m. KJV & NIV verse comparison, NIV says Joseph is the father of Jesus



Here’s an excerpt of note:

Virgin Birth banner

Luke 2:33 KJV “And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.”

NIV “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. ”

NIV changes “Joseph and his mother” to “the child’s father and mother” making Jesus the son of Joseph and just a man.

This also attacks His Deity. Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. The NIV’s statement is heresy. The Catholics believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ, but they want to destroy the faith of the Protestants and get them to accept Catholics as “brothers in Christ,” which they are not.

Luke 2:43 KJV “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.”

NIV “After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.”

NIV changes “Joseph and his mother” to “his parents.” What scriptures the Catholics have not corrupted to promote their doctrines, they have changed to destroy the foundation of the Christian (Protestant) faith, and its fundamental doctrines. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11: 3).


And here is a comparison with the NASB:




37 Responses to “m. KJV & NIV verse comparison, NIV says Joseph is the father of Jesus”

  1. ianvincent Says:

    The KJV vs. Other Bible Translations Controversy


  2. ian vincent Says:

    From the NASV to the KJV
    By Frank Logsdon


    In the 1950s Logsdon was invited by his businessman friend Franklin Dewey Lockman to prepare a feasibility study which led to the production of the New American Standard Version (NASV). He also helped interview some of the men who served as translators for this version. He wrote the Foreword which appears in the NASV.

    As we see in the following testimony, in the later years of his life Logsdon publicly renounced his association with the modern versions and stood unhesitatingly for the King James Bible. In a letter dated June 9, 1977, Logsdon wrote to Cecil Carter of Prince George, British Columbia, “When questions began to reach me [pertaining to the NASV], at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. … I can aver that the project was produced by thoroughly sincere men who had the best of intentions. The product, however, is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times.”

    For instance, there are in the revisions (1881 and 1901), so we are told 5337 deletions, subtractions if you please. And here is the way it is done. It is done so subtly that very few would discover it. For instance, in the New American standard we are told that 16 times the word “Christ” is gone. When you are reading through you perhaps wouldn’t miss many of them. Some you might. And 10 or 12 times the word “Lord” is gone. For instance, if you were in a church when the pastor is speaking on the words of the Lord Jesus in his temptation, “Get thee behind me, Satan,” if you have a New American Standard you wouldn’t even find it. It’s not even in there. And there are so many such deletions.

    So this is done in order to get around it and further blind the minds and hearts of people, even though it may be done conscientiously. There isn’t any worse kind of error than to have conscientious error. If you are conscientiously wrong it’s a terrible situation to be in.

    Worth reading the whole article.

  3. Lionfish Says:

    I am having a look at this. Rather than comparing the KJV to NIV etc, it would be preferable to compare both versions to the original manuscripts themselves – but who has the expertise…?

    Some of the comparisons seem a little bit moot, for example where there is a difference

    eg. “this is my body broken for you” (KJV) vs “this is my body given for you” (NIV), the NIV (or NLT) often provides the alternative texts (ie. the KJV) in the footnotes.

    Other comparisons such as Rev 1:11 say the NIV has omitted “I am the Alpha and the Omega”, again this is included in the footnotes and also included in the text at verse 8 – so there appaers to be no conspiracy to hide these words from the readers.

  4. Lionfish Says:

    Hi Ian,

    Just another thought – there seems to be an assertion that the Catholics want to keep the true scriptures from being published … but is it not the Catholic Church that originally decided what books were to be considered as part of the Canon – and kept heresy at bay through statements that defined the core set of orthodox beliefs through statements of faith such as the Nicene creed?

    The JW’s want to assert that all translations – even the KJV is corrupt – but they too have exactly the same books in the Bible as most of Christendom (excluding the Aprocrypha).

    Interesting topic – and one we must fearfully and humbly tread with caution – especially when we lack the expertise ourselves to verify the original texts.

  5. onlyjesusmatters Says:

    I had no idea. Thanks for explaining to me why I hate the NIV.


  6. Lionfish Says:


    This opens up an entire can of worms.

    I have been reviewing the omission of 1 John 5:7 from later sources (this is the only verse that explicitly affirms the Trinity).

    This will take some time.

  7. ian vincent Says:

    I disagree that any special ‘expertise’ is required to analyze and compare 2 different Greek texts, the Erasmus/Majority/Received/Byzantine Text/s with the Nestle-Aland, with the help of a Greek dictionary. It’s plain where words differ or have been deleted. That’s what i did.

