May 7, 2024
Choosing the right Bible is important, and there are many options available. You might not realize that the Bible has been under constant attack for centuries. These attacks come from both within Christendom and outside the Christian Church. One common way it faces attack is through different translations, which intentionally change words and meanings to influence Christians’ thinking on certain topics. The KJV of the Bible is the most frequently targeted, largely because of its prominence over the past few centuries, even by self-proclaimed conservative Christian scholars.
This article will examine how the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, which is the second best-selling Bible and is used in most seminaries and many churches, is doing just that. The NIV translators and theologians are determined to change the culture of the USA and the world to be more supportive and inclusive. Imagine a group of so-called Christian scholars wanting to displace the truth with a lie. They aim to be more inclusive and less offensive. That should alarm true Christians, for these are not the objectives of scripture. Scripture seeks to save sinners from their sins. Fake Christians want to destroy the sexuality (two genders) and sexual morality (all homosexuality is sin) established by the God of the Universe for their demonic immorality. But to do that, they must rewrite the Word of God (making it more inclusive and less offensive), which is strictly forbidden by God Himself.
The most popular selling Bibles, even today, are as follows, according to this web search;
King James Version-KJV 55%
New International Version-NIV 19%
New Revised Standard-NRSB 7%
New American Bible-NASB 6%
The Living Bible-LB 5%
All others 8%
Total 100%
Let us get started with just the first of many examples showcasing the woke tendency of the NIV. We will consider the NIV’s attempt to obscure what the Bible teaches regarding the sin of sodomy. God uses the word sodomite about homosexuals in general.
Example number one is 1 Kings 14:24
“And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.” I Kings 14:24 KJV, emphasis added.
“There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.” NIV, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. emphasis added.
The NIV wants us to believe that “male shrine prostitutes” are the ones that are being addressed here, not the average homosexual or sodomite. I trust you can readily see the attempted manipulation. Do you know of any ‘male shrine prostitutes’ today? Of course not, but that is what they want you to think. They want you to believe that this passage is not about the practice of sodomy, when it is absolutely about the sin of sodomy. They want you to believe this is just about temple prostitution and not about loving same sex relationships. But sodomy is the “detestable practice,” not just the sin of temple prostitution. This is one way in which the NIV, other versions, and the liberal minded theologian are attempting to get Christians to accept and approve of homosexuality, gay marriage, and even gender fluidity. Don’t be surprised if the NIV continues to reduce or eventually eliminate all references to sodomy, homosexuality, and distinct genders.
As mentioned, the NIV is the second-best-selling Bible. But what about other English Bible translations? How do they deal with this verse? This change, by the NIV, is also reflected in the following English Bible translations: AMP, AMPC, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, ERV, EASY, EHV, ESVUK, EXB, GW, GNT, HCSB, ICB, ISV, JUB, LSB, LEB, MEV, NOG, NABRE, NASB, NCB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NKJV, NLV, NLT, NRSVA, NRSVACE,….OJB, RSV, RSVCE, TLV, VOICE, and so on. Even the New King James Version (NKJV) has made this change.
Example number two is 1 Kings 15:12
“And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.” I Kings 15:12 KJV
“He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his ancestors had made.” I Kings 15:12 NIV
“He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his father had made.” 1 Kings 15:12 ESV, English Standard Version-ESV. This is a newer translation published in 2001 by Crossway. Supposedly, it was created by a team of more than 100 evangelical scholars and pastors, all based on the latest critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. What does the word “evangelical” mean anymore? It is hard for me to believe that these “Christians” are faithful leaders. Why is this change needed or desirable? Let us not forget that a bit of leaven leavens the whole lump. One compromise will begat another, and soon enough the whole of it is compromised.
In this second example, we see how the liberal and progressive forces within Christianity are attempting to eliminate what God declares about the sin of sodomy. If that is not clear to you, then you have already been successfully brainwashed, in part at least.
