific numer of times in one translation and then later changes His mind and removes His own Son's Name from the modern translations a number of times? That is not the God that I got to know on a personal basis since August 28th, 1999. Because I see in the Bible that Moses went up the mountain twice to receive God's laws and both times God gave it to Moses in exactly the same way. He didn't say to Moses: _"Oh Moses, I made a slight mistake the previous time you were here and didn't give you everything very clearly, but I have now "updated" everything. So here is a "new translation" of My law"_.

No, God is Almighty, consistent, fair, eternal, infallible and always the same as His Word clearly states:

"For I am the LORD, _I change not_..." ( **Malachi 3:6** )

"Jesus Christ _the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever_." ( **Hebrews 13:8** )

What we have to realize is that what is really happening here, is that satan is trying his best to corrupt the Word of God, to make a forgery of it and to dilute, diminish and water it down so that it doesn't contain all the truth anymore. And why would he want to do that with the Word of God? I found the best answer in a booklet written by Dr Hennie Prinsloo entiteld: _"The Satanic Onslaught on the Word of God_ " (for purposes of this book freely translated from the Afrikaans - "Die Sataniese aanslag op die Woord van God" - by the author hereof):

1. It is a weapon against which he (satan) is not proof. The Word is a sword (Ephesians 6:17). With this weapon believers will triumph over the devil.

2. The Word works faith. (Romans 10:17). Satan does not want people to believe God, he tries to destroy people's faith in God and His Word.

3. Through the Word I can have victory over the temptations of the devil... In Luke 4 we read that he even tempted Jesus, but Jesus resisted him and triumphed over him with the Word of God.

4. The Word has power to save lost souls. (James 1:21). Satan does not want any souls to be saved.

5. The Word of God reveals satan's character. From the Word we learn about satan's origin, his background, methods and eventual eternal destiny.

THAT IS THE REASON why satan hated the Word of God over the centuries and has he always tried to:

a. Destroy the Word of God.

b. Keep the Word of God away from people.

c. Falsify and corrupt the Word of God.

d. Sow doubt and unbelief in the hearts of people regarding the Word of God."

In this book we will see how he did all these things through bringing in new Bible translations.
3.

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OR TEXTS FROM WHICH BIBLES ARE TRANSLATED

To understand what the whole problem is, we need to have a look at a short history of the "route" that the original manuscripts or texts of God's Word traveled from the first century after Christ, to our present day.

I give all due respect and acknowledgement to all the other authors across the world who over many years have done similar researches regarding the aspects I will discuss in this book, and I will record their names as far as possible and also in the bibliography at the end of this book. For that reason the reader of this book of mine must take note that I do not suggest for one moment that this book of mine is complete, as further study of the works of the mentioned other authors throughout the world will give even more information to any reader willing to study this topic in more detail.

But I am of the opinion that this book of mine contains more than enough information to cast light on the specific problem regarding Bible translations.

" _There exist many texts on which the Bible is based: more than 5000 texts and also more than 4000 manuscripts. They were found all over the Roman Empire and they date from the second century to 1000 AD._ _More than 95% of the texts agree in so many ways that if you have read the one, you have read them all._ _These 95% differ only in small unimportant things like commas and period marks. The accuracy of such a large number of manuscripts coming from different times and places is a miracle in which the protecting hand of the Lord (YHVH) is clearly visible"  
_ ("Preserve My Word" – Mrs. J.C.Erasmus)(for purposes of this book freely translated from the Afrikaans: "Bewaar My Woord", by the author hereof)

" _Within the first 100 years after Christ ALL the books of the New Testament were written. The last disciple, John, died in 100 AD and by then had already written the book of Revelation._ _The original texts were always DUPLICATED faithfully word for word by the apostles and their followers._ _From the 2_ nd _, 3_ rd _and 4_ th _century after Christ the distortions, forgeries and falsifications started because there were no more apostles left to resist it or prove that they were wrong. The new scriptures did not agree with each other and contain lots of distortions. Falsifications of the Word came through very strongly."  
_ ("The Satanic Onslaught on the Word of God" – Dr. Hennie Prinsloo)

Early in the third century AD a man called ORIGEN wrote a book called the "Hexapla Bible" and he changed and distorted the original texts. He mixed the original Word, Gnosticism ( _Gnostisicm teaches that man can be saved and receive eternal life by KNOWLEDGE and not through faith_ ), Greek mythology etc. with each other. He also believed in things like reincarnation (which clearly doesn't exist according to the Bible in **Hebrews 9:27** ), that stars have souls like people and that demons can also be saved. He is seen as the "father" of the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture which causes problems to this day. He said: _"The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."_ He was clearly AGAINST a literal method of Bible interpretation.

Yet the Bible clearly states:

"For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end..." (2 Corinthians 1:13)

This means I can literally read what the Bible says, understand what it says and do what it says, just as it is written. The KJV Holy Bible was also a literal word-for-word translation.

" _Origen furthermore did NOT believe in the Trinity of God and he removed 1 John 5:7 from his Hexapla Bible. He also did NOT believe in the Divinity/Deity of Jesus Christ (as referred to 1 Timothy 3:16) or the eternal existence of Jesus Christ. (As referred to in Micah 5:1). It was also changed in the same way in the modern translations. His influence is still very strong to this day. The Latin Vulgate of Jerome came from this Hexapla Bible in 380 AD."  
_ ("The Satanic Onslaught on the Word of God" – Dr. Hennie Prinsloo)

We also read that Les Garrett refers to Origen in his book and how great a part Origen played in the fact that modern Bibles are translated from corrupt texts and not the original texts.

" _Origen, being a textual critic, is supposed to have "corrected" numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts._ _Evidence to the contrary shows he CHANGED them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas._ _Thus, through DECEPTIVE SCHOLARSHIP of this kind, certain manuscripts became CORRUPT."  
_ ("Which Bible can we trust?" - Les Garrett (1982. p.16))

From this we can clearly see that people like Origen and other "learned men" like him took certain texts and over a period of centuries started changing and falsifying or forging it to "prove" their personal views on the "Bible".

But then something happened in history which caused another huge problem for those Bibles that were written from the original manuscripts or texts. Constantine stopped Christian persecution in 312 AD. State and church were merged at that time. He then gave instructions to one Eusebius to draft a "new Bible" for his new political empire. **This Eusebius did NOT believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and he argued that JESUS WAS JUST A NORMAL CREATED HUMAN BEING. (This is called the "Arian heresy" or "ARIANISM").**

In 331 AD Eusebius chose AGAINST the "Majority Text" and FOR the Origen-text out of the stream of FALSIFIED and forged texts in order to draft Constantine's new Bible. This Bible was known as the Eusebio-Origen Bible for Constantine's State Church. From this so-called "Bible" Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate in 380 AD and THAT later became the "Authorised Catholic Bible" which is still used in the Roman Catholic Church to this day.

Further evidence that a stream of counterfeit and corrupt texts existed as a contrast to the original texts, is found in the fact that Helvidius, a well-known text critic of his time attacked Jerome about his Latin Vulgate which was translated from the corrupt texts.

" _How could Helvidius (scholar and text critic) have accused Jerome (author of Latin Vulgate) of employing CORRUPT Greek manuscripts,_ _if Helvidius had not had the PURE Greek manuscripts?_ _"  
_ ("Which Bible can we trust?" – Les Garrett.P.61)

From this it is clear that Helvidius had to have had the original manuscripts, or at least had seen or read them, to bring such an accusation against Jerome. But this also confirms to us that the Latin Vulgate of Jerome came from the stream of counterfeit and corrupt manuscripts. Keep this in mind as we progress through this study.

Every Bible student has to take heed of the fact that the argument is not about one specific Bible compared to any other specific Bible or Bibles, but it is all about the stream of original manuscripts against the stream of counterfeit and corrupt manuscripts which started spreading across the world since the time of Origen.

" _It must be emphasized that the argument is not between an ancient text and a recent one,_ _but between two ancient FORMS of the text, one of which was REJECTED and the other ADOPTED AND PRESERVED by the Church as a whole_ _and remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries."  
_ ("Which Bible can we trust?" – Les Garret. P.46)

From the research done by a vast number of people across centuries regarding this specific aspect it is clear that there were a number of genuine manuscripts which were accepted and used by the church for centuries, and a vast number of counterfeit and corrupt manuscripts which were rejected and not read or used by the early church. Yet most of our modern Bibles are translated from these corrupt manuscripts as we will see as we progress with our study.

" _The argument is not a King James Version versus other versions, it is the "Received Text" versus other manuscripts."  
_ ("Battle of the Bibles" – Prof. Walter J.Veith, RSA)

Some of the counterfeit, corrupt and PERVERTED manuscripts were:

1. Origen's Hexapla Bible

2. Eusebio-Origen Bible

3. Latin Vulgate (of Jerome)

4. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (from the 4th century)

5. Authorised Catholic Bible

6. Codex Alexandrinus

" _These were all falsifications and did not agree with the Majority Text. Just between the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (from the 4_ th _century) there are more than 3000 differences just in the New Testament, but still they are being used by modern Bible translators as part of the so-called "oldest and best" manuscripts._ _They were NOT ACCEPTED by the early church, but REJECTED. They were not used or read by the early church. For that reason they did not wear out as much as the genuine manuscripts and stayed beautifully preserved over the centuries._ _Compared to that stood the original Majority Text which was handled extensively and read continually and quickly deteriorated. That is why it had to be continually re-duplicated over the years, even AFTER the period of the corrupt texts. And that is why many people think the corrupt texts are the "oldest and best" because they were found in more preserved forms than many of the genuine original texts."  
_ ("The Satanic Onslaught on the Word of God" – Dr. Hennie Prinsloo)

Can you see what is happening here? The original manuscripts which were dutifully DUPLICATED by hand over the centuries were handled extensively by the early church and quickly became worn out as a result of all the handling. This resulted in them having to be re-duplicated over and over again. Compared to that the early church did NOT read the corrupt texts and threw them aside. This meant they were abandoned in various deserted places and gathered dust for centuries. This led to the phenomenon that the corrupt manuscripts which were discovered many centuries later being physically older than the original and genuine manuscripts which had to be re-duplicated over and over, even after the time of those corrupt discarded texts. Thus the original and genuine manuscripts were "younger" than the discarded corrupt texts and so the people started thinking that the "older" manuscripts had to be the "better" manuscripts. But the problem is, they were NOT "better", they were the discarded corrupt texts! From this it is clear that "older" is definitely not necessarily "better". Indeed it is just the opposite.

Because we worship a God of order and righteousness, we know that He would have ensured that His Word does not get lost along the way. A whole stream of GENUINE manuscripts/documents/writings/texts were therefore PRESERVED over the centuries. They were known as:

1. "The Received Text"

2. "The Majority Text"

3. "The Byzantine text." (Between 312 AD – 1453)

4. "1633 Textus Receptus." ("The so-called Received or Accepted Text")

" _To this day there are 5366 old Greek manuscripts which are preserved; 81 papirus manuscripts; 267 Manuscripts in caps (the whole document is written in uppercase); 2764 manuscripts in lowercase (the whole document is written in lowercase); and 2143 manuscripts containing lectures with quotations from the New Testament._ _Between 80-90% of these belong to the family of the Received Text. These are not forgeries or distortions and are called the "Majority Text"._ _"  
_ ("The Satanic Onslaught on the Word of God" – Dr. Hennie Prinsloo)

In 1534 William Tyndale published an "Authorised Bible" in England, based on the "Received Text". For his trouble Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536. But king Henry (the 8th) eventually proceeded to have Tyndale's Bible distributed. Before his death Tyndale said the following to the pope: _"If God spare my life, before many years I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest."_ ("God wrote only one Bible" – Jasper J Ray). No wonder they burned William Tyndale at the stake! Remember in those years it was unheard of that anybody would say anything against the pope, especially regarding the knowledge of and interpretation of the Bible!