    God would be unjust if special expertise or training were required for one to fully grasp the truth of His Word, so that only an elite could really understand. That’s the false church paradigm of Rev. 17.

    On ‘conspiracies’ : anyone who is deceived is part of a conspiracy. Satan has from the beginning been behind a host of conspiracies against the truth, Has God said? You won”t die! he always casts doubts on God’s Word.

    On “these three are one” :

    Luk 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that when Jesus also was baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
    Luk 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased.

    I believe that, what is called the ‘Yohanine Comma’, 1 John 5:7, is inspired by God:

    1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one

    That’s not the clever wording of a smart fellow, that’s the language of God.

    These three are one. Period. No need of any use of the extra-Biblical term ‘trinity’, which ends up being used as a title for God, which could cross the line into blasphemy.

    There are three, not there were three, or was for some time three, no, there ARE three, and they are one God. He is the LORD, He doesn’t change.

  8. ian vincent Says:

    Mark wrote: “I had no idea. Thanks for explaining to me why I hate the NIV.


    My spirit has never witnessed with the NIV, even from when i was first saved and knew nothing about the controversy. Anytime i tried to read it my spirit just was dead to it, i was just left with my intellect alone.

    It’s so different with the Majority Text based translations, then, for me, its both my spirit and intellect which is edified.

    Of course, we’re talking about subjective experience, which we would not want to isolate as an authority of itself. Yet, my experience harmonizes with the truth which has come to light on this controversy. There are facts which support how i feel about it.

  9. Lionfish Says:


    On 1 John 5:6-8 – the footnotes that I am reading state that the “all three are one verse” is included in the Latin vulgate and a few late texts.

    So is it a majority text or a minority text…?

    If it does infact NOT appear in the majority of texts – then it may be a matter of theological integrity NOT to include it as much as we who endorse the Trinity would love to, and to recognise it as a footnote as appearing throughout history in some texts.

  10. Lionfish Says:

    I am now looking into the Latin Vulgate – the translation by St Jerome. In some ways the English translation (Douay-Rheims) appears even more eloquent than even the KJV!

    It does contain the Trinity verse 1 5:6-8 “…all three are one” as does the KJV


    However, it seems to have a more accurate translation of Ecclesiastes

    “There is nothing new under the sun” than the KJV:


  11. Lionfish Says:

    The Douay-Rheims is a Catholic Version!:

    “The Douay Version is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based. It was translated by Gregory Martin, an Oxford-trained scholar, working in the circle of English Catholic exiles on the Continent, under the sponsorship of William (later Cardinal) Allen. The NT appeared at Rheims in 1582; the OT at Douay in 1609. The translation, although competent, exhibited a taste for Latinisms that was not uncommon in English writing of the time but has seemed excessive in the eyes of later generations. The NT influenced the Authorized Version”.

    It is interesting how this authorised version from the catholic Church tries to reinforce the Trinity scripture that we have been discussing, which is contrary to the view of some KJV-only that the Catholics conspired to keep the Truth out of the Bible!.

    This can of worms is deeper than I even thought!

  12. ian vincent Says:

    Catholicism fought the publishing of the Bible for centuries, would not allow it’s laity to read it, and murdered those who did.

    But, yeah, they had no problem with the trinity or the virgin birth, so they wouldn’t be responsible for censoring those verses.

    Here’s a good overview of the manuscript debate: http://www.biblebelievers.com/JEcob1.html

  13. ian vincent Says:



    Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD

    It has been commonly argued, for at least 200 years,[1] that no matter what Greek text one may use no doctrine will be affected. In my own experience, for over thirty years, when I have raised the question of what is the correct Greek text of the New Testament, regardless of the audience, the usual response has been: “What difference does it make?” The purpose of this article is to answer that question, at least in part.

    The eclectic Greek text presently in vogue, UBS3/N-A26, represents the type of text upon which most modern versions are based.[2] The KJV and NKJV follow a rather different type of text, a close cousin of the Majority Text.[3] The discrepancy between UBS3 and the Majority Text is around 8% (involving 8% of the words). In a Greek text with 600 pages that represents 48 solid pages’ worth of discrepancies! About a fifth of that reflects omissions in the eclectic text, so it is some ten pages shorter than the Majority Text. Even if we grant, for the sake of the argument, that up to half of the differences between the Majority and eclectic texts could be termed “inconsequential”, that leaves some 25 pages’ worth of differences that are significant (in varying degrees). In spite of these differences it is usually assumed that no cardinal Christian doctrine is at risk (though some, such as eternal judgment, the ascension and the deity of Jesus, are weakened). However, the most basic one of all, the divine inspiration of the text, is indeed under attack…. (cont.d)

    From: http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendh.h.htm

  14. Lionfish Says:

    Interesting Ian.

