June 25, 2019

Comparisons of Bible Versions, V

By Steve Youngblood, Pastor

Luke 11:2-4

  • KJV: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."
  • NAS: "Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation."
  • NIV: "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation."
  • NAB: "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread and forgive us our sins for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us, and do not subject us to the final test." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "Father, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Give us our bread for the day according to the day's requirement. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone that is in debt to us; and do not bring us into temptation."

As usual, the modern translations repeatedly abbreviate the text, and relegate the deletions to the sidenotes. Why were 20 words found in the KJV removed from the newer versions? The NAS gives the following reason in a sidenote: "Some mss. insert phrases from Matt.6:9-13 to make the two passages closely similar." In other words, if the newer translations are correct, then the KJV and previous translations based on the Received Text were flawed in containing additions to the text by scribal mistakes of the past. Again, isn't it rather strange that all of the modern translations just happen to line up with the "bibles" of Rome and Brooklyn? Are modern evangelicals totally apathetic when confronted with the truth that their bibles parallel the bibles of the Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses? Is it not obvious that the shortened reading of the newer versions is stilted and stiff, while the longer reading of the KJV produces continuity and completion of thought? Truly, in more ways than one, the devil is a thief! Page after page of the "bibles of a new generation" find words, phrases, and/or sentences stolen from the text. Sadly, the bible reader is totally unaware that there is a thief in his house stealing the precious words of God from the "Holy Bible."

Luke 11:54

  • KJV: "Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him."
  • NAS: "plotting against Him, to catch Him in something He might say."
  • NIV: "waiting to catch him in something he might say."
  • NAB: "for they were plotting to catch him at something he might say." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "lying in wait for him, to catch something out of his mouth." (Note: The NWT is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Utilizing our aforementioned illustration, would you tell your neighbors that there was nothing wrong with your house if they informed you that five bricks were missing from the front of your house? Would they consider you to be rational if you pompously asserted that there was no difference whatsoever between your house and theirs, even though none of the bricks from their homes were missing? Would they not consider you to be somewhat eccentric and off-balanced in your thinking?

The KJV rendering gives continuity and completion of thought by telling why the enemies of Christ were doggedly listening to his messages, i.e., "that they might accuse him." Now if those five words were given to Luke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then we have no right to take out our editorial scalpels and carve up the text. It should be rather obvious that the so-called "additions" of the KJV usually cause the narrative to make good sense, while the deletions of the modern versions act as "missing links," leaving the reader to "fill in the blanks" where the continuity of meaning is interrupted.

Luke 22:64

  • KJV: "And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?"
  • NAS: "and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, "Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?"
  • NIV: "They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"
  • NAB: "They blindfolded him and questioned him, saying, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "and after covering him over they would ask and say: "Prophesy. Who is it that struck you?" (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

These modern "Protestant" bibles have nothing to protest, since they line up almost verbatim with the bible of Rome. It is rather unsettling to see how closely the New International Version and the New American Bible speak the same thing over and over again. Can anyone honestly question the assertion that the NIV is nothing more than the NAB with a different name? Other than the KJV, all of the modern "bibles" are clones of the bible of Rome! Those who know church history realize that the Jesuits could not have done a better job of trying to squash Protestantism than by what has transpired in the realm of Greek textual studies and translations in our day. It would appear that the Jesuits have risen from the dead to accomplish what was never finalized by the martyrdoms of millions of Protestants in the past, namely, to reunite "separated brethren" with mother Rome. Amazingly, the pied piper who is leading Protestants back to Rome with his M.T. flute (Modern Translations flute) is not having to shed any blood in his reprogramming efforts. The constant progaganda of "better translations" has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by modern evangelicals who have been hoodwinked by advertising specialists with sinister purposes, i.e., monetary profit and reunification with Rome.