The Roman Catholic Church was not happy with the distribution of the Bible among normal people as for centuries they were taught and believed (as they still do today) that only the priest can really understand and interpret the Bible. Instruction was then given to the Jesuits (a militant order of priests) to take steps to stop this "unasked for" distribution of the Bible. Les Garrett clearly shows what their view of the Bible was:

" _The Jesuits (Roman Catholic priests) were then called to help and they said: "_ _We must UNDERMINE the Bible of the Protestants and DESTROY their teachings._ _"  
_ ("Which Bible can we trust?" – Les Garrett. P.60)

From this it is clear that the Jesuits only had one thing in mind, namely to get their hands on the Bible that had fallen into the Protestants' hands and to destroy it. During my research for this book I came across the following view that the Jesuits had of the Bible:

" _The Jesuit View of the Bible? –"_ _Then the Bible, that SERPENT which with head erect and eyes flashing THREATENS US with its VENOM_ _while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod AS SOON AS WE ARE ABLE TO SEIZE IT... for three centuries past this CRUEL ASP (viper) has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us."  
_ ("The Jesuits in History" – Hector Macpherson. Springfield Missouri, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997. Appendix 1)

Can you believe this? These Roman Catholic priests say that the Bible is a snake! And their goal was to catch that "snake" by the tail and turn it into a rod just like Moses did. From history we see that at certain times they nearly succeeded. But of course the Lord ensured that His Word would not be destroyed. He still is and stays God and He is in charge of the correctness of His own Word.

King James (the 1st) later gave instructions that a new English Bible had to be published as close as possible to the original documents. That was the 1611 AUTHORISED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV) and was drafted by 47 holy men who I believe were specifically chosen by God for this task. They only used the "Received Text" for the composition of this Bible. For approximately 270 years (from 1611 to 1881) the KJV Holy Bible was known and used across the world as the only domestic Bible. Against that backdrop and contrary to this, since 1881 to our modern day there are already more than 100 new English Bible translations. Why is this? Has God "changed His mind" regarding the unchangeable character of His own Word?

" _The KJV was later criticized and then "revised" at the hand of the corrupt "Codex Sinaiticus", which came from the 4_ th _century and which was discovered on April 4_ th _, 1859. This resulted in the so-called. "Revised Version" (1881) of Westcot, Hort et al. (These are men we will look at in more detail a little later)._ _It differed in 6000 (six thousand) places from the Greek New Testament. Furthermore it differed in 36000 (thirty six thousand) places from the original KJV._ _"  
_ ("The Satanic Onslaught on the Word of God" – Dr. Hennie Prinsloo)

(XXXX. THE HISTORY OF GUY FAWKES AND WHAT HE TRIED TO DO....XXXX)

Dean Burgon was a well-known text-critic in the time of Westcott and Hort, and he had the following to say about the fact that Westcott, Hort et al was of the opinion that after approximately 270 years it was necessary to "revise" the Bible that was initially compiled from the original texts. As we shall see Westcott and Hort made use of the distorted and corrupt texts to compile their "Revised Version" of the KJV Bible. They were OPPOSED to the 95% original and genuine documents.

" _I am utterly disinclined to believe, so grossly improbable does it seem – that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy_ _, and that the one, two, three, four or five, which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired."  
_ ("The Revision Revised" - Dean Burgon – Well-known critic – he tore Westcott and Hort's theories apart.)

It is also interesting to note from history that in 1488 the Roman Catholic Church suddenly "discovered" that THEY had some of the "original and oldest" documents in the Vatican City and that they could now start to translate "new Bibles" according to these "oldest and best" documents which according to them were "entrusted" to the Roman Catholic Church "for all the centuries". This view is not acceptable in the Protestant world at all. Why not? Because those so-called "oldest and best" documents which was suddenly "discovered" in the Vatican City after approximately 1500 years, were all from the forged, distorted and corrupt stream of texts.

" _Who, but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text_ _in secret_ _for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping?"  
_ ("Which Bible can we trust?" – Les Garrett. P.91)

The same distortions which were contained in the so-called "Revised Edition" of Westcott, Hort, et al in 1881 can be found in the New International Version (NIV) and all other modern Bible translations today. The "Dynamic-Equivalent" method of translation was used during the compilation thereof. This means it was translated in an explanatory way (and not in a literal or word-for-word way). For example there are purposeful distortions of Messianic prophecies but it is done in such a way that the uninformed reader should not realize that it refers to the Messiah. This way of Bible translation was made popular by one Eugene Nida of the USA who is seen as the "father" of the Dynamic-Equivalent method of Bible translation. This method teaches that the difficult parts in the Bible should be made comprehensible by the TRANSLATOR.

But in the Bible we read that no translator can interpret the Word by himself or as he thinks it should be done. Only the Holy Spirit can do this!

"Knowing this first, _that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation._ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." ( **2 Peter 1:20,21** )

The NIV also makes use of the Nestle-Aland text, which is compiled from:

1. Latin Vulgate

2. Textus Vaticanus

3. Stuttgart Vulgate

4. Codex Sinaiticus

5. A very reliable old Syrian text

6. Papirus 66 and Papirus 75

7. Eusebio-Origen text and the Hexapla "Bible"

8. Codex Alexandrinus

9. Codex Leningradensis

It is clear the Nestle-Aland Text is a compilation of THREE genuine AND EIGHT corrupt manuscripts. Why? Because in this way Bible translators are trying to get the corrupt and distorted texts to be deemed as "acceptable". And today this compilation of corrupt and genuine manuscripts are deemed to be "authoritative" by Bible Translators. But they are NOT from the Received Text.

In the book by mrs J.C.Erasmus we read:

" _Desiderius Erasmus published five Greek New Testament (GNT) original texts: in 1515; 1519; 1522; 1527 and 1535. His third edition (1522) was used in the original King James Version (Authorised Version) in 1611... Approximately 100 years after the first edition of Erasmus' GNT (in 1633) the majority texts were given the name: "Textus Receptus" ("Received Text"). This GNT of Erasmus gave the Reformation a big push. The Reformation with its well-known slogan "Sola Scriptura" – by Scripture alone – used Erasmus' GNT as foundation. For the next 350 years it would serve as foundation and original text for different translations, e.g.: Luther's German translation (1522); the King James Version (1611); the Dutch "Statenvertaling" (1637)..."  
_ ("Preserve My Word" – J.C.Erasmus)

The Reformation was ushered in by Martin Luther and others' revolt against the Roman Catholic Church's view that only the priests who were trained for a number of years and who received training in Hebrew and Greek, may read and/or interpret the Bible (and which they normally did in Latin, which no normal church member could understand). Luther and others spent their time to ensure that normal people may also receive a Bible to read in their own language. That is why the slogan of the Reformation was: "Sola Scriptura!" – by Scripture alone!

" _Rome was not happy with this (the Reformation)... At the Council of Trent (1545-1563) the contra-reformation was planned and launched... especially the Scriptures would be targeted._ _Rome's answer to the "Sola Scriptura" of the Reformation was that there exist MANY different variations of the Scriptures NOT only ONE Scriptura._ _They would endeavour to have a DEVIANT TEXT accepted as original text by the Protestants."  
_ ("Preserve My Word" – J.C.Erasmus)

Have a good look at what the Roman Catholic Church planned at this council of theirs! That the Scriptures had to be targeted and that they must get people – especially the Protestants \- to accept a DEVIANT original text. And their plan has not changed one single bit over the centuries. Do we really think or believe that satan would leave God's Word untouched? Do we really think that satan would say: _"Oh my, the Scriptures are holy and I may not attack it..."_ He did not even leave Jesus Christ in His Person alone when He was on earth! What makes us think he would leave His Word alone? And which weapon has he been using to do this over the centuries? The influence of the Roman Catholic Church.

In the 19th century, two theologists from Cambridge, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) had a huge influence on which texts would eventually be used as foundation and original texts for all future Bible translations. These two men were PRO-ROME and AGAINST Protestantism. They were also AGAINST the more than 95% texts that compiled the "Textus Receptus" and which all agreed with each other. In their writings and translations they used some of the 5% other corrupt texts which contained numerous mistakes, omissions and repetitions. Among these were the so-called "Textus Vaticanus" and "Textus Sinaiticus" that I referred to earlier. In the gospels alone there were more than 3000 (three thousand) differences just between those two manuscripts. These two men were also advocates of Darwin's THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Yet, the Nestle-Aland-texts leaned heavily on their translations.

Let's shortly look at some of these two men's views, to ascertain whether they can really be deemed to be authoritative sources for Bible translation.

We read that Hort once wrote:

" _I have been persuaded for many years_ _that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common_ _in their cause and in their results. (Hort)"_

("The Life of Hort" Vol.2 p.50)

Clearly he is an advocate of the Roman Catholic view regarding the worship of Mary, because it is only the Roman Catholic Church that strives to place Jesus and Mary on the same level as "co-redemptors" of mankind.

Westcott on the other hand was of the opinion that there need not be a sharply defined border between religious and worldly things anymore.

" _There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things._ _That time has happily gone by._ _" (Westcott)  
_ ("The Historic faith" London: Macmillan and Co.1885)

This is in direct contrast to what the Bible teaches us. The Bible is clear that we should not be conformed to the world. ( **Romans 12:2** ). In other words there HAS to be a VERY CLEAR border/line between spiritual and worldly things, in contrast to Wetscott's personal view.

These two men also corresponded with each other on a regular basis and their letters were conserved for us to read to this day. In one of the letters we read exactly what their view was regarding Jesus's death of atonement on the cross.

_15/10/1860 – Letter from Hort to Westcott: "I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth_ _of which the popular doctrine of substitution_ _(In other words that Jesus died in our place)_ _is an IMMORAL and material COUNTERFEIT... Certainly nothing can be more UNSCRIPTURAL_ _than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death;_ _but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal HERESY._ _"  
_ (Life, Vol.I, P.430)

Dear reader, please note very clearly what these so-called "influential" and "authoritative" figures in the world of Bible translation are saying. They agree with each other that the traditional (and Biblical) view that Jesus died in our place is an IMMORAL and material COUNTERFEIT, and that it is actually part of a universal HERESY! In other words they are saying it is a lie to suggest that Jesus' death on the cross made atonement for our sins. Unbelievable! YET these two men's translations and documents are used to this day as "authoritative" in the world of Bible translations!

Their works are used to this day and even adhered to by the United Bible Society (UBS). Now let's shortly have a look at the view taken by the UBS.

" _Bible societies throughout the world, including that of South Africa, are affiliated with the United Bible Society (UBS)... The UBS does not bind itself to ANY SPECIFIC declaration of faith. Dr. J van Bruggen says in "The Future of the Bible": "This independent status of the (United) Bible Societies is valued by_ _those denominations that support the World Council of Churches._ _"..._ _The UBS has a hostile view towards the "Textus Receptus" and is a supporter of the so-called Nestle-Aland-text as standard text for the translation of ALL Bibles under their banner."  
_ ("Preserve My Word" – J.C.Erasmus)

(Note: The World Council of Churches is "driven" or controlled by the Roman Catholic Church.)

Some of the Bibles published under the auspices of the UBS, and which then constitutes part of the corrupt texts or manuscripts, are:

the New Afrikaans (1983) translation (NAV),

New International Version (NIV),

New American Standard Version (NASB),

Good News Bible (GNB),

New Living Translation (NLT),

New King James Version (NKJV),

Nuwe Lewende Vertaling (NLV),

The Amplified Bible (AMP),

The Recovery Bible, and MANY many others...

What is going on here? If the UBS is hostile towards the original and genuine manuscripts, it is clear that something is going on "under the radar" that we don't know about. What may the UBS' long term agenda be with all these so-called "Bibles" that they publish? The answer is clear:

" _The Bible societies' task has undergone a very clear SHIFT IN EMPHASIS. They are deemed as bodies that can turn the ECUMENICAL ENDEAVOUR into a visual reality by issuing a preparatory work_ _in the form of a Bible THAT WILL BE INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR ALL CHURCHES_ _(including Protestant and Roman Catholic churches)..."  
_ ("For the sake of the Truth of the Word" – Johan Gouws – freely translated from the Afrikaans: "Ter wille van die Waarheid van die Woord" by the author hereof.)