    It appears that the Latin Vulgate Douay-Rheims and the KJV may have followed the same stream of manuscript.

    Possibly the Douay-Rheims influenced the KJV since it was written in the same Country just prior to the KJV.

  15. Lionfish Says:

    I have just been doing some reading on the Douay-Rheims, and it seems that that most definitely the Rheims (NT) translation of the Vulgate was used by the KJV translators.

    In fact, the KJV has some level of criticism levelled at it for a number of errors eg. “shall” instead of “shall not” etc that had to be revised and corrected. The original bindings of the book had Unicorns (an occult symbol) engraved on the covers – a symbol of King James own Scottish ancestory of which he was proud.

    It’s interesting – as a Lutheran, the Catholics have always seemed to be regarded as the enemy, the anti-Christ, and perhaps at times in history they have been.

    Noting the errors and attrocities committed by my own denomination, infact all denominations, perhaps we are more closely related in Christ as the Church Universal than we have thought.

    It makes sense, that as per your othere thread, the emerging end-times antechrist may well be external to the Church (eg. Islam).

  16. Lionfish Says:


    The KJV translates re’em as Unicorn, whilst NIV (and other modern versions including the NKJV) translate this as ‘wild ox’.

    The unicorn is mentioned in Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10; Isaiah 34:7:

    “While modern translations typically translate re’em as “wild ox,” the King James Version (1611), Luther’s German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning “one-horned animal.”
    Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible#fnList_1_3

    It seems as though the unicorn (one horned creature) may well have been a real animal of sorts after all – contrary to what the modern version thinking.

  17. Lionfish Says:

    Some further reading on the possible historocity of the Unicorn:


  18. pravin Says:

    I want to know which translation of the Holy Bible is the best. Help me if you can.

  19. ian vincent Says:

    Hi brother, thanks for dropping by.

    This article may be helpful:


    All new versions of the Bible ignore over 5000 Greek majority texts for a few aberrant forms of the new testament.

  20. Lionfish Says:


    Interestingly, if we are looking for the most ‘accurate’ translation most may fail the test.

    Most translations including the KJV translate the personal name of God as ‘The LORD’, rather than ‘YHWH’


    For now, perhaps in this life ‘we see through a glass, darkly’ (1 Cor 13:12).

  21. ian vincent Says:

    Thanks Richard for weighing in on this.

    I don’t feel led to address God by His Hebrew names : Yahweh, Adonai or Elohim. I call Him Father. Using Hebrew words doesn’t make a Bible more accurate, as such.

    On the controversy, if someone reads the article on the link i posted, and they have no clue what it means, or, they feel it’s false or irrelevant, then there’s nothing more i could add that would sway them in that direction.

    Btw, i know Pravin, we’re in fellowship with him here locally. Brother, if you’d like to read the link i posted, then, feel free to discuss it with me.

  22. Lionfish Says:


    I agree – I always refer to God as ‘Father’ something special about that term!

    Regarding the accuracy of translatsions, you may be applaed, but my 11 year old has just bought this bible:


    It may not have the accuracy the KJV, but mu son ( a reluctant reader) has consumded about 150 pages n 24 hours. :-)

  23. ian vincent Says:

    Like my mother in law says: Something is better than nothing. A comic book Bible is better than no Bible, eh.

  24. ian vincent Says:

    The Only Begotten Son of God

    Today the very foundation of our faith is under direct attack. Most of the modern Bible translations** have altered this doctrine and shake the very foundation of Christianity. Unfortunately, this attempt to undermine our faith appears to be largely ignored. The modern translations have replaced “only begotten” with words that change the person of the Lord Jesus and thus the foundation of the faith.

    The New International Version (NIV) is one of the most popular translations today. It has completely altered the “only begotten Son” to terms that are false or misleading. The NIV is typical of most of the modern translations. The terms now used in place of “only begotten” are “One and Only” and “only Son.”

    excerpt from:


  25. cheryl Says:

    It’s very strange, about the NIV. I practically grew up in Christianity reading the NIV. I never once doubted Christ’s conception. I think perhaps people are reading too much into different Bible translations. I believe that if we are truly saved, the Holy Spirit will lead us into the truth of the scriptures. No matter the translation.