The modern translations delete six words from Luke 22:64, six words that were read by all of our forefathers in the past who copied and perpetuated the orthodox reading of Luke's Gospel. The shameful treatment of Christ by his enemies is clearly depicted by the six words found in the KJV, "they struck him on the face." Although the modern translations reveal that Christ was being beaten, they do not specify that he was actually being pummeled in the face. Thus, the precious words of God inspired by the Holy Spirit are once again treated as expendable, being removed from the text without any mention whatsoever of their deletion. These modern Greek "experts" who are forging the new translations sure know how to perform vanishing acts that mesmerize the senses, leaving the reading audience gasping when they discover their cunningtreachery!

Luke 22:68

  • KJV: "And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go."
  • NAS: "and if I ask a question, you will not answer."
  • NIV: "and if I asked you, you would not answer."
  • NAB: "and if I question, you will not respond." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "Moreover, if I questioned YOU, YOU would not answer at all." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

We are not surprised to learn that the modern translations have no notice or explanation for the deletion of these four words found in the KJV. Are the missing words important, or does their disappearance do no harm to the narrative? Suffice it to say that the KJV translation makes it clear that Jesus Christ omnisciently knew that he would not be set free from his persecutors, for if he were liberated then the Sciptures would not have been fulfilled. It had been determined by the triune Godhead in eternity past that the Son of God would lay down his life sacrificially on the behalf of his people, that they might be redeemed from their sins. The retention of these four words supports the omniscience of Christ, thereby undergirding his deity. Although the removal of those four words may seem inconsequential, they are just one more link in the undermining of the divine nature of Christ by the repeated deletion of seemingly nonessential words that support his uniqueness while among men.

Luke 23:34

  • KJV: "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
  • NAS: "But Jesus was saying, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.'"
  • NIV: "Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.'"
  • NAB: ["Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.'"] (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: [["But Jesus was saying: 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.'"]]

After viewing the above translations, one might be led to ask, "What is the difference between the KJV and the others? There doesn't appear to be any disagreements between them." To be sure, there isn't any major differences between the renderings in their respective contexts. The problem this time is found in the sidenotes of the newer translations. For example, the NAS gives the following remark in a sidenote: "Some mss. do not contain But Jesus was saying...doing." The NIV offers the reader this observation: "Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence." And the NAB states: "This portion of v 34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Lk and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution." Sounds as though this statement of Christ on the cross just might be spurious, at least according to the sidenotes. How is the Bible reader to determine for himself if the cry of Christ from the cross is authentic, or not? If the notes in the sidelines of his bible are correct, then maybe Christ never spoke those words at all. In contrast to other comparisons seen previously, this subtraction from the Gospel of Luke would not be found in another gospel, for Luke is the only writer in the N.T. who quotes these words of Christ! Thus the dilemma: The bible reader of the modern versions is left in a state of uncertainty concerning the authenticity of these well-known words that all of our forefathers knew and considered to be authentic! It becomes obvious that the doctrine of verbal inspiration becomes a hard teaching to uphold when one's "bible" repeatedly questions the genuineness of words, phrases, and/or entire verses. Who wants to rely on subjectivity or bothersome sidenotes to determine the trustworthiness of the Word of God? Unhappily, instead of the believer holding to the infallibility of the Book he holds in his hands, he finds himself in the precarious position of relying on the sidenotes for authoritative judgments upon the true text of the Word of God!

Can the sidenotes of the NAS, NIV, and NAB concerning this verse be trusted? Let us consider the studies of Dean John Burgon, a brilliant scholar who lived at the time of the publication of the Revised Version in 1881, on Luke 23:34:

And yet these words are found in every known uncial and in every known cursive Copy, except four; besides being found in every ancient Version. And what,--(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)--what amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?

Mr. Burgon gives further evidence of the authenticity of the words of Christ in this verse by setting forth the Patristic evidence in his book, The Revision Revised, and then concludes with these words:

We have thus again enumerated upwards of forty ancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words?...How could our Revisionists dare to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were bound to know, there exists no manner of doubt at all?

Thus, the evidence is conclusive that the words of Christ from the cross as recorded in Luke 23:34 can be trusted, even though evangelicals utilizing modern translations may question their authenticity because of the troublesome sidenotes which emanate from the lips of liberal textual critics who deny verbal inspiration. May God reveal the deceptions found in the modern "bibles" of Protestants for what they are, namely, fraudulent lies set forth to deceive the simple!