" _We are told that Bible revision is a step forward; that new manuscripts have been made available and advance has been made in archeology, philology, geography and the apparatus of criticism._ _HOW DOES IT COME THEN THAT WE HAVE BEEN REVISED BACK INTO THE ARMS OF ROME?_ _If my conclusion is true, this so-called "Bible revision" has become ONE OF THE DEADLIEST WEAPONS in the hands of those who glorify the Dark Ages and who seek to bring Western nations BACK to the THEOLOGICAL THINKING WHICH PREVAILED BEFORE THE REFORMATION."_ (In other words exclusively Roman Catholic).  
("Which Bible?" – D.O.Fuller)

This book by D.O.Fuller is a very good book for any serious Bible student who wants to learn more regarding these specific aspects concerning Bible translations. From the above two quotations we can see what the UBS is actually busy doing. In the first place they eventually want to have a Bible in the world that will be accepted by all churches (Roman Catholic and Protestant) and in the second place they eventually want to have ALL churches back under the banner of the Roman Catholic Church, just as it was centuries ago, prior to the start of the Reformation. We see the same confirmation in the following words by Dr J van Bruggen:

" _For the United Bible Societies (UBS) a Greek foundational text was drafted by an international team of text-critics. This ("compiled") text serves as foundation for ALL Bible translations of the coming years._ _NOT ONLY for PROTESTANT circles, but ALSO FOR ROMAN CATHOLIC Bible science THIS ("compiled") TEXT will form the basis in future._ _In this manner the greatest possible agreement is reached internationally and interconfessionally."  
_ ("De Teks van het Nieuwe Testament" – Dr. J.van Bruggen)

A friend of mine who has been in ministry for many years made the following interesting quotation in their church's one monthly bulletin:

" _One of the most subtle deceptions that satan uses with much effect is the VARIETY OF FALSE BIBLES that are available today. Because the Bible is God's Word and because it is the ONLY inerrant and 100% true document on earth, it can be understood that satan will do everything in his power to attack the Bible! During the dark Middle Ages satan's strategy was to ban the Bible. But the Reformation resulted in Bibles becoming freely available._ _Satan's latest plan works much better: Bibles are now available in ABUNDANCE but many are FALSE Bibles._ _"  
_ ("Live in the Word Bulletin" Jan. 2008 – Hennie van Zyl – freely translated from the Afrikaans: "Lewe in die Woord Bulletin", by the author hereof)

This is exactly what it is all about! Because which Bible can we really believe now? In one house dad may be reading the King James Version (KJV), while mom reads the New King James Version (NKJV), junior reads the New International Version (NIV) and little sister reads the Good News Bible (GNB). And suddenly they have a problem because they are in doubt as to whose Bible to believe seeing as there are so many differences between all these Bibles. So the eventual conclusion this family reaches is that the Bible might not be such a valuable or trustworthy book after all, as there are so many differences, and maybe they can't believe any one of the Bibles they have in their possession so they choose to discard them all... And satan laughs...

Let's shortly look at some problems regarding some of the modern English Bibles.

"... _the translators and producers of the New King James Version (NKJV) (say that they) are committed to PRECISELY the same text as that underlying the King James Bible, but this is NOT the case for the translators of the New King James Version were NOT committed to the Received Text ("Textus Receptus")..._ _There are an estimated 100,000 changes, averaging 80 per page._ _This was probably done for copyright purposes."  
_ ("What about the New King James Version" – David Cloud)

Has God "changed His mind" regarding His own Word? For approximately 270 years (1611 – 1881) the whole English Christian world used only the King James Version, which was drafted from the original genuine manuscripts (Received Text). But suddenly after this long period of time it seemed from all these changes in the modern translations that God must have realized that he made quite a lot of "mistakes" in His own Word 270 years earlier and therefore had to make 100 000 (one hundred thousand) changes in the NEW King James Version (NKJV). Which rational child of God can ever believe such a view? Especially if we take into consideration that the NKJV was also translated from the 5% corrupt texts and not from the genuine original texts.

As I stated earlier it is also interesting to note that from 1611 to 1881 only one English Bible was used throughout the world (which Bible was compiled from the genuine original Received Text), but from 1881 to our modern day there are already more than 100 new English Bibles (which Bibles are all compiled from the corrupt texts). What is going on? Just one English Bible in 270 years and more than 100 English Bibles in little more than 120 years? You don't need lots of intelligence to understand that this is a full-scale onslaught on the Word of God!

Another very good book which any serious Bible student can read regarding this very important aspect is called: "New Age Bible Versions" by prof. G.A.Riplinger. She writes:

" _The NIV has 64 098 (sixty four thousand and ninety eight) LESS WORDS than the KJV."  
_ ("New Age Bible Versions" – G.A.Riplinger)

This means the NIV specifically is effectively a number of books thinner than the KJV Bible. A book of standard thickness comprising 200 pages contains approximately fifty thousand to sixty thousand words, depending on the font size used. And the NIV contains so many words LESS than the KJV!

Terry Watkins wrote a tract titled: NEW INTERNATIONAL (PER)VERSION and he explains it in even stronger terms:

" **The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!**

_Don't look for the "mercyseat" in the NIV -_ _GONE!_

_Don't look for "Jehovah" in the NIV -_ _GONE!_

_Don't look for the "Godhead" in the NIV -_ _GONE!_

The NIV removes wonderful Bible "terms" like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others!

_Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words!_ **Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"!**

_That equals REMOVING the books of_ _Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more_ _\- COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible!_ _"_

Then Terry Watkins proceeds to explain most of the verses which were altered or removed, and we will also discuss most of the same verses in this book in the following chapters.

Prof. Riplinger's book also confirms the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is slowly but surely busy pulling a veil over the eyes of the Protestant Christians in order to bring them back under the banner of Roman Catholicism.

" _A strong pull toward ultra-liberalism and Rome is very evident in this (Bible translation) committee's book, "The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament". It gives a behind the scenes view of their work,_ _while admitting: "B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort's...edition...was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies edition._ _" The charge that the new Greek text, and consequently the new (Bible) versions, are Roman Catholic is CONFIRMED by the church itself, for they have stopped using the Latin Vulgate as a basis of translation and now use the Martini, Metzger, Aland, Black and Wilgren text. Now BOTH Protestant and Catholic versions are based on the same Vaticanus MINORITY Greek text. (Nestle's and Bible Societies' texts are now identical.)_

_The Romanization of new versions is no accident... CATHOLIC BIBLES with new version covers (NIV, NASV, et al) have served as tools when placed in Protestant hands to build bridges between denominations which a generation ago felt great division (Protestants and Catholics)_ _... NASB progenitor Phillip Schaff has hewn his tools for just such a job: "The changes thus far...are in the right direction...and should contain the germs of a NEW THEOLOGY... Every age MUST PRODUCE ITS OWN THEOLOGY... such a theology will prepare the way for the REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM."...Undaunted by his denomination's pressure,_ _he continued to work for the RETURN of all Protestants to the Roman Church._ _His call for a "Catholic Protestantism, which stands for a new era", echoes from the pages of the new (Bible) versions."  
_ ("New Age Bible Versions" – G.A.Riplinger)

It is also interesting to note that all the Bibles emanating from the corrupt manuscripts have footnotes and most of these footnotes serve only one purpose and that is to sow doubt in the mind of the uninformed reader. Let us now read what David Cloud has to say regarding the footnotes in the NKJV as it clearly explains the problem regarding all the footnotes in all the Bibles published by the UBS.

" _The FOOTNOTES in the NKJV_ _are based on the Nestle-Aland United Bible Society critical Greek text_ _and_ _thus create exactly the same kind of DOUBT you find in the modern versions_ _. IT TEMPTS READERS TO DISCOUNT THE AUTHORITY OF THE PASSAGES QUESTIONED IN FOOTNOTES. It also accustoms Bible students to the philosophy of textual neutrality, of picking and choosing between the readings of competing texts and versions. The Nestle-Aland United Bible Societies critical Greek text (NU) follows the Westcott-Hort text of 1881 in REMOVING or QUESTIONING dozens of entire verses and thousands of words that are in the Received Text..._

_Those who believe the Received Text underlying the Authorized Version and other revered Protestant versions is the preserved Word of God REJECT the NU text as corrupted. Though the editors of the NKJV claim they are honoring the Received Text with their New King James Bible, they have given credibility to the CORRUPTED UBS text_ _by placing its DOUBT-PRODUCING readings in the margin of their version._ _"  
_ ("What about the New King James Version" – David Cloud)

In chapter 5 a little later we will see in more detail exactly how the footnotes produce doubt in readers' minds in different ways.

But as we serve a God who jealously guards His own Word we know that He ensured that His true Word was kept safe over all the centuries. Let us now shortly have a look at the "route" that the genuine manuscripts took from the first century AD.

" _The first century Christians carried the genuine manuscripts from Jerusalem to Antioch in Syria ("_ And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." ( _Acts 11:26_ )) From there the Word of God spread over the whole of the old known world – Northern Italy, Southern France, British Islands, Asia Minor, Greece and also to Rome. In all these places churches originated which were built on the TRUE Word of God. All these churches made many copies of the genuine manuscripts and also translated them into their own native languages.

It is proven from history that there were 5 churches in DIFFERENT parts of the world that had the Received Text, namely:

1. The Syrian church of Antioch

2. The Waldensian church in Northern Italy

3. The Gaulish church in Southern France

4. The Celtic church in Ireland and Scotland

5. The Greek church in Constantinople

_These churches never accepted the Latin Vulgate of Jerome or the Roman Catholic Church Bible as the Word of God._ _As a result they were mercilessly persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries and their genuine manuscripts were destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church in an effort to spread the Roman Catholic Bible across the world._ _"  
_ ("The Satanic Onslaught on the Word of God" – Dr. Hennie Prinsloo)

Now also read the following abridged history which dr Frank Logsdon wrote to his church members regarding the question why they use the KJV in their church. Please also take note of the "Note" at the end of his article about who dr Frank Logsdon is, and why his view can be used as authoritative regarding the differences between the KJV and the modern translations.

"As a pastor, I write this for the people in our church. On occasion, I have been asked why we, in our church, use the outdated King James Version. To answer that, we must touch on some complex and technical subjects. I, accordingly, have attempted to simplify the manner to a degree that most can understand.

In **Proverbs 22:28** the Bible says to _"Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set."_ A landmark is a surveyor's term and refers to a benchmark or property marker. Today, in most jurisdictions, it is against the law to move or alter a survey landmark.

Christianity has its foundations in an authorizing and governing document. That document is the Bible. Any attorney will understand the critical nature of altering an authorizing and governing document. **Because the Bible is in every sense the final and absolute foundation of what we as Christians believe and practice, it only is prudent that we be concerned that the foundation is sure and the benchmark has not been altered.**

For almost two millennia the church of Jesus Christ accepted a set of Greek and Hebrew texts that were received by virtually all gospel preaching, Bible believing churches of whatever group. This text was called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus in Latin). Down through the centuries biblical scholars and church leaders had assembled the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. From that compilation, the vast majority were in virtual agreement. These formed the basis of the Received Text.

In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been "received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.

Enter Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is an academic discipline in which scholars study existing Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Prior to the advent of the moveable type printing press in 1455 by Gutenberg, all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes and were called manuscripts. Because they were individually produced by human hands, they were prone to mistakes in manual copying.

Textual critics study the various extant (existing) manuscripts and note any discrepancies that may have occurred between different copies. Then, by comparing them, a majority consensus is established. Should a misspelled word be found, or should a word have been accidentally added or omitted from a given manuscript, the textual critic endeavors to by consensus establish the correct reading.

A major theory of textual criticism is that some later manuscripts were copied from earlier ones, therefore, the earlier manuscripts are presumed to be a more accurate source of the Scriptures. (The presumption is that scribal errors would accumulate in later copies). Hence, textual critics give much more credence to early manuscripts than to later copies even if the later be greater in number.

The problem with this theory is that the early church had great reverence and respect for their "accepted" or "received" manuscripts of the Scriptures. **Accordingly, when a given copy of the Scriptures became tattered and worn, it was carefully copied and then burned. Hence, there are virtually no copies of the earliest manuscripts used by the churches.**

However, there is evidence that certain cults and sects within early Christians followed the opposite practice. They preserved their manuscripts regardless of condition. Therefore, the crucial premise of textual criticism - that the oldest manuscripts are always to be preferred to more recent copies is critically flawed.

Manuscripts Aleph and B

ln the latter half of the 19th century when textual criticism perhaps was at its zenith, two ancient manuscripts were found in the Mediterranean world that would come to revolutionize the work of the textual critics. A manuscript was "found" in a Roman Catholic monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert. It came to be known as Manuscript Aleph and it also was known as Codex Sinaticus ("codex" being a Latin word for a bound volume).

