It is not a matter of
preference. It's a matter of Satan conning us into thinking both are
the same. And conning us into thinking they are easier to read, and
therefore a matter of preference. When they are not.
The meaning is not always kept intact. Plus, look at the "fruits"
they have produced. Some of these new translations are not only
watered down, but their serious outright omissions can have very
lasting consequences to many souls.
Between 1700 and 1900, The greatest missionary work in church
history occurred relying on the Authorized King James version. This alone tells us that the KJV
(1611) is the true Word
of God because of "the fruits" it produced. On the other hand, look
at the fruits these new so-called "dynamic equivalent" versions of
the Bible have produced (abortionists, rampant homosexuality, and
legislators and judges who back those things - Columbine?).
Church of England Bishop Brooke
Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony
Hort were the
driving force behind the Revised Version of 1881 which these new
bibles above are based on. This was a
replacement of the pure texts and not a revision of the language of
the King James. It can
reasonably said that
these two men are
directly responsible for the spiritual backbone lacking in most
pulpits today, because of the changes brought about through their
corrupt text. It all began In 1870 when the idea of a modest
revision of the King James Authorized Version was sanctioned by the
Southern Convocation of the Church of England. This provided
the opportunity for Westcott and Hort to introduce their radical
changes. Hort and Westcott defended the inclusion of a
Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee. The resulting "The New
Testament in the Original Greek" was published in 1881, as was the
Revised Version based upon it.
When their new bibles appeared in England and America in the late
1800's they were rejected. But,
two
generations after the failure of the English Revision, the theories
of Westcott and Hort had become majority opinion in evangelical
Bible colleges and seminaries in both the United States and England.
Their theories were universally accepted in modernist seminaries.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults bragged about having Bible
translations based upon the Westcott and Hort theory.
ANGLICAN CHURCH - a proven Harlot.
Look at what is happening in this denomination today (Homosexual
Bishops, woman priestesses, etc.)
Westcott and Hort were not only Fathers in the
Anglican church. But, according to numerous historians and New Age
researchers, appear to be among the Fathers of the modern
channeling movement. Channeling and Spiritualism is New Age heresy
that are forbidden by the Word of God...
In 1993, Gail Riplinger published
New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and
Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they
provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and
the New Age Movement. These two "esteemed scholars" were not even
fundamental Christians. It is additionally known about Hort and
Wescott that they did not believe in: a literal heaven, the literal
Second Coming of Jesus and his coming 1000 yr reign on earth.
Also, they did not believe in angels, the oneness of the Trinity,
and the soul's existence separated from the body. They also
did not believe in a literal Devil.
According to Hort’s son, Dr. Hort’s
own mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his
views about the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly
rejected the "idea of the infallibility of the Bible". Hort says the
same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot.
Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral".
In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church
Party of the Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally
evangelical, teaching salvation through personal faith in Jesus
Christ. The High Church Party taught salvation by good works,
including baptism and church membership. Additionally, many may find
it hard to believe this about the two men behind these new
bibles. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were
historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution.
According to Fuller (page 157); "Textual criticism cannot be divorced
entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man
may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence,
his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not
accept the Bible as the very Word of God."
The heart of the Wescott and Hort
theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect
condition in two Greek texts, the Codex
Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaticus
of the 4th century (325-350 A.D.) . Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket
in St. Catherine’s Monestary (in the Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin
von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus manuscript laid on a shelf in
the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so
corrupt that no one would use it .
The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was
rediscovered in 1845.
These two men were
determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus
Receptus. In short, their theory suggests that for fifteen hundred
years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in
the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.
