Modern Bible Versions EXPOSED! (Documentary)

 

Hello reader. Today, I would like to take you on a journey that exposes the real Bible version issue.

Please, consider everything you are about to read very carefully, while keeping Proverbs 18:13 in mind. Let us begin.

Since time began, the word of God, has been under attack. The first recorded words of Satan were “Yea hath God said?”. He cast doubt on the word of God, and then replaced it with his own. Today, you are about to see this very same thing is still happening, and not just by a serpent this time, by “Christian” scholars and educated men in our Christian colleges, our Bible Schools, our bookstores, and our churches.

Join me, and we will uncover a conspiracy, to replace….the Bible.

Alright folks, I’m glad to be here tonight. I want to take an approach to this issue and really dig into this KJV only controversy. The word of the Lord says, “Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.” (Psalm 119:140) That is what we’re going to be discussing tonight. The pureness of the text. Now, this method I use, is not going to rely on manuscripts, on textual criticism, on the history of Bible versions, all those things are very important, but I want something that can relate to the average reader.

I quoted before Psalm 119:140, thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it. There is also Proverbs 30:5, Every word of God is pure.

I need you first to understand the power of that statement. EVERY WORD of God is PURE. Incredible. That is going to be the central theme of tonight’s documentary.

First, let me tell you a little bit about how I came upon this method, the Lord really made great provision with all the Bible searching software out there, and I have Him and Him only to credit.

I did keyword searches of various words and documented their uses in many new translations. I am going to show you my findings.

Before I begin, just one word. The Bible is a family book right? Who remembers their grandparents sitting down with a big ol King James Bible and reading to them as kids? The Bible is a family book, and that is also a central issue tonight in this documentary.

Alright, let me start off by saying, I pray you will view these findings with open eyes, and a love for the word of God.

As I said early, I searched various Bibles for the frequency of certain words, here is what I found.

The word kill:The word kill appears in the New International Version 180 times. source

The word kill appears in the Holman Christian Standard Bible  190 times. source

The word kill appears in the New King James Version 184 times. source

The word kill appears in the New American Standard 120 times. source 

The word kill appears 271 times in the New Living Translation. source

The word kill appears 274 times in the Message. source

NIV: 180 occurrences of the word kill.

HCSB: 190 occurrences of the word kill.

NKJV: 184 occurrences of the word kill.

NASB 120 occurrences of the word kill.

NLT: 271 occurrences of the word kill.

MSG: 274 occurrences of the word kill.

The word kill appears 118 times in the KJV . source

What about the name Jesus Christ?

NIV: 242 occurrences of the name Jesus Christ. source

HCSB 219 occurrences of the name Jesus Christ. source

NASB: 236 occurrences of the name Jesus Christ. source

NLT: 218 occurrences of the name Jesus Christ. source

MSG: 144 occurrences of the names Jesus Christ. source

The name Jesus Christ appears 258 times in the King James Version. source

Results. The NIV has the word kill 62 more times than the KJV, while it has 16 less occurrences of the names Jesus Christ than the KJV.

The HCSB has the word kill 72 more times than the KJV, while it has 39 less occurrences of the name Jesus Christ than the KJV.

The NASB has the word kill 2 more times than the KJV, while it has 22 less occurrences of the name Jesus Christ.

The NLT has the word kill 153 more times than the KJV, while it has 40 less occurrences of the name Jesus Christ.

The Message has the word kill 156 more times than the KJV, while it has 114 less occurrences of the name Jesus Christ than the KJV.

What about the word sex?

The King James Bible has the word sex zero times.

The NIV has the word sex 2 times. source

The HCSB has the word sex 11 times. source

The NLT has the word sex 4 times source

the Message has the word sex 153 times source

What about the word rejoice?

The word rejoice occurs 183 times in the King James Bible. source

NIV: 124 source

HCSB: 166 source

NLT: 110 source

Message: 14 source

Results: The NIV has two more occurrences of the word sex than the King’s Bible. While it has 73 less occurrences of the word rejoice.

The HCSB has the word sex 11 more times than the KJV, while it has 17 less occurrences of the word rejoice.

