Adapted from Dr.Terry Watkins’ (http://www.av1611.org) article NEW INTERNATIONAL PERVERSION and Barry Burton's book entitled LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE.
[Please note: CV4F does not hold to the King James Only (KJO) position]
Though this article deals primarily with the New International Version, the information provided here is relevant to most modern translations of the Bible published since the year 1881. This means that no matter which English Bible translation you may be studying, it would be in your best interests to look up the
texts listed in this article to see if your version is true or false.
Important Note: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books and also the Satanic Bible. Here is the proof :
The NIV omitted 64,576
Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV! These verses have either been completely removed from the text or are in the footnotes!
[Please note: footnotes are not part of the Scripture. Or else they will not be in the footnotes!!]
Authorized King James Version
New International Version
for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
.how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Get thee behind me, Satan.
He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
And when they heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out.
If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Let us not fight against God.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren,…
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.
Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
Fire came down from God out of heaven.
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it.
Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ".
. . It is written, That man shall not live by bread
alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even
"TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 – "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF
GOD"! And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion
seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know
Duet. 8:3 ?
GOD’S WARNING : Rev 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
NIV VERSES ATTACKING MAJOR DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE!
The NIV Perverts The Deity Of Jesus Christ!
1Tim 3:16 (KJV)
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,believed on in the
world, received up into glory.
This verse clearly teaches that Jesus is God!
1Tim 3:16 (NIV)
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.
I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads,
"And without controversy great
is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh".
The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV
"twists" "GOD" to "HE".
"HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent.
There is no antecedent in the
context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtlety (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!
The NIV implies that Jesus is NOT sinless!
Luk 2:22 (KJV)
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
Luk 2:22 (NIV)
When the time of their purification according to the law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord,
The NIV Attacks The Deity Of Jesus Christ!
Rom 14:10b & 12 (KJV)
“for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”
Do you see the logic of it ?????
When we stand before the judgement seat of Christ…we are giving account to God. THEREFORE…Christ is God!
Rom 14:10b & 12 (NIV)
“for we will all stand before God’s judgment seat …So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
Do you see that?
Just one small word is CHANGED…YET…
There is no proof that Jesus is God in these verses!!!
[Note: If you use NIV and other perversions to witness to Jehovah Witnesses or
other cultists, you will have a hard time proving that Jesus really is God. ]
The NIV perverts the virgin birth!
Luke 2:33 (KJV)
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luke 2:33 (NIV)
The child's father and mother marvelled at what was said about him.
The sinlessness of Christ was secured by His extraordinary conception in the womb of the virgin Mary: there was no human father involved. It is true that Scripture does refer to Joseph as Christ's father, but only when recording the view of those who mistakenly termed Him such, e.g. in Luke 2:48; our Lord corrected Mary on that occasion by His words in the next verse –
"wist ye not that I must be about MY
FATHER’S business?" (When Joseph and Mary are referred
to as Jesus' "parents" in Luke 2:41 the idea is that together
they were His legal parents, not necessarily His natural ones.)
Webster dictionary defines a parent as a: one that begets or brings forth
offspring b: a person who brings up and cares for another.
[Important Note: All corrupted Greek manuscripts have father (πατὴρ) instead of Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ) in Luke 2:33.]
The NIV robs Jesus Christ
Mat 9:18 (KJV)
While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
Mat 9:18 (NIV)
While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.
In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 "worshipped him" is removed in the NIV ! Why doesn't the NIV want Jesus Christ to be worshipped? Hint: see Luke 4:7, Matt. 4:9.
[Check out these verses too: Matt 20:20; Mark 5:6; etc]
“To worship” does not mean to “kneel or bow down”. You can bow or kneel before the Queen of England out of respect, without worshipping her. Of course they want to take out the “worship” from these verses if they don’t want to admit that Jesus is God!
The NIV says Jesus had an origin!
Mic 5:2 (KJV)
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, 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.
Mic 5:2 (NIV)
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
Did Jesus Christ ever begin? [Jehovah Witnesses say He does!] No, of course not, He has always been. Jesus is God, and has no origin (Hebrews 7:3). If He did, then He wouldn't be God. This verse refers to the eternal pre-existence of Christ.
So if the NIV says that Jesus had an
origin, you know it is blasphemy!
Furthermore ,it says in KJV... "FROM EVERLASTING." (See Psalm 90:2). Well that would be in the past forever. It means forever! Now read what the diabolical NIV says...
...from ancient times? This makes Jesus a Creature within time.
(Note: In the footnote the NIV has “goings forth” as an alternative to “origins” and “days of eternity” to “ancient times” , thus the correct translations have been given less credibility than the heretical ones.)
