IS YOUR BIBLE
THE RIGHT ONE?
by Richard Jordan
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians 2:17)
For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James
Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be
the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.
Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible
versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market.
There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions
really reliable - are they really versions or, as many have come to claim,
perversions of the Word of God?
Our examination of this important subject will by no means be exhaustive, given
the space available to us here, but we hope to give the reader enough
information that as an informed believer you can make a sound decision as to
which Bible is reliable and which version in not.
A bit of background to begin with: In 1881 there was introduced into public
circulation a new Bible text. It came through the work of the Revision Committee
which produced the (English) Revised Version, 1881, and the American Standard
Version, 1901.
This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership
and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations. It has
been used to replace the Received Text of the KJV and its predecessors. There
is, however, a growing awareness that this new Greek text is not reliable-and
more and more are returning, we have, to the KJV.
As we compare verses, we will see why this is true. We have objective evidence
as the reliability of the KJV as opposed to the new bible versions-overwhelming
evidence that new versions are not simply better translations. Nor are they
simply revisions of the KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts which
often question, discredit and water down important and vital truths basic to the
Christian faith (cf. Genesis 3:1).
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between
the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations
difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of
two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:
In Matthew 1:25 the words "her firstborn son" are consistently omitted by modern
versions. In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the
Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic
rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new
versions embrace the Roman reading.
Verses such as Matthew 17:21 and 23:14 are omitted entirely, while in Matthew
24:36 the words "nor the Son" are added.
There are literally hundreds of these type textual alternations which have
nothing to do with translation. They come because of the difference in what is
being translated-the Greek texts being used are substantially different. And the
difference is by no means insignificant.
In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to
affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they
nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new
versions of perverting God's Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:
In John 1:27 the words "is preferred before me" are omitted, so that John is
made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 "he that believeth on
me hath everlasting life" is changed to read: "he who believes has everlasting
life" (NIV) The words "on me" are left out [footnote 1] .
John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God "the Father instead of
"my Father," as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the
first and the last," referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ
is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate
His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity
(e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10;
Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).
Other vital truths are also affected. For examples, in I Corinthians 5:7 the
words "for us" are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of
Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not
necessarily "for us" (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn't surprising that Hebrews
1:3 omits the words "by Himself" from the phrase: "When He had by Himself purged
our sins." There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause "through His blood" is
omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for
redemption.
Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to
read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born.
Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an
important change should have been offered.
In Luke 24:51 the words "And carried up into heaven," referring to our Lord's
ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words "because I go to the Father" are
omitted.
By now it should be obvious that the new versions are not simply "better
translations" or a revision of KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible
texts. Nor is it true that they contain only minor changes which do not affect
basic meanings.
The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so
as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where
the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern
versions are dangerous to spiritual health.
1. We are using the New International Version for comparison quotes because of
its present popularity. What is true of it however, is consistently true of
other versions.
SERIOUS QUESTIONS
Because of the subtle nature of the deception used to corrupt God's Word, we
want to offer three examples of the absolute devastation caused by these new
versions. The complacent nature of current thinking in regard to these issues
has caused some to pass off as only a minor irritant the numerous passages which
are altered so as to eliminate or dilute statements on the deity of Christ, the
virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, etc. Because of this, and the emotional
allegiance often attached to those recommending the modern versions, we ask our
readers to consider the impact of these three passages on their faith. These
three passages are irrefutable, objective evidence that modern versions are
unsafe.
1. Matthew 5:22: Often it is difficult to grasp the impact of what seems to an
innocent omission. Here is a verse where this syndrome is demonstrated to be a
subtle trap leading to spiritual destruction. In KJV the verse reads,
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be
in danger of hell fire."
The NIV renders the verse thus:
"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to
judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the
Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of
hell."
Did you catch the omission? The phrase "without a cause" is omitted from the
statement "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in
danger of the judgment." This does not seem to be too very consequential at
first glance. But for a Bible student who is serious about believing and
honoring the Word of God, this verse is devastating.
If the reader is diligent it will not be long before he comes upon Mark 3:5,
were we are told about our Lord:
"And when he had LOOKED ROUND ABOUT ON THEM WITH ANGER, BEING GRIEVED FOR THE
HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS..."
The problem is obvious: If the NIV reading is to stand, our lord is condemned by
His own words.
This is no small matter! By this seemingly unimportant omission in Matthew 5:22
the modern versions have destroyed the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ and
established him as a sinner, condemned for failure to live by His own
declaration.
2. Mark 1:2: This verse brings up the dementia associated with the use of modern
versions. The following change is so amazing that we doubt anyone would believe
it if the record was not clear. In KJV the verse reads,
"As IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee."
The NIV rendering is consistent with other modern versions:
"IT IS WRITTEN IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who
will prepare your way."
Any reference edition or center column reference will quickly establish the
problem for modern versions: The quotation in Mark 1:2 is not from Isaiah. It is
from Malachi 3:1. Mark 1:3 is a quote from Isaiah 40:3. Thus two prophets are
being quoted, not one. The statement in NIV (and other new versions) is simply
false.
This is simply a case of the Greek text and resultant English translation being
wrong. It is a mistake, plain and simple. No amount of sophistry can argue
around it. Notice the verse does not say, "It was spoken in Isaiah" (as in the
case of Matthew 27:9's quote of Jeremiah). No. The quote is clearly said to have
been "written in Isaiah."
Two possibilities exits: Either Isaiah, as we have it, is incomplete, omitting
the quote (and thus the Bible itself so not complete), or Mark is mistaken,
having given the wrong reference (which would mean that the Holy Spirit made a
mistake writing the Scripture).
These two choices leave us in the unenviable position of having to adjust our
understanding of Biblical infallibility. The doctrine of infallibility will not
stand the test if the reading of the new versions is accepted.
3. Hebrews 3:16: We add this reference because it too seems to be too impossible
to be real. Unfortunately it is all too real-and illustrative of the caliber of
modern versions. KJV renders the verse this way:
"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit NOT ALL THAT CAME OUT OF
EGYPT BY MOSES."
The verses changed in NIV to read:
"Who were they who heard and rebelled? WHERE THEY NOT ALL THOSE MOSES LED OUT OF
EGYPT?"
In others words, KJV says that "not all that came out of Egypt by Moses"
rebelled while NIV indicates that "all those Moses led out of Egypt" did rebel.
Any junior in Sunday School knows which of the two is right!
After four decades of wilderness wanderings, Moses addressed Israel as she
prepares to enter the promised land. Deuteronomy 29:2 tells us,
"And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the
Lord did BEFORE YOUR EYES IN THE LAND OF EGYPT UNTO PHARAOH..."
(cf. Deuteronomy 1:30).
Obviously some of these who were in Egypt and saw with their own eyes what God
had done there also entered into the promised land, having not rebelled in the
wilderness. As we said, any junior aged boy or girl could name two of them:
Joshua and Caleb! One wonders what the translators of the NIV and other versions
have been reading.
Why should we accept a Bible version that is not true-especially when we have
one that is? Why would we accept a Bible that openly denies the sinlessness of
our Lord and that makes the doctrine of Scriptural infallibility a falsehood?
THE BOOK WILL DEFEND ITSELF
We do not fear for God's Word, He'll take care of it! We fear only for its
readers. These new versions are simply unsafe to rely on.
We trust this information will help our readers to understand this issue more
clearly. Compare the verses for yourself and you will see that we do have a
reliable, dependable copy of the Word of God in our own language. God has
preserved His Word and made it available to us in our own language in an
absolutely dependable form, the King James Bible.