About the same time another ancient manuscript was "found" in the library of the Vatican. It became known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Both of these manuscripts were determined to have come from the 4th century A.D. and are considered the oldest basically complete copies of the New Testament to exist. Hence, they were considered by the textual critics to be the mother lode of ancient Bible manuscripts.

**It is noteworthy that both of these manuscripts were "found" in Roman Catholic libraries. (The Roman Catholic Church historically has never given great credence to the Scripture or its teachings).** Moreover, the Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect in early church history. The Alexandrians were a heretical cult similar to the modern Jehovah Witnesses. They held major doctrinal deviations pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding the questionable source of Codex Sinaticus, it became the premiere source for future textual criticism.

Drs. Westcott and Hort

Two British textual critics championed these newly found manuscripts. Their names were Dr. B. F. Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort. **They represented a branch of the Church of England which was enamored with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.** Westcott and Hort in their writings showed a keen friendliness to Roman Catholic theology, occult spiritism and German Rationalism otherwise known as modernism. They, by no stretch of the imagination, could be considered fundamentalists as the term was later coined and used. **Rather, if they lived today, their theology and philosophy (as evidenced by their writings) would be called liberal, humanistic, sacramental and even have occult overtones.**

Drs. Hort and Westcott together collated and compiled a Text of the New Testament. The "new" Greek text was in contrast with and in distinction to the text that had been received by virtually all Bible believing churches for the preceding 19 centuries. **In the last 100 years it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland and others, and today is generally referred to as the "critical text". It represents less than 1% of existing manuscripts.**

From this critical text and its direct predecessor, the Westcott and Hort Text, virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible have been translated into English.

**WE BELIEVE THAT THE CRITICAL TEXT IS CORRUPT!** Not only are its origins and associations suspect, the actual text itself is full of deletions and dilutions of the time honored texts. Scripture received by translations based upon the critical text have diluted reference to the blood of Jesus Christ (e.g. Romans 3:25, Colossians 1:14, Revelation 1:11, Luke 22:20 et al), the Deity of Christ (e.g. Jude 4, Revelation 1:11). the inspiration of the Scriptures (e.g. 11 Timothy 3:16), and salvation by faith (e.g. John 3:36) to mention a few. Space does not allow us to list the numerous instances of serious dilution or deletions of major doctrinal truth in modern versions, but it is lengthy. There are thousands of textual changes.

If a survey benchmark has been moved or altered, all surveying after that point will be distorted. And because the critical text is in our view corrupt, any version of the Bible translated from it is suspect.

Modern Versions

**The venerable King James Version of the Bible is not copyrighted. It is considered a public domain publication of the Word of God.** However, virtually all modern versions are copyrighted. As any author or publisher knows, a copyright is for protection of commercial rights. It means that no one else may market their Bible without paying the publisher or at the least receiving written permission to do so. Does not the Apostle Peter refer to some in the last days "making merchandise of you" regarding the things of God (II Peter 2:3)?

Moreover, a number of the modern versions (based upon the critical text) have used less than precise methods for translation. **Some have used a literary device known as "dynamic equivalence". This is a fancy term that essentially means some translators have taken the liberty to come up with what they think are modern equivalents for specific words in the manuscript text rather than precisely translating the specific words of the text.** In effect, this is a running commentary on the part of the translators, injecting into the translation what they think a given passage means, rather than rendering a precise translation of what the scriptural writers actually wrote. There is nothing wrong with Bible commentaries. **However, to insert personal bias under the guise of translation is not only less than a faithful rendering of the text, it is deceptive.**

In at least one case, a popular version has had the honesty to indicate in its subtitle that it is a paraphrase. Unfortunately, unwary minds often look at such a Bible paraphrase as the Bible nevertheless. Some versions have used vulgar and crude terms in their translations. They have seemed oblivious to the unique purity or purpose of the Scripture.

As mentioned above, cardinal New Testament doctrine such as the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture is routinely diluted in recent translations based upon the critical text. That should give pause for concern!

The Godly Heritage of the KJV

In viewing the distortions, deletions, corruptions, dilutions, changes and questionable associations of the critical text and its resultant modernist translations, **we will stick to the venerable King lames Version of the Bible that our forebearers so faithfully used. It is an ancient landmark.**

Down through the centuries, it has been the Bible used for every major revival to sweep across portions of the English speaking world. It was the Bible of the Pilgrim forefathers of this nation. And it has been God blessed wherever it has been used. It is based upon the ancient text which has been, until just recently, the universally accepted text of the Scriptures from the time of the apostles.

Modern versions have been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the archaic, old fashioned KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in fact far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB. The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, shown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. Furthermore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax.

There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text.

However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate.

Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our language back to the lower level. **The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "thee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference."**

("Why we use the King James version" by Dr. Frank Logsdon)
NOTES

Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). **He since has renounced any connection to it.** _"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong . . . The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?_

Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editor's note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (same as the NASB).

_You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct ..." -_ Dr. Frank Logsdon

Terry Watkins in his tract titled: THE NEW INTERNATIONAL (PER)VERSION also speaks about the important fact that the KJV is not copyrighted:

" _Isn't it EQUALLY amazing that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not OWNED by men? That's right! The King James Bible has no COPYRIGHT ownership! It's copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which ALLOWS it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME! Without asking ANYBODY for permission!_

_"...but_ _the word of God is NOT BOUND."_ **(2 Timothy 2:9)** "

**BUT OKAY THAT IS ENOUGH HISTORY!** I accept that every reader now has a rather clear understanding as to how Bible translation works...

NOW LET US as normal English-speaking children of God, (with no specific knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages) COMPARE the first English Bible translation (KJV) with ONE of the most popular modern English translations (NIV) against each other and then let us decide for ourselves if there may be a problem or not.

Before we proceed it is necessary to take note of the following two scriptures and to keep them in mind as we proceed with this study:

"For I am the LORD, _I change not_..." (Malachi 3:6)

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8)

And if He does not change and always stays the same, surely His Word must also stay the same?

Also remember the following words:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, _If any man shall add unto these things_ , God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: _And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy_ , God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and _from_ the things which are written in this book." ( **Revelation 22:18,19** )

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." **(Deuteronomy 4:2)**

"EVERY WORD of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. _Add thou not unto his words,_ lest he reprove thee, _and thou be found a liar._ " ( **Proverbs 30:5,6** )

Through the course of this book you must decide for yourself who will one day be found to be a liar... Will people like me, trying to stand up for the truth of the Word be found to be liars, or will some of the Bible translators be found to be liars? Only time and eternity will tell... I know that I will stand before the Lord's throne without any fears or trepidations because of what I wrote in this book, on that day. I can only wonder if all the modern Bible translators can say the same...

And lastly, what is the devil's true aim regarding the Word of God? Jesus tells us very plainly in **Luke 8:12** :

"...then cometh the devil, _and taketh away the word_ out of their hearts..."

**REMEMBER: It's always about the AUTHOR of the Book and not about the PEN which the Author held** while writing the Book **.** If the Author has never changed, and His view is unalterable, then surely His eternal and life-changing Book must also be unalterable? Even though the Author may have used a feather as a "pen" at one specific time in history (first Bible translators) and centuries later a ballpoint pen (other Bible translators). The different kinds of PENS that the Author used can surely not change the AUTHOR'S VIEW and HIS thoughts about HIS own Book, can they? No, ONLY the Author can do that! And God does NOT do that, especially not regarding a message that has eternal value, because He is NOT divided against Himself.

Before you proceed any further, please go to the Lord Jesus Christ prayerfully about the following four questions first:

1. Would God have "changed His mind" **about His own Word?** _"For I_ am _the LORD, I change not..."_ ( **Malachi 3:6** )

2. Would He give His Word to His children in one specific way in history in any given language, and a little later "change His mind" **to make a LOT of changes to His own Word?**

3. Would He insert His own Son's Name a certain number of times in His own Word, but then a few years later "change His mind" and have His own Son's name REMOVED a number of times from a number of verses in His own Book?

4. Think about this - When God gave the 10 Commandments to Moses the second time on the mountain, were they DIFFERENT than the first time, or EXACTLY the same?

Before we proceed, let's have a look at some of the normal ARGUMENTS in favour of the NEW TRANSLATIONS:

1. The "latest discoveries" and progress in the area of philology bring new insights, also WITH REGARD TO METHODS OF TRANSLATION.

My question is: Does it also bring new insights regarding GOD?

2. "Text criticism" is now a highly developed discipline and it has brought new light and new insights to the fore REGARDING THE "ORIGINAL TEXT".

My question is: Does it also bring new insights as to God's UNALTERABLE character?

3. The "oldest and best" manuscripts are now referred to as basis for all the changes and so-called "improvements" which are used in modern translations.

We have already seen very clearly that the oldest is NOT necessarily the best. Quite the contrary.

4. It reads so much easier.

My question is: Is it all about the READER'S reading comfort or about the CORRECTNESS of the Word of God?

Terry Watkins puts it as follows in his tract: NEW INTERNATIONAL (PER)VERSION:

" **The LIES used to promote the NIV**

**LIE 1) -** _The NIV "just" updates the "archaic" words and makes it "easier to understand". Nothing is "really changed"._

**FACT:** The NIV denies the deity of Jesus Christ; the virgin birth; glorifies Satan; openly lie; removes 17 complete verses and 64,576 words!

**L** **IE 2) -** _The NIV is easier to read and understand._

**FACT:** According to a _Flesch-Kincaid_ Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! **Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded EASIER in a whopping 23**! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4! ( _New Age Bible Versions_ , Riplinger, pp.195-209)

**LIE 3) -** _Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible._

**FACT:** _Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had_ _ALL OF THE READINGS_ _available to them that modern critics have available to them today."_ ( _The Answer Book_ , Gipp, p.110) _And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 - 95 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible!_

**LIE 4) -** _The NIV is more accurate._

**FACT:** The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". **Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should!** The Preface to the NIV even says, _"...they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation..."_

Clearly then all these arguments are brought to turn people away from the truth of the Word as contained in the original and genuine manuscripts and to make the corrupt mansucripts and so-called "Bibles" more "acceptable" to uninformed Christians who in most instances don't or won't take the time to do the kind of study that I did for purposes of this book, so they will be lulled into a false sense of security regarding the book they read and deem to be a "Bible".

For purposes of this study let's FORGET about the Hebrew and the Greek and let's COMPARE the wording of the King James Version Bible (KJV) and of the New International Version (NIV) **WITH EACH OTHER** to see if the NIV (and many other similar "modern" translations) is really a "better" translation and if it really is "true" to the Word of God, and if it really brings "better insights" regarding the divine eternal message that would have been contained in the original text.

In the same way we can compare ANY OTHER modern English translations which presently exist – or may still come in future – with the KJV for the same insights.
4.

WHAT HAS CHANGED AND WHAT HAS BEEN REMOVED?

In order to make the comparisons easier to read, I will quote the verse from the KJV first and thereafter I will quote the same verse from the NIV. You as reader possess enough intelligence, insight, wisdom and knowledge to decide for yourself whether the verses say the same thing – whether it contains the same message – or whether it has been CHANGED and if the message it conveys is still the same, or not. And if specific verses were changed the question remains: "Why do the Bible translations DIFFER?" Especially when we know we worship a God that NEVER changes?

So, let us start our journey to see what happens when we just compare the scriptures with each other.

1. **(Exodus 20:3)**

KJV: "Thou shalt have no other gods _before me._ "

NIV: _"You shall have no other gods before me."_ (But then there is a little footnote that reads: **"or besides"** )

We have already seen what David Cloud wrote about the "doubt-producing footnotes" and the same thing happens here. _"(B)efore me"_ means exactly what it says, because God is also present in my home and He does not want us to HAVE or possess any other gods in His presence. _"Besides me"_ means I may have it with me, as long as I don't see it as another god besides God.

2. **(2 Samuel 21:19)**

**KJV:** "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."

**NIV:** _"...Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite_ _killed Goliath the Gittite_ _, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."_

We know very well that there was only one Goliath the Gittite and he was slain by none other than young David. Why has the message suddenly changed in this scripture? Is it so that people can then use the argument they so readily like to use, that the Bible contradicts itself?