The NLT has the word sex  4 more times than the KJV, while it has 73 less occurrences of the word rejoice.

The Message has sex 153 times more than the KJV, while it has 169 less occurrences of the word rejoice than the KJV.

Pretty shocking isn’t it? What’s going on here folks?

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under Bible, Christian

10 responses to “Modern Bible Versions EXPOSED! (Documentary)

  1. In all honesty this makes no sense. The purpose of a translation is to make the original text as accessible as possible while staying true to the original manuscripts. the ESV and NASB do this remarkably well.

    -Anon

    • Hello.

      Actually, it makes perfect sense. Remove the name Jesus Christ and replace it with the word kill. This is the agenda behind modern versions. To replace the Bible and put out false replicas for the Laodicean church and the one world religion.

      The NASB is by no means a good translation.

      But they deceived Him with their mouth
      And lied to Him with their tongue. (Psalm 78:36 NASB)

      As opposed to the “flatter” the KJV has. God cannot be deceived because He is omniscient.

      The ESV is a repackaged RSV. It also contains the same gnosticism the other versions have.

      1 John 4:2-3 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ HAS COME IN THE FLESH is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. (ESV)

      1 John 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

      3 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. (KJV)

      Do you see the difference? The KJV retains “come in the flesh” in the last half of the verse. All other versions don’t. Gnostics do not believe in the incarnation. So they removed the verse that exposes their error.

      Same for 1 Timothy 3:16. Compare the KJV with the other versions.

      Thank you for your comments and God bless!

      • Does it matter to you what the “original” text says?

        Does it concern you at all that you are arguing for acceptance of a translation instead of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in which it was written?

        If the greek doesn’t say “come in the flesh” then I don’t want my translation saying it.

        That is what makes perfect sense. Moreover the KJV was translated from much new transcripts that we currently have. This in itself can be detrimental to the translation process.

        Grace and Peace
        -Anon

    • Hello.

      “Does it matter to you what the “original” text says?”

      Which original text? There are two. The Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland text. The latter is a product of German textual criticism using two Roman Catholic manuscripts. The TR has the best amount of manuscript evidence and patristic quotations supporting it.

      “Does it concern you at all that you are arguing for acceptance of a translation instead of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in which it was written?”

      No, because me, and countless other Christians out there do not know, nor should we have to learn three different languages to figure out what God said. The KJV translators did that already. Research them sometime. They were some of the most brilliant men in history.

      “If the greek doesn’t say “come in the flesh” then I don’t want my translation saying it. ”

      Again which Greek? The TR? Or Nestle Aland’s Novum Testament Graece, which uses Wescott and Hort’s new testament, which uses Tischendorf’s two Roman catholic manuscripts.

      Come in the flesh is in the Byzantine Text (predecessor of the TR). This is both earlier and better attested to than Tishendorf’s manuscripts.

      “For whosoever does not confess THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH, is antichrist.” Polycarp (85-156 AD), Philippians, Chapter 7

      The text Polycarp used as early as the first century agrees with the KJV, and this is before the two fourth century manuscripts Tischendorf used.

      “That is what makes perfect sense. Moreover the KJV was translated from much new transcripts that we currently have. This in itself can be detrimental to the translation process. ”

      See the example of Polycarp above.

      Ultimately, the text itself shows that the KJV is correct. If every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, then it would stand to reason every spirit that confesses the opposite is not.

      Also, 1 Timothy 3:16 and Psalm 78:36 are still very important verses that have not been discussed yet. What do you make of those?

      • You did not answer my question.

        Does it matter to you if your translation is based on the earliest most reliable manuscripts?

        You see this is a yes or no question. If you answer yes it matters, then I will show you where there is some inconsistency with how some of the KJV was translated. If you say “no” then you are showing that you are not rational and will not accept evidence.

        You also said we shouldn’t have to learn a language when someone as already done that. What about people who don’t speak english? Should they learn english for the KJV.

        Or better yet, what about americans having to learn a “foreign” language as the “old english” used in the KJV is alien to almost everyone under the age of 30.