    Does God want me to read His Word in a manner that I can’t understand? I read the KJV as a child, and could not make heads or tails of it. When my mother bought me a “children’s version” of the bible, I became very enthused and started believing.

    Does anyone critique the Chinese bible? Or the Arabic bible?

  26. ian vincent Says:

    I agree on some points Cheryl. That’s the grace of God which saves us. Many people get saved while in the catholic church, but if they still defended idolatry you would have to wonder about their salvation.

    For me it’s a question of honor. I’m not going to read a Bible that has such blatant errors and omissions/deletions bcos I believe God provided a better translation. If i knowingly put aside the better translation and knowingly just wanted to read the one with all the errors and the corrupt source it came from, i would be a bit of an egg.

    Joseph is the father of Jesus? Doesn’t matter to you, ok.

    I’m even deeply disturbed that they copyright translations, its an abomination. But it doesn’t trouble most people. What to do?

    When i first got saved i couldn’t read the KJV, as much as i tried. The Living Bible helped me a lot. Then after a little study, finding out what all the long words mean, i fully reversed, i could only read the KJV or NKJV, and i when i would preach the gospel the KJV verses would come out of my heart, but instantly translated into modern english as i spoke.

    Now we’ve got hold of the KJ2000 and given that to our kids.

    With foreign languages you sometimes have a choice between one’s based on the majority byzantine text and ones based on the alexandrian.

    Here in India, in Hindi, Sheela tells me that the original Hindi Bible was translated from the KJV, and modern versions from the alexandrian, but the original one has the power, and the modern ones are wishy washy and have many errors.

    To explain “the question of honor” , here’s an analogy: If i got saved in the catholic church,then came to understand all the errors, would i be honoring Christ if i said to myself, “I know there’s so much error, but the Holy Spirit will lead me into all truth and i will still be saved if i stay in the catholic church, my salvation doesn’t depend on it”, ? I would be content to know that i have salvation, but i wouldn’t really care that Jesus is dishonored. It’s a far from perfect analogy. i know.

  27. Mario Ortega Says:

    I perfer the KJV as my personal bible. I use the KJV as well as other versions in my biblical studies. I am not advocating one over the other, yet, would like to come to the defense of the newer versions.

    Concerning the Lord’s Prayer,

    (KJV) Luke 11:2 “And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.”

    (NIV) Luke 11:2 “He said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come.”

    KJV advocates state, He isn’t “Our Father” but just Father, and He isn’t in Heaven, because that tells you something of who He is and points to Him as the Heavenly Father, so both references to heaven are removed.

    Yet let us go to Matthew 6:9-10 (NIV) “…Our Father in heaven,hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

    Concerning condemnation,

    (KJV) Romans 8:1 KJV “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

    (NIV) “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, ”

    KJV advocates state, NIV leaves out “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” It changes the entire meaning of the verse and leaves no requirement or prerequisite to being free from condemnation. In truth, the verse tells us that if you do walk in the flesh, then there is condemnation. They have taken that out, so that you won’t know the truth.

    Yet, again, let us go to Romans 8:4 (NIV) “…who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.”

    As for “…the omission of 1 John 5:7 from later sources…”

    The KJV contains an additional statement in verses 7 & 8, calling on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as witnesses. Modern versions omit this segment because it did not appear in any Greek manuscripts prior to the 15th Century and did not exist in the Latin Vulgate translation until the 9th Century.

    Since the translation of the KJV, there has been discovered 5,656 manuscripts containing all or parts of the Greek N.T. These newer translations are based on these newer manuscripts.

  28. Wayne Guindon Says:

    thanks for the info………
    Yes the controversy rages in other languages….especially spanish…… the Great Bear bible.or Oso bible was pre kjv aslo….

    I was wondering..if anyone here has done research to see if 1 John 5:7 appears in the eary apostolic father writings…i say early..in the sense…of predating the so called best texts..ie sinaitic and vaticanus…….. I don’t think they are the best, myself….

    i am a kjv christian………..but definitely not a kjv only..i just read the kjv as my preferred bible………..or my Reina Valera 1960………i was studying 1 Peter 1:11……. the kjv refers to the Spirit of Christ …as Which and It…… instead of Who……………. so yes we have to be honest……..no translation is perfect….that is why we should STUDY to show ourselves approved unto God…

    I appreciate the kind spirit on this blog……nice to see christians that actually show the love of Christ…

  29. ian vincent Says:

    Welcome Wayne!