3. **(Daniel 7:13)**

**KJV:** _"_ I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one _like the Son of man_ came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him..."

**NIV:** _"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one_ _like a son of man_ _..."_

This verse is a direct prophetic reference to Jesus Christ as "THE Son of man" before the father's throne and it has been changed. The use of lower case letters makes one believe that it may have been anyone like a son of man. Everybody knows Jesus is " **the** Son of man" but who is this " **a** son of man"? Is the message still the same here, or has it been changed?

4. **(Micah 5:2)**

**KJV:** _"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet 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._ _"_

NIV: "...out of you will come for me one who will rule over Israel, whose origins are from of old, _from ancient times._ "

"Ancient times" does NOT mean the same as "from everlasting". For you and me ancient times are anything more than 300 – 400 years ago. So this prophetic reference to Jesus the Messiah coming from eternity/everlasting, has been changed. Why? Because the world tries its best to deny the divinity of Jesus, and to prove that He was just another human being. Remember Origen also changed this verse in his Hexapla Bible in the third century already because he also didn't believe in the divivnity or deity of Jesus, or that He came from eternity. Many people from "ancient times" have lived on this earth, but there was only one who came "from everlasting" to walk this earth, and that was Jesus Christ!

5. **(Mark 1:2,3)**

**KJV:** "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; _As it is written in the prophets_ , Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

**NIV:** " _The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God._ _It is written in Isaiah the prophet_ _: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert..."_

There are two problems staring us in the face regarding the changes in these two verses of scripture. Firstly in the NIV there is a little footnote behind verse 1, saying: _"Some manuscripts do not have: the Son of God"._ Immediately the footnote produces doubt again – was Jesus really the "Son of God", or not? Because if some manuscripts do not contain those words, can we really believe He was definitely the Son of God or was He just a mere human?

Secondly in which manuscript did the NIV suddenly find the words: _"...in Isaiah the prophet..."_? Because it was NOT Isaiah who said those words which were quoted by Mark, but actually the prophet Malachi in **Malachi 3:1:**

" _Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me..."_

So if the the translators of the NIV truly used the original and genuine manuscripts, and if they were really inspired by the TRUE Holy Spirit why do they quote the wrong prophet? Does God's Holy Spirit not know His own Word?

6. (Luke 2:22)

KJV: "And when the days of _her purification_ according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;..."

NIV: "When the time of _their purification_ according to the Law of Moses..."

The immediate implication we find here is that Jesus was born unclean as He is most assuredly included in the word "their". Does "her purification" and "their purification" mean the same thing or are we looking at a changed message here? Nowhere in the Bible do we read that the baby (or the husband of that woman) would also need purification according to the law of Moses. To the contrary the Bible is very clear:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then _she shall be unclean_ seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity _shall she be unclean_. _"_ ( **Leviticus 12:2** )

So we can see in **Luke 2:22** how very subtle these changes are, and will the normal Bible readers miss this type of change in the text if they don't know their Bibles well.

7. **(Luke 2:33)**

**KJV:** _"_ And _Joseph and his mother_ marvelled at those things which were spoken..."

**NIV:** _"The child's_ _father and mother_ _marvelled..."_

Joseph was NOT Jesus' father! Does the message here still read the same? Does it give us "better insight" or "new light" in the message of Jesus Christ who did not have a human father, or is the deity or divinity of Jesus being brought down to human ancestry in a very subtle way? The many arguments that Jesus was just another human – and which existed since the time of Eusebius in the third century - can now be "proven" from this as the fact that Joseph was Jesus' "father" is now contained IN the text of this so-called "Bible"! No, Joseph was at best His stepfather. Remember the "Arian heresy/Arianism" which wants to depict Jesus as just another human being. And this is just one subtle little way of doing so.

8. **(Luke 4:4)**

**KJV:** _"_ And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, _but by every word of God._ "

**NIV:** _"Jesus answered:_ "It is written: Man does not live on bread alone. _"_

Interesting thought! Jesus is quoting **Deuteronomy 8:3** but suddenly the very important _"...but by every word of God"_ has disappeared from the text? Why would that be? Did God "change His mind" and decide that it is not what the original text would have contained? And would Jesus not have quoted the full scripture He was using at that time?

Have you taken the time to check what the NIV did with our Lord's Prayer in Luke 11?

9. **(Luke 11:2-4)**

**KJV:** _"...Our Father_ _which art in heaven_ _, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come._ _Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth._ _Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation;_ _but deliver us from evil._ _"_

**NIV:** _"Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation."_

Interesting! Apparently our Father is NOT in heaven anymore, His will which is in heaven does not have to be done on earth anymore AND He doesn't have to deliver us from evil anymore. Why is that? But yet again you will see some footnotes stating that only " _some manuscripts"_ contain those words. And those manuscripts are the Majority Text of genuine and original manuscripts!

10. (John 8:59)

KJV: "Then took they up stones to cast at him: _but Jesus hid himself,_ and went out of the temple, _going through the midst of them,_ and so passed by."

NIV: "At this, they picked up stones to stone him, _but Jesus hid himself,_ slipping away from the temple grounds."

The implication in the NIV is that Jesus was afraid and hid away from the crowds to slip away from the temple grounds. Jesus was NEVER afraid of any human being. What is happening here is that a spiritual truth is being changed in the NIV. What Jesus did, was to "conceal" Himself in His spiritual authority in the spiritual dimension WALKING THROUGH THE MIDST OF THEM. The word "hid" in the Greek is "krupto", which also means: "to cover" or "to conceal".

This is the same spiritual authority He had when they came to capture Him in the garden of Gethsemane and fell down before Him when He only acknowledged His Name. ( **John 18:6** ). You see, to some people it does not make sense to think Jesus could walk THROUGH THE MIDST of an angry mob with stones in their hands, so they decided to rather remove that part from the text. And the reason they can't understand this is because they don't always understand what happens in the spiritual dimension in certain given situations. So now the NIV leaves the implication in the mind of its readers of a Jesus that was afraid of the mob, rather than a Jesus who took His spiritual authority over the mob.

11. (John 16:16,17)

KJV: "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, _because I go to the Father._ Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, _Because I go to the Father_?"

NIV: "In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me. _Some of his disciples said to one another, "What does he mean by saying, 'In a little while you sill see me no more and then after a little whiler you will see me' and '_ _Because I go to the Father'_ _?"_

Jesus' return to His heavenly Father, is removed from this verse as the reader can see for himself. But the corruption is clear from the fact that they still left _"Because I go to the Father"_ in verse 17 of the NIV. Why would the disciples ask this question of each other if He did NOT say that very thing just a little earlier? So from this we can clearly see those words would definitely have been contained in the original text (which they are), but what reason is there to remove it from the NIV if the Lord is clear that we may remove NOTHING from His Word? It may sound like a simple little matter to the reader, but beware of the ramifications of something as "insignificant" as this....

12. (Acts 8:35-38)

KJV: "(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. (36) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (37) _And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God._ (38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

NIV: "(35) Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. (36) As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and theu eunich said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" (37) _...(???)..._ (38) And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him."

**Verse 37** has been totally removed from the NIV, that very important confirmation that you MAY HAVE yourself baptized as an adult as long as you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. However, there is a ( _"doubt-producing"_ ) FOOTNOTE that reads: _"Some LATE manuscripts contain: "Philip said: "if you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."_ Those so-called _"late manuscripts"_ are the genuine and original manuscripts. As we now know who is in charge of all the modern Bible Revisions (including the NIV) via the United Bible Societies – the Roman Catholic Church – it is not difficult to understand why they would not want this verse to be in the Bible, as it does not agree with their doctrine of infant baptism.

13. (Romans 8:1)

KJV: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, _who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."_

NIV: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,..."

The Biblical call to a life lived in sanctification and holiness after the Spirit, and not according to the flesh, is removed from this verse in the NIV. Now it can be shown to people that as long as they are "in Christ Jesus" there is no more condemnation for them and that would lead to people accepting they don't really have to worry about getting rid of the old works of the flesh anymore.

The actual true condition that there is no condemnation IF YOU WALK AFTER THE SPIRIT AND NOT AFTER THE FLESH is suddenly gone from this Bible. But, sure enough, there is a FOOTNOTE again reading: _"Some LATER MANUSCRIPTS: "...who live not according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit."_ And again those so-called: _"later manuscripts"_ are the genuine and original manuscripts. Once again doubt is produced in the mind of the not so serious Bible reader as to whether this is an important piece of the Bible, or not. So such a reader will then discard the footnote as not important and appropriate for himself the message that as long as he is "in Christ Jesus" he is fine. Meantime he isn't so fine, as there are very likely still things in his life that he will need to deal with.

14. (1 Corinthians 15:47)

**KJV:** "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

NIV: "The first man was of the dust of the earth, _the second man from heaven._ "

The Biblical proof that it was God Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ the Lord who came from heaven to earth has been removed from this verse. Is the message in this verse still the same, do you think? Remember the "Arian heresy/Arianism" that has been trying to prove for centuries that Jesus was just another human being and not God Himself. So what do they do? They very subtily over centuries start removing the verses that prove His deity or divinity. For example:

15. (1 Timothy 3:16)

KJV: "... God was manifest in the flesh..."

NIV: "He appeared in a body..."

We ALL appeared in a body here on earth, but none of us is or ever was God. The fact of Jesus' deity or divinity is removed again. Remember the "Arian heresy/Arianism".

But what is the specific problem regarding removing the fact that Jesus is God Himself, who came to earth? Is it really that important to know that it was Jesus Christ who came to earth AS GOD and BECAME FLESH? Very much so yes, especially when we take note of the following verse:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: _And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:_ and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ( **1 John 4:2,3** )

The changes in the NIV regarding just the two verses that I quoted in 14 and 15 above, clearly do NOT show that it was Jesus (AS GOD) who was manifested in the flesh and came to earth as such. What deduction can we make then, seeing what **1 John 4:2,3** teaches? I believe nothing other than that the inspiration behind them is the "spirit of antichrist". How can I say that? Well, ask yourself the question again – if God never changes, why would He write in His own original and genuine mansucripts that _"God is manifest in the flesh"_ and some years later He changes it to _"He appeared in a body"_?

Can we normal Christians really believe that the original Greek text which used the word "Theos" which referred to God in that verse, would a number of years later not contain the word "Theos" anymore? That the original Bible translators would mistakenly miss-translate "autos" which is the Greek word used for "he", for "Theos"? I don't think so.

Another example where the deity or divinity of Jesus is removed we find in:

16. **(** **Philippians 2:6)**

**KJV:** _"Who, being in the form of God,_ _thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD_ _"_

**NIV:** _"Who, being in very nature God,_ _DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,..._ _"_.

Very clearly the message in this verse has been changed. Jesus did not think it robbery to be equal with God **because He is and was God Himself!** But according to the NIV He did not consider equality with God as something to be "grasped" so actually insinuating that He could not even understand it.

Another way that the deity or divinity of Jesus Christ is diminished or diluted in the NIV, we find in the following verses where the fact that He was worshipped was removed:

17. **(Matthew 8:2)**

**KJV:** "And, behold, there came a leper _and worshipped him,_ saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean."

**NIV:** _"A man with leprosy came_ _and knelt before him,_ _saying, Lord, if you are willing you can make me clean"_

Why would they remove the word _"worshipped"_ and exchange it with _"knelt before him"_? Because if Jesus was only a mere human being as the Arian heresy teaches, He is not God and therefore not worthy of worship, so rather remove that word.

18. **(Matthew 9:18)**

**KJV:** _"_ While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, _and worshipped him,_ saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live."

**NIV:** _"While he was saying this a ruler came_ _and knelt before him_ _..."_

This is exactly the same thing that happened in **Matthew 8:2**! Now do some self-study on **Matthew 15:25; Matthew 18:26; Matthew 20:20; Mark 5:6 and Mark 15:19** and you will see the same thing happening in all those scriptures. The worship due to our Lord Jesus Christ has been dimished to people just "kneeling" before Him. There is a hint of awe and reverence contained in the word _"worship"_ that you don't find in the words _"knelt before"._

The NIV also removes the importance of redemption through the blood of Jesus.

19. **(** **Colossians 1:14)**

**KJV:** _"In whom we have redemption_ _through his blood_ _, even the forgiveness of sins:"_

**NIV:** _"In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."_

The EXTREMELY important fact that we can ONLY have redemption THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST has been removed. But again there is a footnote that reads: _"A FEW late manuscripts: redemption through his blood"._ And again those _"few late mansucripts"_ are actually the Majority Text of original and genuine EARLY (not late) mansucripts!

20. **(2 Corinthians 1:13)**

**KJV:** _"_ For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; _and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end._ "

**NIV:** _"For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand."_

The word "acknowledge" in Greek is "epiginosko" and it means: _"to_ know upon _some mark, that is,_ recognise _;_ _by implication to become fully acquainted with_ _, to_ acknowledge" according to Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary. The confirmation in the original text that we can become _"fully acquainted with"_ the things written to us and that we can do so even to the end is not contained in the NIV anymore. So now we as normal Christians may very well start to feel that we won't be able to understand the things written to us, not now and not to the very end.

What did they do with the Trinity?

21. **(1 John 5:7,8)**

**KJV:** _"(7)_ For there are three _that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one_. (8) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

**NIV:** _"(7) For there are three that testify:...???... (8) the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."_

This verse 7 is the ONLY single verse in the whole Bible confirming the truth about the Trinity of God that these THREE are ONE. Would God write the confirmation regarding His own Triune being INTO His own Word at one stage and then REMOVE it again at a later stage if He is a God that never changes? Don't forget that Origen also removed this verse from his Hexapla Bible in the third century because he didn't believe in the Trinity of God.

But again there is a FOOTNOTE at the bottom of the page in the NIV that states that: _"Late manuscripts of the Vulgate..."_ included the whole of verse 7. Again that is NOT true, as those words were contained in the original and genuine mansucripts and NOT just in late manuscripts of the Vulgate.

NOTE to the reader: - This is the ONE verse of Scripture that can be used to test ANY Bible as to whether it was translated from the genuine original manuscripts or from the corrupted manuscripts.

22. (Revelation 1:10, 11)

KJV: "... and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, _I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last_ : and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches..."

NIV: "...and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches..."

Jesus' eternal deity and divinity, the fact that HE is the true BEGINNING and END, and His eternal existence with the Father, has been totally removed from this verse in the NIV. Does this CHANGED verse in the NIV give us a "better insight" into the message that Jesus Christ IS the Alpha and the Omega? Why is the fact that Jesus Christ IS the Alpha and Omega removed from the NIV? Is it yet another little piece in the puzzle in the effort to "prove" the "Arian heresy" from this "Bible"? Because you see, if Jesus was just another human being, then of course He can't be the Alpha and the Omega now can He? So, they remove the verse...

23. (Revelation 22:14)

**KJV:** " _Blessed are they that do his commandments_ , that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

**NIV:** " _Blessed are those who wash their robes_ , that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go thorugh the gates into the city."

It makes complete sense that those who DO God's commandments will be blessed but does: _"Blessed are those who wash their robes"_ MEAN the same thing as: _"Blessed are they that do his commandments"_? And if it does not mean the same thing, which it obviously does not, the question is: why not, seeing that God never changes?

As so many people today don't believe there is a literal hell, it's no wonder if you see what just the NIV did with the verses referring to hell. Have a look at the following verses:

24. ( **Isaiah 14:15)**

**KJV:** _"Yet thou shalt be brought down to_ _HELL_ _. . ."_

**NIV:** _"But you are brought down to the_ _GRAVE_ _. . ."_

This specific verse refers to satan who will also one day be thrown into hell. Yet suddenly it is changed to "grave". We will all go to the grave one day. **But wh** **y doesn't the NIV want to tell people that satan will be going to hell?**

Now read how Terry Watkins explains it in his tract: NEW INTERNATION (PER)VERSION:

" **The NIV removes and perverts the place of hell!**

**The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible.** _In the Old Testament of the NIV it occurs - ZERO! The word "hell" is NOT in the Old Testament of the NIV!_

And what do they do with "hell"? Take **PSALM 9:17** for example: The King James reads, _"The wicked shall be turned into_ _HELL_ _. . ."_ The NIV, reads, _"The wicked return to the_ _GRAVE_ _. . ."_ _We ALL "return to the GRAVE"!_ By removing "hell" the NIV perverts Psalm 9:17 into nonsense!

In the New Testament the NIV zaps out "hell" 9 times. And what "clearer" "easier to understand" word does the NIV "update" hell with? _Five times they use - HADES!_ (Matt 16:18, Rev 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14). What "common person" understands **HADES?** _Everybody knows what HELL is! Do you know what HADES is?_ Hades is not always a place of torment or terror. The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". _In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!_ _Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary_ defines HADES: _"the underground abode of the dead in Greek_ _MYTHOLOGY_ _"._ _The NIV perverts your Bible into MYTHOLOGY!_

Dear reader, do you need to be a theoligically learned man or woman to see that there are MAJOR problems in the text of the NIV? _"But Tiaan if you read the Preface to the NIV, you will see it was translated by literally hundreds of people of which many were learned people! Could they all be so wrong?"_ Yes, I believe they could all have been deceived into believing they were doing the right thing, while these things were actually hid from them by "the god of this world" ( **2 Corinthians 4:4** ). And I make that presumption from the fact that the Bible Committee they appointed for this work, worked under the financial backing and auspices of the New York Bible Society (later called the International Bible Society or now also known as the United Bible Society (UBS) and we have already seen who is actually in charge of the UBS and what their true sentiments and beliefs are. It does not for one minute mean those translators were unsaved or not believers in the true sense, it just means they were deceived, as all these changes we have discussed, speak for themself.

It is also very interesting to note that all these verses I have quoted so far from the NIV, which have been changed, **contain exactly the same changes or omissions that were made in the Holy Trinity Edition of the Roman Catholic Bible** , which I have in my personal possession. Now why would one of the "most favoured" modern English Protestant Bibles contain the same changes and/or omissions as those contained in the Roman Catholic Bible? Did all those hundreds of thousands of Protestants who gave their lives in the Reformation in order to ensure that God's true Word is safeguarded from the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, die in vain?

Or do Protestant Christians of today really believe that the Roman Catholic Church has changed its tactics? There is enough proof all over the world in every kind of social media (Internet, newspapers, television, Facebook, YouTube etc. etc.) to show that they haven't changed. They still want to be in charge of the Bible as the Jesuits said during the Reformation, as I quoted earlier in this book. And if you really start to scrutinize the Bible translations and you compare it to their Bible, you may be surprised to see that step by step they are succeeding in their plan to pull the Protestants back under their Roman Catholic wing.
5.

WHY ARE CERTAIN VERSES OMITTED COMPLETELY?

Now we must take note of the fact that the following verses were COMPLETELY OMITTED from the NIV. The reader must also take note of the fact that this is by no means a complete list of verses that were omitted, but actually just a drop in the proverbial bucket. Any serious Bible student can do further research and he or she will find many more such examples of verses that were omitted. The easiest way to check this, is to buy one of the Study Bibles that contain three different Bible translations, e.g. the KJV, the NIV and/or the NASV (New American Standard Version or similar). Then all you need to do is to page through that Bible and you will see the verses that are not there in the modern versions anymore. Or you can use any one of many Bible programs available on the market to download on your computer to do similar comparisons.

But still remember the following words:

"And _if any man shall take away_ from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." ( **Revelation 22:19** )

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, _neither shall ye diminish_ (take away) _ought from it,_ that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." ( **Deuteronomy 4:2** )

These are the verses:

1. **KJV: (Matthew 17:21)** _: "_ Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

In the NIV this verse is omitted. (But there is a little footnote containing the verse. And remember what David Cloud wrote regarding the reason for the footnotes – to produce doubt as to whether the verse should be there or not.)

2. KJV: (Matthew 18:11): "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

In the NIV this verse is omitted. This is quite an important verse that is omitted. And why is it omitted? Again just because it can prove that Jesus Christ as the Son of man can save the lost. (And again there is a footnote that reads that: _"Some manuscripts..."_ contain those specific words. The _"some manuscripts"_ referred to are none other than the 95% genuine and original manuscripts!)

3. KJV: (Mark 9:44 + 46): "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

In the NIV BOTH these verses are omitted. Through this the view that some people hold, that hell won't burn forever as some denominations believe, can be "proven" from this Bible as the verses saying that the fire won't be quenched, are gone. (But yet again there are two footnotes which read that _"Some manuscripts..."_ do contain those words. The _"some manuscripts"_ referred to are none other than the 95% genuine and original manuscripts!)

4. KJV: (Mark 11:26): "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

In the NIV this verse is omitted. According to me this is a very important verse that suddenly vanished. (And again there is a footnote that reads that: _"Some manuscripts..."_ contain those specific words. The _"some manuscripts"_ referred to are none other than the 95% genuine and original manuscripts!)

5. KJV: (Romans 16:24): "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

In the NIV this verse is omitted. Why would a verse that teaches us that Jesus Christ's grace is with us be omitted? Well that's easy, because if Jesus was just another human being, as the Arian heresy tries to prove, His grace can't be with us as He is not God then! By omitting this verse just another little piece of Jesus' deity or divinity is removed from this "Bible". (And again there is a footnote that reads that: _"Some manuscripts..."_ contain those specific words. The _"some manuscripts"_ referred to are none other than the 95% genuine and original manuscripts!)

From this we can see that the footnotes most definitely produce doubt among the readers as to whether those verses should be deemed to be important, or not. And by writing: _"Some manuscripts..."_ doubt is immediately produced by the translators of this "Bible" because if only "some" manuscripts contain those verses then surely they can't be very important can they? But if the readers knew that the MAJORITY of the genuine and original manuscripts DID contain those verses, they would have thought differently about the importance of the specific verses.

These footnotes are used in two different "directions" to produce doubt in the minds of uninformed readers. The first way it is used is in the way as shown above, to omit the verse from the main text and add a footnote at the bottom, containing the verse which then produces doubt about the authority of that specific verse.

Another way in which it is used is where they leave the verse IN the main text of the Bible but it is printed in _italics_ and then there is a footnote that reads something like: _"The italicized section is found only in later manuscripts"._ This is done for example in the Amplified Bible. In this way doubt is produced in the mind of the uninformed reader because if only some "later manuscripts" contained the verse then surely it is not part of the "oldest and best" manuscripts and should actually be disregarded. And if that reader does not have knowledge of the history of the genuine manuscripts versus the corrupt manuscripts as we saw in the first few chapters of this book, and thus does not know that the oldest manuscripts are not necessarily the best manuscripts, he will most definitely doubt the importance of that verse.

Some other footnotes which are sometimes used in different "Bibles" are: _"Some manuscripts do not contain this verse"_ , or: _"Many manuscripts do not contain this verse"._ Immediately doubt is produced again: if some mansucripts do not contain a specific verse, or if many manuscripts do not contain such a verse, then surely it can't be important or carry any authority? And in this manner certain important scriptures disappear from that reader's personal walk of faith.

For some self-study on verses that were also omitted completely from the NIV, just compare: **Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, and Acts 28:29.**
6.

WHERE HAS JESUS' NAME GONE?

In the following scriptures the names **"JESUS"** or **"JESUS CHRIST"** or **"CHRIST"** are also OMITTED. Now let's ask ourselves a question: Would God insert His own Son's Name a specific number of times in His own Book in one specific time in history and then a little later have His own Son's Name omitted from His own Book? I don't think so. So if God wouldn't do such a thing and it is not from His Holy Spirit, which "spirit" is really in charge behind these modern so-called "Bibles"?

1. **(Acts 2:30)**

KJV: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, _he would raise up Christ_ to sit on his throne..."

NIV: "But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place _one of his descendants_ on the throne."

This verse refers to David who prophetically knew that God would raise up Christ out of his bloodline and that the Messiah would be from his line of descendants. God did not just promise him that "one of his descendants" would sit on his throne, because from the Bible it is clear that a number of his descendants did physically sit on his throne. No, the promise God gave him was much deeper, but this truth is removed from the NIV and other modern "Bibles".

2. (2 Timothy 4:22)

KJV: _"_ _The Lord Jesus Christ_ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen."

NIV: " _The Lord_ be with your spirit. Grace be with you."