The third example is Leviticus 18:22
“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, that is detestable.” NIV
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” KJV
Surprisingly, the NIV has not butchered this verse. But how do various liberal theologians interpret this passage? They say that this is a prohibition regarding same sex rape, not same sex sodomy. (Per Wikipedia, April 2019). Neither the KJV nor the NIV agrees with that interpretation.
The fourth example is Leviticus 20:13
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” KJV
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” NIV.
The NIV has not changed the meaning of this verse except to change the word abomination to detestable, which might be considered less aggressive. The liberal and progressive “Christian” says that this is all about men sexually exploiting and dominating other men out of excessive lust, which brings forth the rape of slaves, for example. This is not about loving same sex relationships. The same goes for Romans chapter one, says Brandon Robertson, in a YouTube response to this issue. Brandon insists that back then (centuries ago), they did not know that men and women are born homosexual. All similar passages have nothing to do with consensual same sex and loving relationships, according to Brandon Robertson and an increasing number of others. This is all wishful thinking on Brandon’s part. By the way, thousands of former homosexuals did in fact change (by the truth and grace of God) because homosexuality is a choice. No one is born a homosexual.
The fifth example is 1 Corinthians 6:9
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy or drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the LORD Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, NIV, emphasis added.
A later or earlier version of the NIV had this phrase in it: “Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders”. This makes room for the regular homosexual who is not an offender. He is not abusive. Male prostitution is not the focus of this passage; sodomy is. The NIV, like all other modern translations, changes from time to time. What was once included may be dropped later. And what was once not included may be included in a later edition. You can never know if what you have learned will be changed by scholars sometime in the future. Does that make sense for God’s book? Does God change His mind like people do? Does God make what is sin one day, holy the day after? Does He make what is righteous today, sinful tomorrow? This is ridiculous.
There are other passages of scripture (for instance, 1 Kings 5:12) that, like the first two, do away with the word sodomy and substitute ‘male temple prostitution’. Other NIV passages agree with or are reasonably close to the KJV or assume that the issue is gang rape, not sodomy, as in the case of Genesis 19:4-7.
Why don’t the translators eliminate all references to sodomy? Believe it or not, they have done just that in the NIV! Why don’t they alter the Word of God to eliminate all negative references to the sin of homosexuality all at once? I suspect the reason is that it would be way too much change to get away with, all at once. Slow and steady wins the race. Their ‘scholars and theologians’ will continue to find ‘better readings’ and alter the Bible so that it doesn’t teach that sodomy is sinful. In addition, they have their theologians who will explain that the Bible is not talking about loving same sex relationships but abusive sexual encounters. The truth is not in them.
But why would the NIV eliminate all of the Biblical references to sodomy if they did not change other verses about the sin of homosexuality? Did their changes improve the meaning of the first two verses mentioned above? I don’t believe it. The bottom line is that it inappropriately reduces the number of times the Bible denounces the practice of sodomy.
The sixth example. The New International Version and 1 John 5:7-8
In part one, I wrote the following:
“And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For these three that bear witness: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and three are in agreement.” NASB, Ryrie Study Bible.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth; the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” KJV.
“It really angered me when I discovered this rewrite of the Word of God. Verse 7 was omitted from the NASB, and Ryrie didn’t even bother to footnote that the NASB omitted this verse entirely. Normally such omissions or changes are at least footnoted when the NASB or some other modern translation corrects the KJV text.
Read these two translations carefully and you will notice that verse 7 is an excellent testimony to the deity of Christ (which is denied by some even today) and the triune nature of the Godhead, all of which is eliminated in the NASB. What does the Bible say about those who add to or take away from the Word of God? Let me give you a clue, it is not a blessing.”
The New International Version eliminates the 7th verse and gives a footnote stating that “Late manuscripts of the Vulgate” have this verse. The NIV also includes this footnote, “not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century.” All that footnote does is to leave doubt and questions about the completeness and the trustworthiness of the Bible. Which is correct? Does verse 7 belong or not? What do you think the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible does with verse 7, since they deny the deity of Jesus Christ? Eliminate it? I am sure the Jehovah’s Witnesses are pleased with this change. What about verse 8? Does it belong in the Bible?