    I agree. Wherever the KJV is inaccurate, i think i’m mostly aware of it as i read. I’m now using the KJ2000 and that has many improved renderings, but not perfect.

  30. Wayne Guindon Says:

    i had an improved text published in India…….or at least i thought it was just a cleaning up of the text of archaic words etc……….. it is not just as easy as doing that…
    i speak spanish………and something you just can’t say in other languages……

    we say in english.. i am looking forward to meeting you..
    i asked a ton of english speaking Salvadoreans…how do yu say that in spanish..they would say..i am anxious..
    well if it was a young man saying he was anxious to meet his future in laws………..anxioso in spanish doesn’t have that positive sense but rather a worried……sense to it…it could be positive or it could be negative….

    i think you give a very balanced presentation…………..

    i served the Lord in el salvador for ten years and continue here in vancouver canada…
    Blessings ..in Jesus name

  31. ian vincent Says:

    Nice to have you drop in, thanks.

  32. ian vincent Says:

    Re: “…something you just can’t say in other languages……”

    In regards to the scriptures, i would have to believe that every truth God inspired in the scriptures CAN be translated equally in other languages, provided they have an adequate vocabulary. The English language has actually evolved in step with the KJV over the last 400 years, believe it or not. No other book has been so important in shaping the English vocabulary.

    The nature of God and His purpose leads me to believe that He worded things in His wisdom so that universal translation IS possible, which, in itself, is a miracle, as no mortal could do that.

    Of course the scriptures CAN be accurately translated but it many instances they haven’t.

    A brother tried to post an article here saying that only the original autographs are literally the word of God, and only reliable, which i believe is a dangerous heresy so i deleted it. It’s heresy bcos it implies God is a chump, basically.

    On the differences in grammar, between Greek and English, when i read the interlinear and see the reverse Greek grammar i haven’t noted any change in meaning bcos of that. Reading the English words in the order they come in the Greek is tedious but still understandable.

  33. wayne guindon Says:

    No discord intended………. I believe that God intended His Word accurately translated into every language…..trying to convey certain thoughts for certain countries DO have their difficulties……….for the native of the Ecuadorian jungle……….before TV and internet……….. “snow” would be a hard concept to grasp….

    we know that snow is sometimes translated figuratively as “whiter than snow” and sometimes it speaks literally about it…

    My point in all of Bible study is that we are to “compare scripture with scripture” and that will resolve alot of difficulties…..

    the bible i was referring to above is called Today’s King James Version and seems only to be presented in the Grace Ministries Study Bible edition……………so a bit bulky to be lugging around………

    keep up the good work brother…

  34. ian vincent Says:

    Thanks brother.
    Yes, i’ve seen that version here in India, the only one we could get was a tiny pocket size.

    The KJ2000 is more than just changing the archaic words, inaccurate words are changed as well. But its not perfect. I like the fact that it’s free. What an honor to Jesus! As for the NKJV, what a disgrace that it’s not free. I think that is thoroughly evil thru and thru and they will have to answer for that one day.

    Things like ‘snow’, it’s not so hard to explain to people, eh. It just takes a bit of patience. Lug a fridge into the jungle and demonstrate, :>

    Once i sat with a group of trainee ‘pastors’ from the jungle and i came to find out that they didn’t know the world was round, that we live on a planet, nothing. I got out the globe and started at the beginning.

  35. Mark and Vicki Finger Says:

    There is a difference between a translation and a version: translations can be in many (any) language, and they are or are not accurate depending upon the linguistic skill of the interpreter; versions in one language should not differ much, but only possess relative differences based upon nuanced differences in the means of expression.

    The Holy Spirit is wiser than any man: He penned these words through the right men in the right language and left the right manuscripts so that we could have God’s words.

    I think that, at the very least, it is wise to compare different versions for their rendering of specific texts: and to be transparent about any errors (including omissions and additions). This is smart on the basis of natural thinking alone (let alone, the thinking of a redeemed mind).

    The point is this: “Are we seeking truth in Christ Jesus?” If we are, we are open and responsive to known concerns.

    Btw: I am a KJV man for this reason; I find the language to be lyrical and easier to memorize than other versions. (It’s also easier for me to understand, personally, which may sound strange to others.)

    I try to be aware of its (KJV) deficiencies, however. (I am interested in the KJV2000, however.)

    As for the NIV and some other, similar modern versions: they appear to be far less scholarly versions (based upon the critical theories, practices, and standards of linguists); and this is not a spiritual criticism, but a natural one.