The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!
Col 1:14 (KJV)
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:14 (NIV)
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
The NIV rips out the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD"! Redemption is ONLY "THROUGH HIS BLOOD". Hebrews 9:22, reads, ". . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"
The NIV removes one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the Trinity!
I John 5:7-- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"].
In the NIV it says,
there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--
there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the Trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the Trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...?
Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible.
The early Church Fathers [Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius,etc] quoted this verse
in their writings! And the writings of these men predate the so called “oldest
and best” manuscripts i.e. Vaticanus ,and other Greek
manuscripts. Textus Receptus
is the closes to the original New Testament books. God has preserved His Word as
promised (Psalm 12:6-7).
Manuscript Evidence for Verses Disputed by the Modern Versions
by TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY
(Note: These verses were dropped out of the majority Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the few Greek & Latin text and therefore certain editions of NKJV dispute these verses too)
The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!
Joh 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:16 (NIV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!
The NIV does the same in John 1:14,
1:18, and 3:18.
Dr Henry M.Morris said the Greek word for "only begotten" is monogenes, the very form of which clearly denotes "only generated." As monotheism connotes only one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated or, more simply, only begotten. It does not mean "one," or even "one and only." It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek original) called the "only" son of God.
The NIV’S Blunder!
Mark 1:2,3 (KJV)
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mark 1:2,3 (NIV)
It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way .
In addition to the doctrine of the person and work of Christ being weakened, the NIV calls into question the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture by introducing mistakes into the very text of Scripture and by omitting portions of verses, which show fulfilment of prophecy.
In Mark 1.2 the AV says, "As it is written in the prophets ... " and then quotes from Malachi 3.1 and Isaiah 40.3.
The NIV says, "It is written in Isaiah the prophet ... " and then proceeds to quote from both Isaiah and Malachi.
The AV has the proper reading with
the plural "prophets", since there were two of them, so that both Malachi and Isaiah are represented. NIV's verses only
gives the opponents of Scripture added reason to debase the Bible. Worse, it causes even Christians to
doubt the veracity of the Word of God, leaving them without an anchor in this
Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!
For Hebrews 6:18 clearly
declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is
impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ
calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!
Confession of faith omitted!
Acts 8:37 (KJV)
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest, And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
NIV omits this verse, even though the eunuch's question is recorded in verse 36 and is translated as follows:
"Look, here is water. Why
shouldn't I be baptized?"
Philip's answer in verse 37 is omitted, and he baptizes him with no
confession of faith if we are to believe NIV. This is a very serious matter
involving the salvation of the soul and we believe it is a serious error to tamper with
God's Word in this way.
NIV Says Mark 16:9-20 Not
At the end of Mark 16:8 there is a 2 inch black line through the center of the page. In books and periodicals this usually means the end of the chapter, passage or article. Just below this black line we find the following in NIV,
"(The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)"
Then follows their translation of
this passage in the same size type as the text. However it is clear from the long
black line and their note, (which is not printed as a footnote at the bottom of the page, but right in the middle of the page), that the
translators do not believe that this passage should be in the text.
John W. Burgon (the outstanding 19th century scholar) wrote the book, "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark," clearly showing beyond any doubt that these verses are a part of God's Word. To this day Burgon's book has never been answered. These verses are not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, but as Burgon shows,the area where it should have appeared was left blank.
(Note: Majority of Greek text have these verses with the exception of few)
[Check out this article by Dr.Holland for further information :
Do these types of footnotes affect a person's faith in the Bible?
YES! It certainly does. The most effective way to weaken the faith of Bible believers is by attacking their foundation--which is the WORD of GOD. And it is being done effectively by casting doubt in the WORD of GOD.
As the Bible says, the opposite of faith is doubt (Romans 10:17).
Let's Weigh the Evidence, pg 15
Satan cast doubt on God's Word in the Garden of Eden by using these first 4 words:
"Yea, hath God said" Gen 3:1.
Today, doubts are being cast in the hearts of believers the same way through the modern versions.
On nearly every page they say in the footnotes...
"other ancient authorities
omit this verse"
"the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have these verses"
"this verse not found in the earliest mss."
"Later mss.add" or "some authorities say"
The NIV promotes Catholic
Matt 1:25 (KJV)
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name JESUS.
The NIV leaves out the word “firstborn” in relation to the Lord’s birth. This leaves room for two errors, first that he was not the firstborn, and second, that Mary had no other children after He was born (Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19 show that she did.)
[Note: Roman Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.]
NIV Denies The Woman Taken In Adultery
After John 7:52 there is another 2 inch black line. Then just below it is this quote, "The earliest and most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." Then we see another line after 8:11.