        You can’t have it both ways. My kids shouldn’t have to learn a new language to read the KJV……That is not a valid argument.

        Just some thoughts.

        Grace and Peace
        -Anon

    • “Does it matter to you if your translation is based on the earliest most reliable manuscripts?”

      Yes. Which is why I showed you the Byzantine Text type was in use in Polycarp’s day.

      “You also said we shouldn’t have to learn a language when someone as already done that. What about people who don’t speak english? Should they learn english for the KJV. ”

      No, there are many translations in other languages that are on par with the KJV.

      “Or better yet, what about americans having to learn a “foreign” language as the “old english” used in the KJV is alien to almost everyone under the age of 30.”

      Old English is unrecognizable, the KJV was written in early modern English and it does so for clarity. https://kjvfortruth.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/the-king-james-version-english/

      The KJV is not a different language, I have been reading it since I was 10. See the flesch kinkcade study for KJV readability. http://www.biblebelievers.net/bibleversions/kjckjv1s.htm

      “You can’t have it both ways. My kids shouldn’t have to learn a new language to read the KJV……That is not a valid argument.”

      Weren’t you advocating Hebrew and Greek before? Neither me or your kids should learn any other language, as early modern English is not a new language. Do your kids read shakespeare or Romeo and Juliet in school? Did they have to learn a new language for that?

      The fact is, I’m not advocating the KJV because I have some fascination with the early modern English. I’m advocating the KJV because the new versions are simply not safe to use.

      Again, what if your kid said “Daddy, why does my Bible say God was deceived?” Or “Daddy, why does my Bible teach that God is in everything (Ephesians 4:6)?”

      Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and IN ALL. (NIV)

      Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in YOU ALL. (KJV)

      Grace and blessings.

      • I was hoping you would not choose number three. I will ask another way.

        400 years ago when the KJV was originally penned, they did not have in their possession the oldest manuscripts. Heck they didn’t even know about them.

        We now have the older and more reliable manuscripts, should we use those yes or no?

        I have a couple of other questions:
        1. If we can translate the original into other languages then why do we need KJV? After all other languages don’t have the same words, does this mean their text isn’t inspired?
        2. To be consistent shouldn’t you demand everyone learn old English in order to read the KJV?
        3. How did the church function for 1500 years without and “authorized” version?
        4. Would you personally prefer a copy of a copy of a copy for 800 years, or 300 years? (I realize textual criticism is more complicated but this serves to illustrate my point) Byzantine is 9th century vs Alexandrian dating as early as the 2nd century.

        I advocate an approach that take all of the manuscripts into account. This would then by definition rule out the original KJV.

        I am enjoying the exchange brother,

        Grace and Peace
        -Anon

    • Hello again brother.

      “400 years ago when the KJV was originally penned, they did not have in their possession the oldest manuscripts. Heck they didn’t even know about them.”

      This is not exactly the case. The Alexandrian manuscripts were in use and known well before the KJV. For example, the Douay Rheims of 1610. The Douay Rheims uses codex vaticanus as it’s primary manuscript. Codex vaticanus was discovered in 1481 in the vatican. Erasmus (the man who worked on the Textus Receptus) published his work in 1516.

      He knew of the variant readings in the Alexandrian text but instead used a small number of manuscripts which represented the Byzantine/ Syrian text type very well.

      “We now have the older and more reliable manuscripts, should we use those yes or no?”

      This is also not exactly the case. The oldest and most reliable often touted by Bible publishers are essentially two manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex vaticanus. Both of which date to the fourth century.

      As far as the best, codex vaticanus was missing most of Genesis, every chapter of Hebrews after 9:14 (The rest of Hebrews is not exactly favorable to Catholic doctrine of the mass.) The Pastoral Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-b.html

      Codex Sinaitcus was found in 1859 by a man named Constantine Tischendorf. It was found in a waste basket waiting to be burned by the monks of Saint Catherine’s cathedral. This is a catholic manuscript. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Sinaiticus

      Why were the monks looking to burn this text?

      Tischendorf took this text with him, and eventually, it became the basis for Wescott and Hort’s new testament. This became the basis for the Nestle Aland text which is put out by the vatican. The Nestle Aland text underlies all versions produced since 1881.