Textus
Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the first
Greek language text of the New Testament to be published.
|
Below date to
330-350 A.D. |
|
 |
| The
entire well preserved Codex Sinaiticus consists of 346
1/2 folios, written in four columns. Of these 199
belong to the Old Testament and 147 1/2 to the New
Testament. |
|
Codex
Vaticanus below is probably just slightly older than
Codex Sinaiticus |
|
 |
| The
extant New Testament of Codex Vaticanus contains the
Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Pauline
Epistles and Hebrews (up to Hebrews 9:14, καθα[ριει).
|
All of the other newer Bible versions, such as the NIV, NASB, etc.
are based upon another manuscript family known as the Alexandrian
Manuscript family which was put together by Origen of Alexandria,
Egypt in about the 2nd century. Most scholars agree Origen was a
heretic because of his denial of essential doctrines. In all,
there are over
5,000 major changes between the Majority Text (KJV &
Douay Reims) and the Minority
Text (all other newer bibles).
The two best renditions of the Bible that have had the least amount
of change are the King James and the older versions of the Douay
Reims, Catholic Bible. The original King James Bible is the
Authorized Version of 1611 (AV). This Bible does a good job in
translating the ancient Hebrew texts. The King James, Authorized
Version is relatively free
from bias and is widely accepted by English speaking Protestants.
This manuscript family behind the KJV is called the Traditional or
Majority text because over 99% of the manuscripts that have ever
been found support and back this text. Scholars have discovered
5,255 pieces of manuscript evidence. Its been said that Of these,
5,210 of them support the Traditional text behind that of the KJV!
That’s why it is called the MAJORITY text! That is 99%! Most
important vis-à-vis credibility is that these manuscripts come from
all over the known world of the day, not from any central location.
And 99% agree with each other.
The Textus Receptus (received text) (aka: "Byzantine Text") from which the King James Bible
came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples
were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the
word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The most notable version
support for the Byzantine text is in the Peshitta Syriac and the
fourth century Gothic version. A second-century date for the
Peshitta used to be advocated, but study of the Biblical quotations
in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has
demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta, and so
it must date from after their time, i.e., to the late fourth century
or after. Erasmus gathered many of
these documents on his travels himself. The text for these new
bibles Hort and Wescott took from finds in Alexandria, Egypt, and
from Rome . Hort clearly had
a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and
"vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch
(associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of
Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an
unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This
was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated by St. Jerome from the
Septuagint Cannon (LXX) of the Old Testament, is considered the
"official" Bible of the Catholic Church.
Probably the most important figure in the renaissance of learning
and religion was Erasmus. He traveled around Europe's great learning
centers, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Rome and others. He left
his mark in history as the editor of the first published Greek New
Testament printed in 1516"
Barry Burton says: "The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree
together. They have been passed down thru the centuries by true
Bible-believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and
printed the Greek 'Textus Receptus'. This is the text that the
Protestants of the Reformation KNEW to be the Word of God (inerrant
and infallible). The text Erasmus chose had an outstanding history
in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches (also termed
"Syrian", "Antioch", or Koine text), and ... it
constituted an irresistible argument for and proof of God's
providence. The Old Testament has been faithfully preserved by
the Jews in what is known as the Masoretic Text. There are few
translation problems with the Old Testament.
Now, the truth about Erasmus. The truth about Erasmus is that he was
first a Roman Catholic monk who was later ordained and became a
Roman Catholic priest, who opposed Luther and the Reformation, was
offered by the Pope himself the high Roman Catholic church position
of cardinal, refused to leave the Church of Rome and always freely
submitted his judgments to the decisions of the Roman Church.
LOOK AT THE BELOW EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES:
Let's look in a 'modern' version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.
Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the
baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the
particular 'modern' version, in verse 33, it will say something
similar to:
" ... and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were
spoken of him" [i.e. of Jesus].
his father" was amazed at the things which were spoken of
him?!
The father of Jesus was NOT Joseph! Jesus' father was God!
Now, let's look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the
correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:
"And JOSEPH and his mother marveled at those things which were
spoken of him".
For a 'modern' version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was
Jesus' father is blasphemy!
The Authorized King James says:
"For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."