Luke 23:38

  • KJV: "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
  • NAS: "Now there was also an inscription above Him, 'THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.'"
  • NIV: "There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
  • NAB: "Above him there was an inscription that read, 'This is the King of the Jews.'" (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "There was also an inscription over him: 'This is the king of the Jews.'" (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

The reader of the modern versions would never know that eight words were deleted from his bible -- unless he just happened to compare his translation with the reading of the KJV. Only then would he realize the subtraction from his version, since none of the new translations so much as even mention in a sidenote that "some" or "many" manuscripts contain the missing words! Isn't it interesting to observe how these modern bibles at times cast doubt on various words in the text by providing disparaging notes in the sidelines, while at other times they choose not to even mention the cancellation of words in a sidenote! What you don't know won't hurt you, right?!

Luke 23:42

  • KJV: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me..."
  • NAS: "And he was saying, 'Jesus, remember me...'"
  • NIV: "Then he said, 'Jesus, remember me...'"
  • NAB: "Then he said, 'Jesus, remember me...'" (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "And he went on to say: 'Jesus, remember me..." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

How subtle and seemingly trite the removal of one word from a verse might seem to most, but, nonetheless, the deletion of the word "Lord" from the modern versions weakens the confession of the believing thief in the sovereignty of Christ over death and the surrounding circumstances. The KJV rendering sets forth the belief of the thief that Jesus was more than just another mortal suffering an untimely death which he could not avert. The confession of Christ's Lordship revealed that the condemned criminal recognized the glory of the Son of God in the midst of great suffering. The modern versions undermine the assurance and certainty of the thief in the deity of Christ by removing the word "Lord" from their respective texts. Why is it that the numerous deletions found in the newer translations always undermine the great doctrines of the faith believed by all of our forefathers, rather than supporting and undergirding them? Is it not somewhat strange that the repetitious deletions and subtractions always bolster the unbelieving assertions of liberal theologians and their followers?

Luke 24:1

  • KJV: "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them."
  • NAS: "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared."
  • NIV: "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb."
  • NAB: "But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "On the first day of the week, however, they went very early to the tomb, bearing the spices they had prepared." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Five "extra" words are found in the KJV that do not exist in the modern translations. Let us listen to the words of Dean John Burgon:

S. Luke introduced the words "and certain with them," in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in 24:10,--viz. "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women with them, which told these things unto the Apostles." Some stupid harmonizer in the second century omitted the words, because they were in his way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who under the plea of amending our English Authorized Version have (with the best intentions) falsified the Greek Text of the Gospels in countless places,--often, as here, without notice and without apology.

Just as outlaws enjoy feeling the grip of a gun in their hands prior to a shootout, and relish the thrills of smelling gunpowder and feeling the rush of adrenalin through their bodies, so it seems that textual critics find great satisfaction in subtracting words from the sacred text to serve their own sinister purposes, mainly to get the text to line up with their aberrant beliefs.

Luke 24:42

  • KJV: "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb."
  • NAS: "And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish."
  • NIV: "They gave him a piece of broiled fish."
  • NAB: "They gave him a piece of baked fish." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "And they handed him a piece of broiled fish." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

We see another four words dropped from the text of the modern translations without any notice of their existence in other translations that were based on the Received Text. Thus, the reader of modern bibles is never even aware that four words were committed to the garbage heap of uselessness by liberal critics. Verbal inspiration asserts that every word of God is inspired and important, but today's translations seem oblivious to the supernatural inspiration of God's Word by their repeated deletions of the words of God, based simply upon a few corrupt manuscripts that modern men bow the knee to. Is the KJV rendering an error, or do the new versions contain error? The religious media bombards an unsuspecting public with the idea that they have a right to "have it their way" by purchasing abbreviated "bibles" that are purportedly superior to the antiquated KJV. Little do the consumers realize that their new "bible" is nothing more than a warmed-over Catholic translation. The NIV, NAS, and NWT join hands with the Catholic NAB in removing the honeycomb from the mouth of Jesus, and giving him fish alone to eat. Well, have it your way if you don't like honeycombs.

Luke 24:51-53

  • KJV: "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up to heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
  • NAS: "And it came about that while He was blessing them, He parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple, praising God."
  • NIV: "While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God."
  • NAB: "As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven. They did him homage and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were continually in the temple praising God." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "As he was blessing them he was parted from them and began to be borne up to heaven. And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they were continually in the temple blessing God." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

One readily notices that there are differences among the newer translations concerning what transpired at the ascension of Christ. The NAS especially differs with the KJV in deleting eleven words that are found in the Authorized Version, while the NIV chooses to delete seven words that are found in the KJV. Look closely at the comparisons to discover the differing deletions. Isn't it interesting that the NAS and NIV noticeably differ with one another in choosing what words to retain and/or delete! We see that the translators of these two versions--who utilized the same handful of corrupt manuscripts--did not agree as to the proper rendering of the text. This being the case, how can one trust the "scholars" to produce a reliable translation that can honestly be referred to as "the Word of God," when they cannot even agree on which words of God are trustworthy or spurious?! We would recommend that the textual critics take Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (and all of their brethren) and commit them to the flames--where they properly belong!

John 1:18

  • KJV: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
  • NAS: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
  • NIV: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
  • NAB: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

We often hear today that none of the newer translations affect any fundamental Bible doctrines that the Church has held to as essential for salvation. However, nothing could be farther from the truth, and John 1:18 adequately demonstrates that. As one compares the KJV and the newer translations, a noticeable difference surfaces between the various renderings. The KJV refers to Christ as the only begotten Son, while the modern bibles speak of him as the only begotten God (NAS) or god (NWT), God the One and Only (NIV), and the only Son, God (NAB).

It goes without saying that the New World Translation stands condemned for its outlandish slander against Christ by referring to him as "god" in small letters. The heretical beliefs that Kingdom Hall adherents confess is clearly revealed by this devilish defilement of the text. Christ is not Almighty God, but rather, a little god who falls short of full deity. We pity these deluded religionists when they stand on a future day before the great and awful throne of the Lord Jesus Christ, and hear him say, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity!"

What about the NAS translation that refers to Christ as "the only begotten God"? Some may mistakenly think that their translation (NAS) is upholding the deity of the second Person of the triune Godhead, but nothing could be further from the truth! Let us quote at length from Edward F. Hills' book, Believing Bible Study:

Burgon (1896) long ago traced these corruptions of the sacred text to their source, namely, Valentinus. Burgon pointed out that the first time John 1:18 is quoted by any of the ancients a reference is made to the doctrines of Valentinus...What could be more probable than Dean Burgon's suggestion that Valentinus fabricated this reading by changing the only begotten Son to the only begotten God? His motive for doing so would be his apparent desire to distinguish between the Son and the Word (Logos)...This procedure would enable him to deny that in John 1:18 the Word is identified with the Son. He could argue that in both these verses the reference is to the Word and that therefore the Word and the Son are two distinct Beings.

My, what a different light is shed upon the NAS rendering when the heretical doctrines of Valentinus are understood, and how unsettling it is to realize that a modern "bible" is perpetuating the Christ-denying beliefs of a past heretic! The heterodox beliefs of Valentinus are alive and well today in evangelical circles, thanks to the NAS and its inclusion of the only begotten God. Such a "bible" deserves to be cast into the flames! And, yet, do we hear voices seeking to defend this modern perversion that is supposedly a reputable and reliable translation of the Word of God? Yes, we do! Unbelievably, James White seeks to prey upon the gullibility of the ignorant masses by asserting that the KJV is the translation that is actually undermining the deity of Christ! We only hope that multitudes of men and women will have the smoke removed from their eyes and come to see what James White excels at, namely, little white lies! People who are ignorant of the issues involved may be hoodwinked by such men as White, but those who have done any studying of the textual issue at all will readily see through the untenable deductions and misrepresentations of White. Like a good liberal would do, he turns things upside down in order to avoid the truth.