I do not find the NIV and its footnote to be helpful, only confusing and unnecessary. I do not believe their footnote at all. Of course, this verse belongs in the Bible. It may not be included in one or two ancient codices, but it is in many thousands of others.
The seventh example. The NIV and Mark 16:9-20?
From my first article, on why I use the KJV of the Bible, I made these comments.
“The following quote is taken from my Ryrie Study Bible as it pertains to Mark 16:9-20. Ryrie says, “These verses do not appear in two of the most trustworthy manuscripts of the New Testament, though they are part of many other manuscripts and versions. If they are not part of the genuine text of Mark, the abrupt ending at verse 8 is probably because the original closing verses were lost. The doubtful genuineness of the verses 9-20 makes it unwise to build a doctrine or base an experience on them (especially vv 16-18).”
If this doesn’t get you to question the credibility of the entire Word of God, I would be amazed. Ryrie says this passage is not credible, and the abrupt ending, if verses 9-20 are false, is lost to us. In other words, we do not have the ending of the gospel according to Mark. I wonder if different parts of the Bible are lost to us? I wonder how many other passages of the Bible are inaccurate like these passages? I thought God promised to preserve His word for us? How will we ever know if what we are reading is really and truly the complete Word of God? The KJV contains these verses of scripture with no qualification at all.”
The NIV Bible contains this statement after verse 8 in chapter 16, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20.” The NIV also contains this footnote. “Mark 16:8, Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): ‘Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.”
The NIV does not say how many of the earliest manuscripts we are talking about. And the NIV says, “some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20,” and that only one manuscript has it after verse 8. What and how many other ancient witnesses are we talking about? Do you find their explanations helpful and edifying? I sure don’t. For almost 300 years, the KJV in the English language has remained unchanged, with verses 9-20 included.
I urge the reader to refer to my comments in my first article for more information about this subject of the supposedly earliest and best manuscripts. This is an excerpt: “What is Ryrie talking about when he says that ‘two of the most trustworthy manuscripts’ say something other than what the KJV says? He is talking about two of the oldest Greek manuscripts found thus far. They are (Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph)), both of which have different renderings than what the translators of the KJV used.” “And without getting into too much detail, these two older manuscripts do not agree with each other in many thousands of instances. And taken together, these two corrupt, but older, forgeries alter the Greek text of the KJV about 13,000 times. And most importantly, older doesn’t mean better.”
Ryrie’s comment about these two manuscripts being the most trustworthy is almost laughable. It is a great sales pitch but short on truth.
“Next point is that we have thousands upon thousands of old and more reliable complementary copies of scripture in multiple languages. So why would translators use two older manuscripts, which disagree with each other in thousands of instances, instead of the multiple thousands of other manuscripts?”
There is more to consider regarding these two “older and better” manuscripts. (See my article Roman Catholic, Dating and Textual Criticism. Part 7.) There is good reason to doubt the old dates given for both of the two codices, and there is good reason to question the value of textual criticism. The Vaticanus manuscript is used as the primary source for all textual changes in most modern translations. It is assumed to have been written in the fourth century?
How was that date determined? My research tells me only one man determined the date. It has never been carbon-dated to my knowledge. Some believe that this is a 15th-century work, not a 4th-century one. Why? Because it was first catalogued in the Vatican Library in about 1475 and is still under lock and key today. No team of scholars has ever had the opportunity to examine the actual manuscript. Given that this is a product of the Roman Catholic Church and held in the Vatican Library, its credibility should be questioned, given the Catholic Church’s history of fraud and forgery.
The eighth example. The New International Version and Psalm 12:6-7.
I am including what I wrote in the first article.
“The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. Thou O LORD, wilt keep them; thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever.” NASB.
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.” KJV.
Do you see the difference? The NASB says that the LORD will preserve “him,” not His words, from that generation forever. The subject matter is the Word of God not a person. The NASB has altered the KJV so that the Bible doesn’t say that God will preserve His words forever. What a travesty of translation from “two of the most trustworthy manuscripts”. Again, how can we trust that we do have the full Word of God or is our Bible just a collection of uninspired men’s words? The KJV tells me that I can trust that God has and will preserve His words forever. Forever means forever. We will now look at another reason why I use the KJV of the Bible by examining the assumption that the older the manuscript, the better.”
The NIV reads, “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times. You, LORD, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked.” The NIV footnote follows, which states the following about verse six, “Probable of the original Hebrew text; Masoretic Text ‘earth.”
The issue is their butchering of verse 7, not verse 6. The NIV proclaims that the LORD “will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked.” Hard not to believe that the NIV translators did this for one purpose, and that is to destroy the promise of God to preserve His word forever. For if the promise is true, why is the NIV changing the word of God? The KJV rightly proclaims that God promised to preserve His word forever, which complements verse 6.
Like other newer translations, the NIV does not want the reader to know that the LORD God Almighty promised to preserve His word forever! They want to be able to change the word of God when they (scholars and theologians) determine it needs to be changed. Do you not see the glaring difference between the NIV and the KJV? I hope you can’t miss it.
The ninth example. The New International Version and 1 Timothy 3:16.
The following is an excerpt from my first article.
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” KJV.
“And great and important and weighty, we confess is the hidden truth-the mystic secret-of godliness. He (God) was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the Holy Spirit, seen by angles, preached among the nations, believed on in the world and taken up in glory” Amplified Bible.
“Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory” NIV.
“And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He was who revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, beheld by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on the world, taken up in glory” NASB.
Now you tell me which version is easier to read and understand? Which version more clearly attests to the fact that God was manifest in the flesh? In other words, that Jesus Christ is God. Only the Amplified Bible parenthetically mentions that “he” is God. The KJV said it in fewer words and much more clearly than any of the other translations. Do you not think that the phrase, “God was manifest in the flesh,” is critically important, as it could only refer to Jesus Christ?
Other problems with the NIV
Dr. Allen Smith hosts a YouTube channel. He has a three-part video series regarding the problems of the NIV. Below are some of the important reasons not to use the NIV (or most any modern version of the Bible).
Missing verses. There are around 60,000 words deleted in the NIV as compared to the KJV. Some entire sentences are missing in the NIV. Even one missing or wrong word can change the whole meaning of the verse. There are many other examples if you are interested, check out his YouTube channel. Let us consider Luke 9:56.
“For the son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.” Luke 9:56 KJV.
“Then he and his disciples went to another village.” Luke 9:56, NIV.
Then NIV leaves out this entire sentence, “For the son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them”. Did Jesus not come to save us and not to destroy us? How in heaven’s name does leaving this sentence out help anyone or improve the KJV? The only ones pleased by this omission are the Bible critics, who probably don’t believe Jesus even uttered these words. Below is another example.
“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Matthew 18:11, KJV.
The NIV for Matthew 18:11 is blank; it has nothing at all. But it does have this footnote. “Matthew 18:11. Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.”
If you are reading your Bible and come across this footnote, what will you think? I would be shocked if you did not wonder about how credible the Bible is. By omitting this verse, the NIV has sown doubt for no other reason than its vanity. Their scholarship is much more important than the truth.
As mentioned already, there are other examples if you are interested. Check out their YouTube channel.
The NIV contradicts other Bible translations. For example, Rev. 8:13. The KJV says, “and I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, Woe, Woe to the inhabitants of the earth……” Revelation 8:13.
The NIV says that an eagle, not an angel, was flying.
Is there a difference between an eagle and an angel? Most of us would probably answer yes, there is a big difference. Did the NIV make this verse better and improve on the KJV? Or did the NIV make this verse confusing?
Let us consider Ephesians 5:9. The KJV says, “(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth.)” Those who know their Bible understand that we are talking about the fruit of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, which is common in scripture when talking about those who are born again.
The NIV states the following, “(For the fruit of light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth.” Ephesians 5:9. Tell me how this interpretation is helpful or an improvement over the KJV? Light might represent ‘enlightenment’ and not the Holy Spirit of God. This is another example of an unnecessarily confusing interpretation. Why? To sell more Bibles? One more example should suffice.
The King James version for Revelation 13:1 reads, “And I (John the apostle and author of the Book of Revelation) stood upon the sand of the sea,…….” (Emphasis added).
The NIV version for Revelation 13:1 reads, “The dragon stood on the shore of the sea,….”
The KJV says that the apostle John stood upon the sand of the sea, and the NIV states that the dragon or Satan stood upon the sand of the sea. Really? Just one word, but what a difference it makes in understanding the verse. See the website for more examples.
The NIV changes the meaning of verses. Let us consider Micah 5:2. The KJV ending for this verse is, “……whose going forth have been from old, from everlasting.” The messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. The NIV ending for this verse is, “……whose origins are from old, from ancient times.”
The KJV identifies this as the Messiah and that the Messiah is eternal or divine; “from everlasting”. The NIV states that this person’s origin is from ancient times, which might simply refer to his human ancestors. This is a massive error in the NIV.
The NIV denies Christ as the creator. In Ephesians 3:9, the NIV denied Christ’s creatorship. In the KJV for Ephesians 3:9, it ends this way, “….who created all things by Jesus Christ.” However, the NIV ends it this way, “…….who created all things.” The words “By Jesus Christ” are intentionally omitted. Why in heaven’s name would they do that when other passages in the Bible make it very clear that Jesus is the Creator? The deity of Jesus Christ has been under attack since He died on the cross. The NIV is not helping but is supporting this attack on the deity of Christ.
The NIV suggests that Joseph is the father of Jesus Christ. If you think that looks like an attack on the deity of Christ, you would be correct. If Joseph is his real father, then Mary was not a virgin, nor was Jesus divine. Let us consider Luke 2:33. The KJV states, “And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.” The NIV reads, “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.”
See how careful the KJV translators were to make sure that no one ever thought that Mary’s husband, Joseph, was the father of her son Jesus. See how poorly the NIV translates this verse. Based on their interpretation, a person might reasonably question the divinity or Messianic role of Jesus Christ.
I have covered just a handful of the NIV problems. There are many more places where the NIV translation messes with the text of the Bible. Its translation is confusing, contradictory, and contaminated. Check out the website if you want more evidence.
I am going to end with just one more example. In Matt 16:18, Jesus is saying that upon this rock, He will build His church. When Peter acknowledged that Jesus is the Christ, Jesus said, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church…….”. The NIV is very close to this KJV wording. But the problem is the NIV footnote, which states the following: “The Greek word for Peter means rock.” I guess they added that footnote to keep the Roman Catholics happy. This is another example of NIV’s compromise to be inclusive.
In the gospel of John 1:42, this is written, “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” KJV, emphasis added. Jesus said Peter, or Cephas, is a stone, not the rock on which Jesus will build His church.
In many places in the Old Testament, God is frequently referred to as our Rock. Consider the following: “Because I will publish the name of the LORD, ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” Deuteronomy 32:3-4. In verse 18 of this same chapter, this is written, “Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten that God formed thee.” In verse 31, it is written, “For their rock is not our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.” In verse 37, it is written, “And he shall say, where are their gods, their rock in whom they trust.” Israel had made idols into their rock (god) and had forgotten the Rock that begat them and delivered them from Egypt. Much in the same way, the Roman Catholic Church has turned Peter (the papacy) into a rock (idol) and forgotten the actual Rock, which is God Almighty. Jesus Christ is the Rock.
More reasons to avoid modern-day (last 150 years) Bibles such as the NIV, NASB, CSB, NLT, and so on. These Bibles all come from a critical Greek text. They all rewrite the KJV of the Bible.
Modern critical texts today are founded on a couple of codices, not the majority, which includes many thousands of manuscripts. The approximate breakdown is this:
- 90% of the new critical text comes from one source, Vaticanus.
- 8% of it comes from Sinaiticus
- 2% from a few other sources
The first reason not to use any of these critical texts and new Bible translations that were authored as a result is that they do not believe the Bible is a supernatural book. They assume that the Bible is just like any other ancient book. It is not, and claims to be supernatural and talks about the many miracles that God Himself performed.
The second reason not to use any of the newer translations is that they do not believe God preserves the Bible. Refer back to my comments about Psalm 12:6,7. Modern-day “scholars and theologians” do not believe God has preserved His word because they are constantly changing His word. They are engaged in trying to ascertain what the real Word of God is, with no prospect of success. They can never be sure.
The third reason is that they do not believe any Bible has the real or actual words of God. Discoveries in the future may change some things or even many things, depending on the discovery. They might not think that will happen, but they can’t be sure because discoveries may change their thinking. Some conservative Christian scholars today are not even sure that we know what Jesus said.
The fourth reason is that they believe in the so-called science of textual criticism and dating. They believe that man is the final authority, not God. They believe in intellectualism and scholasticism. God has not preserved His word; therefore, we must depend on the intellectual scholar to tell us what to think. That sounds like something the Roman Catholic Church can get behind.
The fifth reason is that the purpose of the NIV is not to preserve the truth, but to publish a translation that was non-offensive to participating Christian denominations. They want to be inclusive, and the truth is negotiable. That ideal should cause every lover of the truth to be on their guard. The Bible is the most exclusive book. Jesus claims to be the one and only way to heaven. Moreover, Jesus went out of His way to be offensive when that was needed. Almost all of the prophets of God offended the nations, including the people of God.
One website stated that the NIV removed 64,576 words from the Received text or the KJV Bible. Not all changes are material and impactful, but many are profound alterations. You have read some of those in this article. One wrong word can make all the difference.
Here are some of the words that you will not find in the NIV, not even once: Sodomite, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, regeneration, mercy seat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, quickened, infallible, Godhead, begotten. Many of these words are essential for Christians to know and understand. This is what wokeness brings.
The KJV of the Bible uses the name of God, Jehovah, in only seven places in the Old Testament out of respect for the honor and majesty of God. Modern versions use a new name for God, Yahweh. (See my articles on the name of God, if you are interested in more information.)
The KJV uses the word “hell” 54 times, but the NIV reduces that number to 14. They use a variety of other names as if those were more understandable than the word ‘hell’. Maybe the word hell is not inclusive enough, or perhaps the translators don’t believe in hell. Maybe it is both.
There are 40 entire verses removed from the KJV, that have a NIV footnote that casts doubt on the final authority of the Bible. “Yea, hath God said?”
Closing comments
(The next couple of paragraphs are an excerpt from my first article.)
“There are many other examples that I could give about why I switched to the KJV. Granted, some of the language in the KJV is harder to understand. However, all it takes is an older dictionary or an iPhone dictionary application to get the definition and pronunciation of the word quickly.
Like ever-changing science, these other translations of the Bible are ever-changing based on “new” findings and “new” scholarship. But God said He would preserve His word forever. I choose to believe Him. If the KJV is not accurate, then the English-speaking church for about 300 years, when Westcott and Hort gave us a new underlying Greek New Testament text for the Bible, did not have, nor do we have now, the real Word of God. Even today, that would be true.
In Jesus’s day, Jews had the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the scribes to help them understand and apply the Word of God. The Muslim has the Imam to tell him what he needs to know and do. The Catholic has the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and the local priest to tell him what to do and when to do it. The church-going Protestant has the Biblical scholar, the Greek professor, the theologian, the well-educated Pastor or teacher to tell him what he must do and when it must be done. But Jesus said that if the blind follow the blind, both fall in the ditch.