This one verse, which summarizes Jesus' entire mission to earth, is
either ignored in 'new' versions; or it is put in brackets casting
doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.
Turn to 1st Peter 4:1.
In a 'modern' version it says: "... Christ suffered ..."
In your Authorized King James Bible the full reading is quoted as:
"... Christ suffered FOR US."
Notice the last two words give the FULL meaning. Leaving out "for
us" misses the point entirely!
A 'modern' version will NOT tell you how! (in Colossians 1:14). It
says (of Jesus):
"in whom we have redemption ..."
The full Christian doctrine is only included in the King James
reading of the same verse. Properly stated, it says (of Jesus):
"In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD ..."
With no shedding of blood -- there is NO remission of sins. Leaving
out "the blood" misses a key point of doctrine (and leaves us in our
sins).
The Lord's prayer, taught to us by Jesus, and recorded in Luke
11:2-4 of the KJV, is as follows:
"... Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed (Holy) 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."
Look at Luke 11:2-4 in a 'modern' version and re-read the Lord's
prayer. The wording will be similar to:
"... Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each
day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also
forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into
temptation".
This modern version states "Father" but then leaves out "...
WHICH ART IN HEAVEN ...".
You don't know who you are praying to, your Father in heaven, or to
Satan!
This modern version also leaves out "THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN
HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH".
By leaving out the fact that we are praying to our Father WHOSE WILL
IS DONE IN HEAVEN, this 'modern' version is re-directing your prayer
away from God and toward someone or something else (in another
place).
Look at it again. There is a major omission in the last half of
verse 4.
Verse 4 states: "And lead us not into temptation". But this verse
then leaves out: "... BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL ..."
The New Revised
Standard Version, New World Translation and Revised English Bible
take Isaiah 7:14 and discount the prophecy of Mary being a virgin by
calling her a young woman.
Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt
not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is
briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the
modern critical text.
Other examples in
some, but not all versions:
Matthew
1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn
son: and he called his name JESUS.
"firstborn" is missing"
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"bless them that curse you" is missing
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."
is missing
6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his
righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
"of God" is missing
8:29 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?
"Jesus" is missing
9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and
not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners
to repentance.
"to repentance." is missing
16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky
is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face
of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
"O ye hypocrites" is missing
17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
missing enrirely
18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
missing entirely
NOW FOR SOME REALLY BIG STUFF
The NASB teaches in John 5:29 that we are saved by doing ‘good
deeds’ Rather than doing the one good thing of trusting Christ as
Saviour!
The NKJV teaches that it is ‘difficult’ to be saved in Matt. 7:14!
The NIV teaches that Jesus SINNED when you read Mark 3:5 and Matthew
5:22!
The NIV does away with Lucifer! There is no Lucifer in the NIV!
Worse than that, the NIV declares that ‘the morning star’ is the
that fell and was cut down and did weaken the nations, not Lucifer!
When we read Revelation 22:16 we see that the Morning star is Jesus!
Why we were spared by the gift of the Authorized King James Version:
Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep
them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for
ever."
The new versions have
systematically removed Luke's witness to the ascension of
Christ--and of course they have done away entirely with Mark's
witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do
not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus.
Remember, these new bibles began to appear in the late 1800's.
On the 18th of September 1846
Our
Lady of La Salette said
to the 14 year old girl Mélanie Calvat, and the 11 year old
boy Maximim:
"In the
year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be
unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by little,
even in those dedicated to GOD. They will blind them in such a way,
that, unless they are blessed with a special grace, these people
will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious
institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls.
Evil
books will be abundant on earth and the spirits of darkness will
spread everywhere a universal slackening in all that concerns the
service of GOD. They will have great power over Nature: there will
be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported
from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests, for
they will not have been guided by the good spirit of the Gospel
which is the spirit of humility, charity, and zeal for the glory of
GOD. On occasions, the dead and the righteous will be brought back
to life. "
|
Read more on
this subject
HERE |
|