Why would God remove the wonderful promise that the Lord Jesus Christ will be with our spirit, from His own Book? Or is the reason behind this because they are trying to remove Jesus' deity or divinity in subtle little ways like this? We know according to **John 4:23,24** that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is spirit and that is why He as God can be with our spirit. But you see if Jesus is just another human being as the Arian heresy has been trying to prove for centuries, surely He can't be with our spirit? So rather get rid of that verse in the modern versions... Does this new verse really give us "better insight" with regards to God's original message that His Son will be with our spirit?

3. (1 Corinthians 16:22)

KJV: "If any man love not _the Lord Jesus Christ_ , let him be Anathema Maranatha."

NIV: "If anyone does not love _the Lord_ – a curse be on him! Come, O Lord"

It is a well-known fact that believers in other faiths also call their gods "Lord". Even Satanists call satan "Lord". The New Age are known champions for a "universal Christ" for different faiths. This New Age "Christ" just has different names in the different faith groups. BUT there is ONLY ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST! By slowly removing His Name from verses like these, eventually they can take a modern "Bible" to any of the other faiths and tell them: _"But we Christians believe in the same "Christ" that you do..."_ , because I personally believe there will come a day where you will see "Bibles" where the Name of Jesus Christ will not even be mentioned.

I still wonder why GOD would omit His own Son's Name from His own book if He **never changes**? Or is this just more proof to us that it is NOT God who sits behind this so-called "Bible? Which spirit is at work here? Is it not clearly the spirit of the antichrist?

4. (Romans 1:16)

KJV: "For I am not ashamed of _the gospel of Christ:_ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth..."

NIV: "I am not ashamed of _the gospel_ , because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes..."

It seems that in this modern version called the NIV they are indeed ashamed of the gospel OF CHRIST, to such an extent of even removing His Name. Remember that the Buddhists, Hindus and some other faiths also have their own so-called "gospels". The word "gospel" means "good news" and so do other faith groups believe that they also have their own "good news" in their faith. But only Christians have the TRUE GOSPEL ("good news") OF JESUS CHRIST.

5. (2 Corinthians 5:18)

KJV: "And all things are of God, who hath _reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,_ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation..."

NIV: "All this is from God, who _reconciled us to himself through Christ_ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation."

As I already stated it is clear from research that the New Age Movement are champions for a one-world "universal Christ", who has or will have different names in different faiths. **But there is only ONE JESUS Christ**! Why does His NAME disappear so conveniently from this verse? Clearly it is working towards the day where other faiths can be told that we all believe in the same "Christ" who reconciled us to "God", whoever you may think that "God" is, because Jesus has been taken out of the picture. And you know what, if Jesus is taken out of the picture, anything goes.

6. (Galatians 4:7)

KJV: "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then _an heir of God through Christ_."

NIV: "So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, _God has made you also an heir._ "

Here the eternal message that we can only become "heirs of God" THROUGH CHRIST has been removed from the NIV. Is the message still the same? Or can any New Ager now also read this "Bible" and decide that his "God", whoever that may be, has also made him an heir of that "God"?

7. (Galatians 6:15)

KJV: " _For in Christ Jesus_ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

NIV: "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."

The confirmation that we only become a new creation IN CHRIST JESUS has been omitted from this verse. Is the message still the same? Or has it become just that little easier to take this modern "Bible" and go to other faiths to tell them: _"There are many roads leading to God, not only through Jesus Christ anymore, as long as you just become a new creation"._ This is exactly what the New Age has been trying to tell the world since its very beginning, that man can be saved in many different ways and not only through Jesus Christ. It is no wonder that dr Gail Riplinger calls the NIV one of the New Age Bible Versions.

8. (Ephesians 3:9)

KJV: "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, _who created all things by Jesus Christ_..."

NIV: "...and to make plain to everyone the administration of his mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, _who created all things._ "

This is an incredibly important verse! This CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT confirmation that God created ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST has suddenly "disappeared" from this verse. Why would that be? The answer is easy – it is because the world does not want to know and acknowledge that Jesus Himself is the Creator God! So take it out of the "Bible" and yet another piece of Jesus' deity or divinity falls by the wayside...

9. (Ephesians 3:14)

KJV: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father _of our Lord Jesus Christ,._.."

NIV: "For this reason I kneel before the Father,..."

This direct confirmation that God is Jesus' Father has been removed. Now it's in line with other verses in the NIV that we already looked at that states that JOSEPH was Jesus' "father" ( **Luke 2:33** ). Now it becomes easier to tell the world: _"There is no verse in the "Bible" that directly states that GOD was Jesus' father, but there are clear verses in this "Bible" that state that Joseph was Jesus' father, so from this it is clear that Jesus was just another human being..."_ And the Arian heresy lives on...

10. (Colossians 1:2)

KJV: "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, _from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ._ "

NIV: "To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you _from God our Father._ "

Why is the grace and peace _"...from... the Lord Jesus Christ"_ suddenly not in this verse anymore? Is it because another piece of Jesus' deity or divinity had to be taken out? Because if He is just another human being, surely he cannot give us grace and peace, so remove that part of the verse!

11. (Matthew 8:29)

KJV: "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, _Jesus, thou Son of God?_ art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"

NIV: "What do you want with us, _Son of God?"_ they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

Why is the NAME of the "Son of God" – Jesus - suddenly omitted from this verse? Is it just another piece in the puzzle to try and "prove" the Arian heresy from this so-called "Bible" that JESUS was indeed NOT the Son of God? If God never changes, WHY do these Bible versions differ so radically?

In the NIV we find a new and scary thing coming to the fore, and that is the fact that the NIV advocates "another Jesus". We are warned in **2 Corinthians 11:4** :

"For if he that cometh _preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached,_ or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

Now how can we say that the NIV _"preacheth another Jesus"_? Just have a look at the following scriptures:

12. (John 15:21)

**KJV:** "But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, _because they know not him that sent me._ "

**NIV:** "They will treat you this way because of my name, for _they do not know the One who sent me._ "

13. **(Revelation 1:18)**

**KJV:** "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."

**NIV:** "I am _the Living One;_ I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

14. (John 1:14)

**KJV:** "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, _the glory as of the only begotten of the Father_ ,) full of grace and truth."

**NIV:** "We have seen his glory, _the glory of the One and Only,_ who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

It doesn't look that strange to the eye, now does it? And surely _"the One"_ or _"the Living One"_ or _"the One and Only"_ refers to Jesus Christ does it not? Let us read what professor Riplinger wrote in her book:

" _Books like "Sensuous Spirituality", by avowed lesbian NIV editor Virginia Mollenkott, echo the New Age movement's hopes to replace the "he" of Christianity with the neuter "One" of Hinduism. Intervarsity Press warns: "_ _The One must move from the avante garde fringe to the very heart and mind of society. The whole society must be brought into harmony with the One as the New Consciousness produces the New Age_ _..._

The One" is being smuggled into Christianity, concealed under the cover of new bible versions like the New King James Version (NKJV)(and the NIV)... If "the One" does not come from the original Greek or Hebrew, what is its source?

The Encyclopaedia of Mysticism and Mystery Religions unravels the "mystery":

"One": Term for the Ultimate... In MANY MYSTICAL RELIGIONS and philosophies.... _The New Age resurrects the mystery religions revealing "the One's" threefold meaning:_

_1. "_ _The One" or "the Only One" is LUCIFER,_ _the angel of this planet's evolution._

2. "The One" or "the Living One" is all of reality as described in pantheism (everything is God and God is everything) or monism (All is One and One is All).

3. "The Coming One" or "The Mighty One" is Lord Matreyia's New Age Christ (antichrist)....

_The One" is so central to Luciferian teaching that the entire first chapter of "The Secret Doctrine" (Madame Helena Blavatsky) is a discussion of "the One"_ _. This title is so pervasive in the book that it covers an entire page in her index._

"That which is One, the wise call it in diverse manner..." (Hinduism's "Rig Veda")

"In the infinite One... The God of Force..." (New Age "The Aquarian Conspiracy")

"Allah is One..." (Islam's Qur'an 112)

" _The Blessed One..."_ (Hinduism's "Bhagavad Gita")

"The Great One..." (Tibetan Buddhism)

_The NIV's Mollenkott says:_ _"To refer to God HERSELF seems to me a humanly just way of referring to the One who is NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE."_ _New Age bible versions again parrot pagans like Blavatsky, saying,_ _"the One" is NOT JESUS CHRIST."  
_ ("New Age Bible Versions" – G.A.Riplinger)

The book "The Shack" also proves its New Age foundation, as "God" is first typified as a black woman and later as an old white man. In the OCCULT the androgynous god (simultaneously male and female) is a strong symbol. _"Mackenzie, I am NEITHER male nor female..."_ ( **"The Shack" p.93** )

Speaking about Virginia Mollenkott, have a look at what Terry Watkins wrote in his mentioned tract regarding her sexuality and the effect of her **BETROKKENHEID** with the NIV:

" **The NIV and sexual perversion!**

Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" _". . ._ _the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."_ Verses 26-27 says _"FOR THIS CAUSE_ (vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE") _God gave them up unto_ _vile affections:_ _for even their women did change the_ _natural use_ _into that which is_ _against nature:_ _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, . . ."_

The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as _Heather Has Two Mommies_ and _Daddy's Roommate_ , promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to _The Washington Post_ , bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. _And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!_

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, _Witness_ (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, _"My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ."_ To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, _". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ."_ is replaced with the non-offensive _". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual_ _offenders._ _. ."_ _Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" -_ _but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS"._

Can it be spelled out any clearer to any rational, thinking child of God? All the quoted scriptures – and as I said these are not the only ones containing problems – prove that the spirit of antichrist is very subtily but also very successfully busy undermining the Word of God as contained in the Bible.

But we must take note of the fact that God effectively wrote only one TRUE "Bible". We find the confirmation of this in the following scripture:

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." **(Psalm 119:89)**

That is why every child of God must make an effort to discuss every verse that he or she reads, with the Holy Spirit and to ask Him to confirm that which he or she had read in the light of the Lord's word that is settled in heaven. God is still the Author of His own Word and we must discuss the Author's Book with the Author Himself, by speaking to His Holy Spirit. Only then will we receive peace about that which we have read in the Bible.

" _Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:_ for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." ( **John 16:13** )
7.

ARE THE NEW "BIBLES" STILL WORTHY OF THE TITLE: "THE BIBLE"?

If the "new scientific knowledge" makes the NIV "easier to read", or gives us "better insights" into the message of the Bible and is so "true" to the original manuscripts as the modern translators argue, and want us to believe, why is it so STRIKINGLY OBVIOUS when just these two English versions are compared with each other – without even taking note of the Hebrew and Greek – **that the Deity or Divinity, Kingship, Lordship and the fact that He is the "Son of God", of Jesus Christ is OMITTED, DILUTED or just REMOVED** in very subtle little ways in the NIV and all the other modern English translations?

Is it just maybe in an effort to give the Arian heresy – **that Jesus was not really God, but just another human being** – which has existed since the time of Eusebius in approximately 330 AD, life and power to this day?

Immediately it causes that we as normal, theologically unschooled children of God, start to feel unsure about the Bible we hold in our hands. Because if we can't trust the Bible that God has given us in our English language, how can we ever receive assurance of our salvation or of God's eternal message of hope?

Could it be that God has "changed His mind" about the FACT that His Son should be the ONLY Messiah and Redeemer for mankind? We know God does not change His mind, so this is not it.

OR...

Is it exactly because satan – through his spirit of antichrist – wants the message of **John 14:6** that Jesus Christ is the ONLY WAY to the Father, to disappear?

OR......

Is it just maybe so that the New Age view that there are MANY roads leading to God, can now also be "proven" from every modern "Bible" that is translated? As I said before it is a well-known fact that the Roman Catholic Church is working hard to a one-world "Bible" that will be acceptable to ALL people thereby eventually making the New Age "Christ" acceptable to ALL faith groups.

I believe that God gave every nation in the world a Bible in their own language from the genuine and original manuscripts. Every so-called "translation" thereafter that deviates from that first Bible and the genuine and original manuscripts, is used by satan to sow doubt in the truth of God's Word which the father gave to that nation in the first place.

Of course satan won't bring all the changes, omissions and removals in at one time because then all Christians will jump up and resist that. No he does it over a period of years and even centuries, because in that way that well-known little frog swimming in a pot of water can be slowly cooked to death without even realizing that he is being killed. And if we Christians don't open our eyes to the truth and take our stand regarding this eternally important matter, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren may not be able to hold a Bible in their hands which can show them the TRUE way of salvation which is only to be found IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST one day.

Also remember the following unambiguous words:

" _All scripture is given by inspiration of God,_ and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." ( **2 Timothy 3:16,17** )

Would this verse still be valid for a so-called "Bible" which REMOVES proof of God's own Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus over and over again? Would GOD really "inspire" such an "amended" message regarding HIMSELF and His own SON?

Or does this actually prove to us as normal children of God that every so-called Bible "translation" that came AFTER the King James Version can not lay claim to the title "Word of God" or even "The Bible" (as book) anymore?

Another interesting piece of the puzzle regarding the problems contained in the NIV is found in who the publishers of that "Bible" are, as Terry Watkins explains in his mentioned tract:

" **The NIV & Zondervan**

**A little known fact:** In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by _Harper & Row, Publishers_ (now _HarperCollins_ _Publishers_ ). _HarperCollins_ publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as _Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality_ described as _"Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,... Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships...the intricacies of love play..."_ and many other pro-homosexual books!

_HarperCollins_ is a subsidiary of the global media empire, _The News Corporation,_ owned by Rupert Murdock. The _News Corporation_ empire include Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. _Fox Broadcasting_ produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, _the Sun_ , notorious for its nude pin-ups.

**VERY IMPORTANT!** For the REAL PROOF Check out this link to HarperCollins

_Now where is Don Wildmon when we really need him?_ Don was quick to boycott Kmart because subsidiary, _Waldenbooks_ sold Playboy and Penthouse. Kmart can't "hold a candle" to the "filth" spewed by _The News Corporation_. Why isn't Don boycotting Zondervan and the NIV? Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — **AND THE SATANIC BIBLE!** _"Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?"_ Amos 3:3

Jesus Christ **plainly** said in Matthew 7:17-18:

_Even so every_ _GOOD_ _tree bringeth forth_ _GOOD_ _fruit; but a_ _CORRUPT_ _tree bringeth forth_ _EVIL FRUIT_ _. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a_ _CORRUPT_ _tree bring forth_ _GOOD FRUIT._ (Matthew 7:17-18)

Do you think Jesus Christ was LIE-ING?

_Do you really believe God would ALLOW His HOLY word to be "owned" by that group?_ _"...for what fellowship hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? and what communion hath light with darkness?"_ (2 Cor. 6:14)

Do you actually believe God would ALLOW His Holy Word to be published by the same ungodly people who publish the Satanic Bible?

_Being born again, not of_ _CORRUPTIBLE_ _seed, but of_ _INCORRUPTIBLE_ _, by the_ _WORD OF GOD_ _, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)_

Isn't it EQUALLY amazing that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not OWNED by men? That's right! The King James Bible has no COPYRIGHT ownership! It's copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which ALLOWS it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME! Without asking ANYBODY for permission!

_". . .but the word of God is NOT BOUND."_ (2 Timothy 2:9)

Child of God, as of today go make your own decision as to which English Bible you want to use in your personal time of worship and your walk of faith with Jesus Christ: -

Either a Bible (KJV) which is based on the genuine original manuscripts which were protected by God Himself over the centuries, and which CONFIRMS His Trinity, which CONFIRMS Jesus Christ's Deity or Divinity and which CONFIRMS Biblical truths,

OR...

A "Bible" (NIV and many others) which REMOVES proof of God's Trinity, which slowly but surely REMOVES Jesus Christ's Deity or Divinity, and which OMITS certain Biblical truths...

In the same manner any child of God can compare any other modern English Bible translation which is presently available on the market, or may become available in future, with the verses which I quoted in this book and which are from the KJV, to decide whether the same problems exist in those Bible versions or not.

These changed scriptures I used to compare the Bibles with each other are only a few of literally thousands which exist in the NIV, but they were enough to convince me to start using the KJV and no other modern translation anymore. In the same way you as reader of this book must also decide which translation of the Bible you want to keep on reading. But just keep in mind that you will not receive the full extent of all the spiritual truths from any of the modern English versions which come from the corrupt manuscripts.
8.

THE BIBLE I CAN READ AND UNDERSTAND

From al the aforegoing it is clear that I can read the King James Version and understand it, just as it is written, so that I can learn to DO what it says, just as it is written. I don't have to have any long arguments regarding interpretation or translations anymore. And no surprise, I found that since I got saved in 1999, the more I just started appropriating and then DOING what the Bible says just as it is written (without even looking at the Hebrew or Greek) the things the Bible teaches started happening in my personal life. It started working in my marriage, in my finances, in my children's lives, in my relationships with other people, etc. etc.. Why? For no other reason than that it is the living Word of a living God and which is inspired by His Holy Spirit.

That means that God Himself ensured that that which I need to read to be saved and thereafter to live a sanctified life and to grow spiritually, is available in the King James Version. In my personal relationship and walk of faith with God I may start digging deeper into the Hebrew and Greek language usages in the Bible if I wanted to - and if they are available to me – but if I don't have books or computer programs available containing the original languages, the KJV contains everything which I need to live a life pleasing to God. I don't have to feel the least bit guilty because I can't read or understand the Hebrew and Greek languages like the learned people, because God has ensured in His wonderful mercy and love that I will find everything I need in English in the KJV. I believe He did exaclty the same for the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Germans, Russians, Swedes, Philippians, and all the other people on this earth so that they can read His truths in their own specific languages.

May this book awaken a hunger in every reader of this book to start reading the KJV for yourself, and to apply it to your own life, just as it is written and as the Holy Spirit may further reveal it to you. Someone once said: _"Some prefer to read their Bible in Hebrew, some prefer to read their Bible in Greek. I prefer to read my Bible in the Holy Spirit!"_ So actually it doesn't matter in which LANGUAGE my Bible is written, if I always ask the Holy Spirit to reveal its truths to me, I will be able to understand all the things contained therein, albeit the spiritual, the analogous or the symbolism.

It is not for nothing that **2 Corinthians 3:5,6** state:

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; _not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life._ "

Thus if I don't learn to read my Bible through the "eyes" of the Holy Spirit and as He directs, most of the things I read will just be dead letters to me which won't give me SPIRITUAL life. But the moment that the Holy Spirit starts to reveal the things of the Word to me, I will realize that I can practically apply everything I read in the Word, to my own life. The Bible is clear that He (Holy Spirit) is the One who teaches us according to **1 John 2:27** which I have already quoted earlier, and I also read the following in **John 16:13** :

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, _he will guide you into ALL truth_ : for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

So we see the Holy Spirit is the only true Teacher who leads me into ALL truth. If I find myself in certain circumstances in my life where I need answers to certain questions, the Holy Spirit will lead me to specific scriptures that contain the answer/s that I need at that time in my life. Later on I may find myself in other circumstances and then exactly the same verse can mean something different to me in that period of my life and in this manner the Bible becomes a Living Word which is a lamp unto my feet.

My call today is exactly the same one which caused thousands of people to lose their lives during the Reformation, even dying at the stakes and being burned to death:

" _Sola Scriptura!"_ ("The Scripture alone!")

With the condition of course that the Holy Spirit as the true and only Teacher will reveal it to you Himself.
9.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE "APOCRYPHAL BOOKS"?

I find that many people who have just become born again suddenly have this "urge" to start reading the so-called "Apocryphal Books" or "Deutero-Canonical" books. Why is this? Why don't they have the same urge to FIRST read through the WHOLE Bible? Many believers who have not yet read through the Bible even once, can't seem to get enough of the Apocryphal books. What is going on? According to me it is because satan tries to stop those young Christians to FIRST get fed on the true Word of God and the truth contained therein, and so he leads them into deception. Because those apocryphal books contain a lot of things that can cause you to doubt what you will read in the Word of God. They are NOT part of the Bible and they were NOT Holy Spirit inspired!

Firstly it is interesting to note that the word "apocrypha" means: "hidden things". Strangely enough the word: "occult" also means: "hidden".

So where are these Apocryphal books from? We find the answer in the archives of the Roman Catholic Church's "Council of Trent" of 1546:

" _Whoever shall not receive as SACRED and canonical all these books and every part of them,_ _as THEY ARE COMMONLY READ IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND ARE CONTAINED IN THE OLD VULGATE LATIN EDITION_ _, or shall knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed."_ **(Council of Trent Fourth Session)**

Very clearly then the Apocryphal books ALSO come from the Roman Catholic Church and more specifically from Jerome's Latin Vulgate which he translated in 380 AD. And we already saw in the opening chapters of this book what the problems were regarding Jerome's Latin Vulgate. And we have also already seen what the plans of the Roman Catholic Church were and still are regarding the control of the Bible and the Biblical manuscripts. It is to get the Protestants to accept a deviant text, and the apocryphal books definitely play a part in this whole hidden scheme.

Friend, if you may have been ignorant regarding the book that you read as a Bible to date hereof, relax and know that God is not angry with you because of your ignorance:

" _And the times of this ignorance God winked at;_ BUT NOW commandeth all men every where to repent:..." ( **Acts 17:30** )

As you can see, there are two very important words in that verse: "...BUT NOW...", so after reading this book you can't hide behind ignorance anymore. Let's ensure from now onwards that we rather use a Bible that comes from the genuine and original manuscripts.

To end this study then: "Why do Bible versions differ?"

Because **satan** , over centuries and with the help of thousands of human agents (whether they knew they were so being used or not) like Origen, Eusebius, Westcott, Hort and others, and especially the Roman Catholic Church, standing behind and working through the World Council of Churches and the United Bible Society,

1. wants to control the Word of God and change it as he deems fit;

2. wants to deceive Protestant Christian believers about the infallibility and inerrancy of the Word of God;

3. wants to remove the deity and divinity of Jesus Christ as God;

4. wants to remove Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to God; and

5. wants to have a one-world Bible that is acceptable to all faiths.

And that, dear reader is why I personally can't use any of the other Bible translations anymore, because how can I use and/or trust a so-called "Bible" which I now know is part of this kind of "hidden spiritual agenda" if I call myself a Holy Spirit-filled Protestant Christian believer?

But please take note that it does not affect your salvation. If you gave your heart to Jesus Christ while still using one of the corrupt modern versions, it does not mean you are not saved. You gave your heart to Jesus Christ, not to that specific book. However now that you have new knowledge regarding the SPIRITUAL agenda behind the Bible translations and if you want to really grow further spiritually, it is time to make a very important decision regarding the Bible you use... May the Holy Spirit of God speak into your heart.

tiaan gildenhuys  
Authority in Christ Ministries  
Pretoria  
RSA  
September 2014

www.oicb.co.za
Index/Bibliography:

1. Die Bybel (1933/53-vertaling)

2. Die Bybel (1983-vertaling)

3. King James Version Holy Bible (KJV)

4. New King James Version Bible (NKJV)

5. New International Version Bible (NIV)

6. The Amplified Bible

7. The Recovery Bible

8. The Holy Trinity Edition Bible of the Roman Catholic Church

9. "Bewaar my Woord" – Mev. J.C. Erasmus

10. "Die Sataniese Aanslag op die Woord van God" – Dr. Hennie Prinsloo

11. "Is die 83-vert. die Bybel?" – Dr. Martin Gunther

12. "Lewe in die Woord Bulletin" – Past. Hennie van Zyl

13. Verdraaiings in die Nuwe Vertaling – Prof. J.S.Malan

14. "Ter wille van die Waarheid van die Woord" – Johan Gouws

15. "Aanslag op die Bybel" – Johan Malan & Francois Malan

16. "Afrikaanse Bybelvertalingsprojek"(Proefvertaling) – Bybelgenootskap van SA

17. "Which Bible?" – D.O.Fuller

18. "God wrote only one Bible" – Jasper J. Ray

19. "Battle of the Bibles" – Prof. Walter J. Veith

20. "Which Bible can we trust?" – Les Garrett

21. "The Jesuits in History" – Hector Macpherson. Springfield Missouri, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997. Appendix 1.

22. "The Revision Revised" – Dean Burgon

23. "The Historic faith" London: Macmillan and Co.1885

24. "De Teks van het Nieuwe Testament" – Dr. J.van Bruggen

25. "What about the New King James Version" – David Cloud

26. "New Age Bible Versions" – G.A.Riplinger

27. "New International (Per)Version" – Terry Watkins