Let us never forget that the religious leaders (scholars and experts) of Jesus’ day killed Him. How much wicked advice has been given by the professional religionists over the centuries and still today? We have a growing number of gay theologians, not to mention the scores of liberal seminaries, pastors, and priests who do not believe the Word of God at all, or at least do not believe significant portions of the Word of God. They think they are above the Word and can make professional scholarly adjustments to the KJV of the Bible based on current scholarship. Do not entrust your soul to some man who thinks he is the Biblical expert who can alter the Word of God when he thinks it best to do so. Think for yourself. Look into these matters is my recommendation”. (end of excerpt)
The NIV is a very popular Bible. Have I given you enough information to allow you to judge if their changes make sense and are appropriate? Remember that the 19th-century discoveries of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have prompted all these changes. Ninety percent of the changes in these new Bible translations come from the Vaticanus codex alone. There are thousands of other old manuscripts that form the basis for the KJV. All these (majority text) are set aside for basically just one manuscript, Vaticanus. It is hard for me to understand how thinking people could be so clueless. But then again, maybe I am an idiot. But there is more that should raise questions and doubts about the integrity of this codex, Vaticanus.
Knowing that the Roman Catholic Church owns this manuscript and controls access to it means we must take it on faith that the photocopies given to the world are accurate and trustworthy. I would not trust anything coming out of the Vatican. (See my 10 articles on the Roman Catholic Church.) The supposed and assumed date of Vaticanus in the 4th century is very suspect, and it is more likely a 15th-century date. That is not just my opinion. Therefore, it should not be given special treatment as “one of the two oldest.” It makes no sense to me that we are using its readings even if it were a 4th-century manuscript. Why? We have many thousands of old manuscripts (the majority text) that are in agreement and reflected in the KJV, and the integrity of which is not questioned.
Modern Bible critics do question the integrity of the Majority Text only because they believe that these two manuscripts are older and therefore better. They incorrectly assume that older means better. In addition, they have not adequately considered the nefarious nature of the Roman Catholic Church from which both of these codices originate. That is a most serious blunder.
Also, there are lots of questions about Sinaiticus. Most scholars will summarily dismiss the Simonides claim, while a few other scholars think this is something to be examined more closely. Simonides claimed that he wrote this manuscript in the 1800s. If true, this is a late and most certainly not the earliest of all manuscripts. And then there are the holes in Tischendorf’s story about how he found this manuscript. What about the missing verses between 1 Chronicles and Ezra? What about color differences in the material? Did someone deliberately darken some of the material? Why would a Protestant scholar (Tischendorf) seek an audience with the Pope when there was a great rift between these factions in the mid-1800s? Curious, and it raises legitimate questions and concerns. It brings up questions about his motives.
Why are there so many corrections in the manuscript? How does one know which is correct? Why does it look so much like a rough draft that was hurried? How did Tischendorf date the manuscript? He did not use carbon-14 for sure. Dating ancient manuscripts is most definitely not an exact science. It is more like an art. (See my article under Roman Catholic, Part 7, dating and textual criticism). There is much personal preference and speculation that goes into dating. There was an excellent incentive for Tischendorf to date it as the earliest manuscript: fame and fortune come immediately to mind. This is much like the fake “missing link” fossils that have been found, proving the theory of evolution. When carefully examined, these fossils are not missing links at all but fakes in order to advance a theory, and make a name for the discoverer.
If you want more information, check out the following books. The title of this book, “Is the World’s Oldest Bible a Fake? By David W. Daniels, in this book, “Neither Oldest Nor Best, How the Foundational Manuscripts of Modern Bible Translations are Fraudulent”. Dr. David H. Sorenson writes this.
Dr. James White, who does many debates on this topic and has written books, is an ardent supporter of these two codices and the critical method. He thinks that if Dr. Dean John Burgon and even the KJV translators had known about these “two older and better manuscripts,” the KJV would have been changed a lot. That, of course, is pure speculation, but it sounds convincing, doesn’t it? What if these folks knew about the Roman Catholic source of each of these codices? Would they still give their unqualified support for these two manuscripts? I do not believe it, even for a moment. And if Burgon and the King James translators knew about all the questionable changes, there is no way they would have supported revising the KJV based on these two manuscripts.
God always keeps His promises, including the promise to preserve His word. Faith is believing God and His word. Unbelief is the refusal to accept His word. I choose to believe His promise.