NIV gives a translation of these
verses but clearly by lines and by statement indicate that it should not be in
the text. So according to this version, the
poor wretched woman of John 8 is still in her sins. Many Scholars have
skillfully defended the inclusion of this passage. It
belongs in the Word of God, and we shall accept no Bible that removes it from
the text. The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God!
Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you,
NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ."
Proverbs 30:6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words . . ."
And just in case you missed it, GOD'S LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, ". . .If any man SHALL ADD unto these things. . .
And if any man shall TAKE AWAY FROM
THE WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God
shall take away his part out of the book of life. . ."
And Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:12, gives a clear aim of Satan, ". . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word . . ."
The LIES used to promote the NIV. . .
LIE 1) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.
FACT: An older manuscript (Vaticanus) was available to the
translators of the King James Bible, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable.
The Vaticanus omits some words, clauses, sentences and the whole book of
Revelation! The Vaticanus also contains the
LIE 2) NIV more accurate
FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics.
The NIV uses "dynamic
equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change
and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for
more than a word-for-word translation. . ."
". . . ye have PERVERTED the words of the living God. . ."
The NIV & Zondervan
A little known fact: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper
& Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as Making
Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality described as "Beautifully illustrated with
full-color photography,. . . Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to
lesbian sexuality and relationships. . .the intricacies of love play. .
." and many other pro-homosexual
HarperCollins is a subsidiary of the global media empire, The News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock. The News Corporation empire include Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. Fox Broadcasting produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups.
The NIV and Sexual
Romans 1:26-32 also shows the
"fruits" of "sowing" ". . . the TRUTH of God
into a LIE. . ." Verses 26-27 says "FOR THIS CAUSE(vs 25 for "changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE")
God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural
use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
which is unseemly, . . ."
The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in American schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the "in thing" in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!
A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author
Dr. Virginia Mollenkott.
In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." . "Homosexual offenders" is an obscure translation which can also mean that the this verse does not condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS" !
The word "sodomite" was replaced with
obscure/less offensive words in the NIV!
"There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today"
Deut 23:17 (KJV)
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deut 23:17 (NIV)
Deuteronomy 23:17- No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.
1 Kings 14:24 (KJV)
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.
1 Kings 14:24 (NIV)
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.
1 Kings 15:12 (KJV)
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
1 Kings 15:12 (NIV)
He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.
This change from sodomite to
"shrine prostitute" tells us that homosexuality isn't bad, there are
just some homosexuals doing bad things. This sentiment has been
expressed by a number of pro-sodomite individuals who claim Christ. They are deceiving themselves for the
scripture says the effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.
[ Note: This kind of obscure interpretation is
music to pro-homosexual churches! ]
1. DO ALL THE VERSES IN THE NIV AND OTHER MODERN VERSIONS CHANGE OR ATTACK THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST?
No, not all the verses. In some places they do acknowledge the deity of Christ. The devil cannot change everything…He is too smart for it.. Have you ever heard of a counterfeit $50.00 bill that’s ORANGE? If Satan used large and obvious corruptions, then Christians would not accept it but Satan knows that the easiest way to corrupt and derail Christianity is by subtlety through the back door. It is easier to make smaller encroachments through the back door than a major frontal assault.
2. IS IT TRUE THE GREEK AND HEBREW TEXTS THAT WERE USED TO TRANSLATE THE MODERN VERSIONS WERE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE USED BY THE KJV TRANSLATORS?
The King James Version, like all the early Protestant Bibles of countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Italy etc. was translated from a Text called in the early Reformation days the Received Text (Textus Receptus). Before that time this Text, also known as the Majority Text, was used by the early church in Israel, the Middle East, Asia Minor and Greece. In those lands we see the Almighty preserving His inspired Word as He promised to do. Because of its purity the Received Text was then used by all the early Protestant Reformers of Europe for their translations. Textus Receptus also became the basis of the King James Version. But a strange and dangerous development began to occur towards the end of the 19th century. New translations of the Bible, based on a vastly different Greek text, known initially as the Westcott/Hort (W/H)Greek text, began to appear. This text later became the basis of the Nestle/Aland Text which underlies virtually every modern translation of the Bible published since 1881.
3. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEXTUS RECEPTUS (TR) AND THE W/H NESTLE/ALAND TEXTS?
The difference between Textus Receptus (TR) and the W/H
Nestle/Aland texts is caused by two ancient manuscripts Codex
Sinaiticus (Aleph) and
Codex Vaticanus (B).
The TR excludes these two manuscripts. The Nestle/Aland text includes them. Codex
Sinaiticus was retrieved from a wastepaper
basket in a convent at the foot of Mount Sinai in A.D.1844. Codex
Vaticanus, a 4th century document, was found in 1481 in the Vatican
library in Rome, where it had lain virtually unused for over a thousand years. These two ancient
manuscripts, both of which were considered unfit for
use even by their own custodians, were seized upon in the later half of the
19th century and foisted on the unsuspecting Christian
church in place of the trusted Textus Receptus.
The facts about Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B):
1. "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with the majority of manuscripts.
2. Not only do they disagree with the Majority of the Greek manuscripts, but they do not agree with each other. The 8000 changes in B and the 9000 changes in Aleph are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority text in about 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify 2000.
3. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older than Textus Receptus and the Greek Majority Text but certainly not reliable.
4. The Vaticanus omits some very important sentences and the whole book of Revelation! The Sinaiticus too omits some very important clauses but adds the “Shepherd of Helmes” and the “Epistle of Barnabas” to the New Testament!
4. ARE THERE ANY EARLY GREEK MANUSCRIPTS THAT PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS OVER AGAINST THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT?
Yes, there are indeed. Here are two recent examples. The first is Magdalen GR 17 or the “Jesus Papyrus.” This papyrus, kept in Magdalen College, Oxford, is one of the oldest known fragments of the NT. Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’ Ancona in their book—The Jesus Papyrus—published by Weidenfeld-Nicolson (England) and Doubleday (New York) wrote that the Magdalen GR 17 “is to be dated to a point within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses to Christ....This makes the ‘Magdalen’ papyrus one of the oldest known fragments of the New Testament, and ‘one of the most important documents in the world.’”
In other words, the papyrus can be dated to about AD 60 or earlier. The Magdalen GR 17 consists of three small fragments, and is a portion of Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 26:7-8, 26:10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33). Among other things, what is significant is the Magdalen’s bearing on the identification of the traditional text. The British Reformed Fellowship in its journal article, “Papyrus Magdalen GR 17 and the Textus Receptus,” reported this: “In the analysis of GR 17 undertaken under the laserscanning microscope, certain definite results concerning particular Greek letters that had originally been written on the GR 17 were obtained which enabled the researchers to conclude that the papyrus followed a certain form of textual reading. A comparison of this reading with the ‘Post-Westcott-Hort’ text of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece indicated a salient difference. Thiede and D’Ancona... point out that GR17 has, on the last four words of Matthew 26:22 a reading which is disparate from modern standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament which are of course, all ‘Westcott-Hort’ based eclectic text, the basis of all modern translations.” A comparison of the last four words of Matt 26:22 in the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort Text with the Jesus Papyrus bears this out quite clearly. The second is papyrus P75. P75 is another early manuscript (3rdcentury) that supports the traditional reading (Luke 24:51) of the Textus Receptus.
5. ARE THE TRANSLATORS OF THE MODERN VERSIONS HERETICS?
No, not all. But some of the
heretics in the translating committee were very influential.
6. IS THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION RELIABLE?
Some Bible scholars acknowledge that the errors in NKJV are not as serious as
those found in the NIV and other modern versions. Furthermore, it does not use “dynamic equivalence” translation as the NIV. It is a
word-for-word translation. However, the NKJV tend to favour the corrupted Greek
Text in translating certain verses . 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) http://www.kj21.com is a better translation than NKJV and has even retained the Ye’s and Thou’s
to distinguish between the second person singular and the second person
plural pronouns—to help us to better interpret God’s Word. But this version
is expensive and not easily available in our local Christian bookstores. And for those who prefer the old KJV with the archaic words defined in the footnotes , then the DEFINED KJB is a good choice. (DEFINED KJB at our ad section)
7. IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON OTHER
THAN THE ABOVE FOR RECOMMENDING TR?
CV4F only recommends Bible versions translated from the Textus Receptus (TR) and the majority Greek manuscripts for the following reasons:
-Majority of true Christians around the world for centuries have been using translations based on these manuscripts.
-These Greek manuscripts have no theological, historical or any other serious errors except for some minor scribal errors which do not alter any Christian doctrines.
-If the Majority Greek manuscripts are inferior to Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B), why did God allow Christians to use them for 1900 years?
-We believe God has
preserved His Words as promised (Psalm 12:6-7; 1 Peter 1:25; Matt 5:18;
etc) in the Majority Greek & Textus Receptus manuscripts.
by Jeffrey Khoo, PhD
Academic Dean, Far Eastern Bible College
WHY NOT THE NIV?
THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY
by James R.White, Ph.D
HIS SON'S NAME
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Founder and president emeritus of
the Institute for Creation Research
LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE
by Barry Burton