      Because these two texts are fourth century, modern textual scholars insist they are the oldest. I do not know why because there are text that predate these.

      The Syriac Peshitto, (150. A.D.)

      Tatian’s Diatesseron, (120 A.D.)

      and the text used by the “church fathers.” http://www.lamblion.net/Bible%20Tools/Charts/patristic_comparison_chart.html

      ” If we can translate the original into other languages then why do we need KJV? After all other languages don’t have the same words, does this mean their text isn’t inspired?”

      We need the KJV for English speaking people.

      All other languages do not have the same words in English, but the majority of other languages make distinctions between plural and singular pronouns. The only type of English that does this is the KJV English.

      Yes their text is inspired if it uses the Received Text.

      “To be consistent shouldn’t you demand everyone learn old English in order to read the KJV?”

      I never had to learn a new language to read the KJV. I first got a King James Bible at the age of 10. I understood it very well. One seldom needs a dictionary when they use a technique known as the law of first mention. Which I won’t get into right now. But simply put, the KJV has a built in dictionary. If and when you have time, Youtube “Hidden dictionary, KJV.” It is a very fascinating video.

      “How did the church function for 1500 years without and “authorized” version?”

      They used the received text. These are found in the Geneva Bible, Bishop’s Bible, Coverdale Bible, Stephanus TR, Beza’s TR, and for the Old Testament the Masoretic Text. The English versions I named (Geneva, Bishop’s, Coverdale) I feel are good versions but I believe the KJV is the most pure.

      ” Would you personally prefer a copy of a copy of a copy for 800 years, or 300 years? (I realize textual criticism is more complicated but this serves to illustrate my point) Byzantine is 9th century vs Alexandrian dating as early as the 2nd century.”

      The Byzantine may be 9th century, but the texts I mentioned earlier predate the fourth century Alexandrian texts.

      I am enjoying the exchange as well.

      Grace and peace.

  2. philipdean2013

    I’m very interested in this exchange, and would like to ask Anonymous some questions. first, why are you afraid to use your name?
    Now, could Anonymous explain which texts are the “older and more reliable”?
    What makes them more reliable?
    What’s better, a Gnostic manuscript from 470 penned by Alexandrian gnostics (one of whom castrated himself because he didn’t understand the Bible) and removes literally thousands of words, verses and chapters?
    Or one from two hundred years later, but agrees with 5,400 other manuscripts almost letter for letter?
    I’d like an answer to that one, if that’s okay.
    Because that’s what this issue is about.

    Incidentally, the KJV translators knew about Vaticanus, and ignored it. The KJV translators also read Waldensian and Albigensian handwritten Bibles that were available in French, Dutch, German, and several other languages, to compare their work against others.

    Vaticanus is missing entire books and chapters of the Bible. Does that make it more reliable and better than the Textus Receptus? And the best guess is that it’s Origen’s edited Greek manuscript, which was changed in order to reflect gnostic and coptic beliefs. In other words, what didn’t agree with their theology, they changed it or removed it.

    As for Sinaiticus, You are of course aware that Sinaiticus possibly is a forgery? Constantinus Simonides admitted forging it shortly after Tischendorf found it. True, there’s no proof – but because Tischendorf and the Bible societies never investigated his claims, you’ll never be able to disprove them either.

    Sinaticus and Vaticanus disagree with each other in thousands of places. According to biblical law, if two witnesses do not agree, you must reject their testimony. AS a matter of fact, Dean Burgon comented it was easier to find four consecutive verses that did not agree in Aleph and B than did!

    This makes them more reliable? That’s why we have the UBS, the Nestle Aland versions 1-24, Wescott & Hort, etc. = because Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree in so many places.
    So, these are older and more trustworthy?
    There’s textual critics who have admitted, in print, that the TR is very probably exactly the same today as in 350 AD. That’s older than Vaticanus, and allegedly 15 years older than Sinaiticus.

    You keep raising the “I want my bible to read what the Greek manuscripts say” issue. I do too!

    That’s why I’m King James Only.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s