  36. Brian Says:

    Hi all. I have studied this subject for many years and Im absolutely positive and with as much conviction as I can gather, that the niv book is THE book of the antichrist and Ill give an example however if one searches there are literally thousands. Isaiah 14:12.

    Compare this verse with the KJV and the Geneva which came before the KJV, (also the version that was distributed by Gods Outlaw, and one will notice that every “version” of the bible from the niv through to the terrible and blasphemous renditions of today and you will note that the niv (in particular) declares that Jesus and satan are one and the same person or one can assume that this is what is being implied.

    The idea is to compare this verse with Rev 22:16 and compare them closely. There are over 30000 errors and ommissions in the niv from the Testus Receptus – the greek texts used for this were the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (alexandrian texts) which Westcott and Hort used. And it was around this time that the occult grew in europe with people like blavatski, jung and marx.

    They all knew each other including westcott and hort and most of the “intelligensia” at that time were occultists which also included the then british prime minister. It is thus not surprising that the period in which the niv was drafted should also have an occultic influence because in later years the occultic influence became well established by having virginia mollenkott on the advising committee, an unavowed lesbian and also, dr. marten woudstra, a homosexual. is it thus any wonder as to why the word “Sodomy/Sodomite” has been excluded from the niv?

    Additionally Mark 16:9-20 – the niv declares (or did) that these verses are omitted from the earliest texts. What they neglect to point out is that this section of Mark is omitted from the ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS i.e. the vaticanus and the sinaiticus. The Schofield also says the same thing (or did).

    Another item is that the King James is by far the easiest to read and comprehend. the newer books have diffuclt words and grammar so that one needs to be a professor to understand – the KJ however is meant for people to easily understand

    So to summarise – the only version of the Bible one should be reading is either the KJV, the Geneva or the Assyrian translation (and a very very small selection of others)

    Oh and as a post-it – the new king james is NOT the king james – it closely resembles the new world of the jw’s

    God bless and may He lead you to the paths of righteousness

  37. Mario Ortega Says:

    I am self taught and can and at times have been corrected. With my limited understanding, I will try to reply to what has been stated.

    It was stated,

    “…Isaiah 14:12. Compare this verse with the KJV and the Geneva which came before the KJV, (also the version that was distributed by Gods Outlaw, and one will notice that every “version” of the bible from the niv through to the terrible and blasphemous renditions of today and you will note that the niv (in particular) declares that Jesus and satan are one and the same person or one can assume that this is what is being implied…..The idea is to compare this verse with Rev 22:16 and compare them closely…”

    “Lucifer, son of the morning…” (Isa. 14:12 KJV).

    The KJV translated “morning star” (Heb. helel) as “Lucifer,” a term borrowed from the Latin Vulgate. Looks like the writers of the KJV did not do their homework. Because of the arrogant claims of the king of Babylon, the name Lucifer was applied to the devil by Jerome, who translated the Roman Catholic Vulgate version of the bible. Luther and Calvin, however, said that applying the name to Satan here was a great error.

    As we now see, the NIV correctly translated the Hebrew word helel instead of just writing “Lucifer” that was found written in the Vulgate.

    “morning star, son of the dawn…” (Isa. 14:12 NIV).

    It was also stated,

    “…It is thus not surprising that the period in which the niv was drafted should also have an occultic influence because in later years the occultic influence became well established by having virginia mollenkott on the advising committee, an unavowed lesbian and also, dr. marten woudstra, a homosexual. is it thus any wonder as to why the word “Sodomy/Sodomite” has been excluded from the niv…”

    But they do use the words, “men who have sex with men”

    “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…” (NIV).

    The words “men who have sex with men” (NIV) is translated from two Greek words, malakos and arsenokoites which refer to passive and active participants in homosexual activity.

    As for the word “begotten,” which was mentioned in an earlier reply (about six years ago), the Greek word monogenes has an understanding of “the only one of its kind” or “only-begotten.”

    The NIV uses “one and only” which I feel is more understandable to the majority of readers. As a further note, in A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger states, “some modern Greek text such as Nestle-Aland 26th read “only begotten God” at John 1:18 and with the acquisition of p66 and p75 (two of the oldest papyri), both of which read theos (Gk. God), the external support of this reading had been notably strengthened.” With this in mind, is the KJV wrong in that it does not mention God in this verse?

    With gentleness, patience, and meekness…..

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: