The nature of the changes.
1. The Deity of Christ.
1 Tim 3:16:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh… AV
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion. He appeared in human form… GNB
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body… NIV
Rom 14:10,12: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. AV
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. NIV
These texts in the Authorised Version emphasis that Christ was God of very God. However, modern version change these verses thus removing the clear testimony of Scripture to the fact that Christ was God manifest in the flesh.
2. Eternal Sonship of Christ.
Micah 5:2:
… 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. AV
… But out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times. GNB
… out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times. NIV
'Ancient times' does not necessarily mean eternity past. This accommodates those who deny the eternal sonship of Christ.
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? AV
You are my Son; today I have become your Father. GNB
You are my Son, today I have become your Father. NIV
The eternal sonship of Christ is attacked here. God did not become His Father as these new versions state, He was always His Father.
3. The Virgin Birth.
Isa 7:14,
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. AV
A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel'. GNB
Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name immanuel. RSV
Luke 2:33:
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. AV
The child's father and mother were amazed. GNB
The child's father and mother marvelled. NIV
There is a weakening of the evidence for the virgin birth. Joseph was not Christ's father. That is a blasphemy which undermines the whole work of redemption. If Christ was not safeguarded from original by virtue of His virgin birth then He could save no one but had his own sin to answer for.
4. The Atonement.
Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. AV
By whom we are set free, that is our sins are forgiven. GNB
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV
The reference to the blood of Christ which is essential to redemption is removed. The blood atonement was one particular doctrine hated by Westcott and Hort.
There are many of other places where changes like this occur. Surely this is no coincidence in the light of the fact that the revising committee set out to make doctrinal changes. They certainly accomplished their purpose.
The number of changes.
The text which the New International Version and the Good News Bible come from shows multitude of changes.
There are 481 changes which substantially affect the meaning. There are 44 changes which involve doctrine. There are 212 changes to the names of Deity, 75 changes to the name of Jesus, 44 to the name of Christ, 35 for Lord, 32 for God, 26 for other names of deity. More than 150 pronouns which refer to Deity are omitted. This cannot be incidental!
The Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version. This is nearly 2% of the whole. It is the equivalent of removing 1 and 2 Peter from the Bible.
The sad conclusion to come to is that modern translations are corrupt Bibles because they come from corrupt manuscripts translated by corrupt men with corrupt motives.
No believer who loves the pure Word of God should have anything to do with them.
3. The Virgin Birth.
Isa 7:14,
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. AV
A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel'. GNB
Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name immanuel. RSV
Luke 2:33:
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. AV
The child's father and mother were amazed. GNB
The child's father and mother marvelled. NIV
There is a weakening of the evidence for the virgin birth. Joseph was not Christ's father. That is a blasphemy which undermines the whole work of redemption. If Christ was not safeguarded from original by virtue of His virgin birth then He could save no one but had his own sin to answer for.
4. The Atonement.
Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. AV
By whom we are set free, that is our sins are forgiven. GNB
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV
The reference to the blood of Christ which is essential to redemption is removed. The blood atonement was one particular doctrine hated by Westcott and Hort.
There are many of other places where changes like this occur. Surely this is no coincidence in the light of the fact that the revising committee set out to make doctrinal changes. They certainly accomplished their purpose.
The number of changes.
The text which the New International Version and the Good News Bible come from shows multitude of changes.
There are 481 changes which substantially affect the meaning. There are 44 changes which involve doctrine. There are 212 changes to the names of Deity, 75 changes to the name of Jesus, 44 to the name of Christ, 35 for Lord, 32 for God, 26 for other names of deity. More than 150 pronouns which refer to Deity are omitted. This cannot be incidental!
The Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version. This is nearly 2% of the whole. It is the equivalent of removing 1 and 2 Peter from the Bible.
The sad conclusion to come to is that modern translations are corrupt Bibles because they come from corrupt manuscripts translated by corrupt men with corrupt motives.
No believer who loves the pure Word of God should have anything to do with them.
6 comments:
"The sad conclusion to come to is that modern translations are corrupt Bibles because they come from corrupt manuscripts translated by corrupt men with corrupt motives.
No believer who loves the pure Word of God should have anything to do with them."
I take it that you know these people personally in order to make such sweeping statements?
Sean
Considering that the translators are all dead and have been for decades your comment is a little far of the mark. The work on the Revised Version commenced in 1879 and was completed in 1885
I read and seek to do some research on a subject like most other people.
The unorthodox views of Westcott and Hort, the two principal translators of the new text, are very well documented. They did not seek to hide what it was that they were seeking to do with the Received Text that was the basis for the Authorised Version.
I gave one quote in a previous post on versions where Hort spoke of the 'villainous Textus Receptus'. I even gave the whole quote in case anyone should feel that I was implying something that was not true.
There are many more.
We are holding a conference in Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church later this month [19th-21st] on the excellence of the Authorised Version and one of the subjects dealt with will be the corruptions in modern versions.
Do you know that the Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version?
This is nearly 2% of the New Testament. It is the equivalent of removing I and II Peter from the Bible.
Brian McClung
"Considering that the translators are all dead and have been for decades..."
My point exactly....
Sean
What exactly is your point?
Brian McClung
But translations are translations, are they not? Surely the KJV isn't 100% perfect... I only consider the original manuscripts to be the PURE Word of God.
Some translations are worse than others. Don't ever forget that you are only dealing with a translation.
The KJV is the only translation that I could really recommend to anyone though, maybe the NKJV if English isn't their mother tongue.
Michael
The issue is not about translations per se as you rightly point out. It is about the underlying text from which the translations come. That is why the details at the top of this blog refers to the Authorised Version as the most accurate English translation.
Any translation can be improved I am sure. We have no time for those who argue that the KJV, as they call it, was 'inspired'.
The translators of the Authorised Version recognised this themselves by including marginal references. I often make mention of these references when preaching. The FPC's contention is with the text that underlies the modern versions.
The Authorised version used a different text, particularly in the New Testament, to the one which underlies the vast majority of the modern versions. Even the NKJV is influenced by this new text. The NKJV is not as many assume just an updating of the English language and this is why we hold the position that we do of only using the Authorised Version in our denomination. We don't believe there is a better English translation based upon the best texts available.
Brian McClung
Post a Comment