July 21, 2017
 

Comparisons of Bible Versions, VIII

By Steve Youngblood, Pastor


Romans 14:10

  • KJV: "...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."
  • NAS: "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God."
  • NIV: "For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."
  • NAB: "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Undoubtedly, the above alteration from "Christ" to "God" might seem to be a matter of indifference to many, but we would suggest that the change is more significant than at first meets the eye. The KJV rendering gives a strong affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ when compared with the following verses. Romans 14:11 states that all mankind shall confess to "God," and Romans 14:12 declares that everyone shall give account of themselves to "God." Thus, in the immediate context, the latter two verses united to Romans 14:10 reveal that Jesus Christ is God. To be clearer, Romans 14:10 proclaims the future seat of judgment to be Christ's, where all men shall give account of themselves to God. The throne of God is occupied by the Lord Jesus Christ, which simply discloses his divinity.

The newer versions have changed the judgment seat of "Christ" to the judgment seat of "God." All believers will readily confess that everyone will one day stand before the Almighty to be judged for their works, but why is it that once again a verse that undergirds the full deity of Jesus Christ was modified, resulting in the loss of another strong affirmation of his godhood? It should be quite apparent why the Jehovah's Witnesses would prefer the modern Greek text that today's translations are based on. They repeatedly undermine the equality of Christ with God by their numerous alterations and deletions of the text, thus fitting in nicely with the theology of local Kingdom Halls.

Romans 15:29

  • KJV: "And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ."
  • NAS: "And I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fulness of the blessing of Christ."
  • NIV: "I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ."
  • NAB: "and I know that in coming to you I shall come in the fullness of Christ's blessing." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "Moreover, I know that when I do come to YOU I shall come with a full measure of blessing from Christ." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Three words are deleted from this verse in the newer translations. Once again we see that the modern bibles set forth an abbreviated text, repeatedly choosing to exercise their option to omit certain phrases from the Word of God. Although the modern versions "make sense" in their respective translations, the KJV also makes good sense in stating Paul's desire to come to the Romans in the "fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ." The gospel always brings great blessings to the people of God as they meditate upon the glorious plan of salvation, and it is welcome news to those who are without hope. Paul stated previously in Romans 15:16 that he had been called to be a minister of the gospel of God. In Romans 15:19 he reported his ministry efforts in preaching the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, and in the next verse he mentioned his labors to preach the gospel where Christ had not been heard of before. Thus, when the apostle comes in his writing of this letter to verse 29, would it not be natural for him to make reference to the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ?

Isn't it interesting that in Romans 15:29 the newer translations chose to delete "the gospel" of Christ, while in Romans 1:16 they opted to delete the gospel "of Christ"? One never knows where the scissors of textual critics may choose to cut and snip. Their deletions may not be uniform, but they are truly consistent in the repetitious exercise of paring down the text. Thus, the words of the gospel are erased from Romans 15:29 and thrown into the wastebasket of liberal textual critics.

1 Corinthians 5:7

  • KJV: "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
  • NAS: "For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed."
  • NIV: "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed."
  • NAB: "For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Again we ask, are any Bible doctrines affected by the modern translations? Although we are told that there is no undermining of doctrinal beliefs in these versions, the present study continues to make it quite clear that such an assertion is misleading. The two words deleted from 1 Corinthians 5:7, "for us," strikes at the heart of the atonement, for it removes the truth that Christ died for his people. For whom did Christ die? The modern versions do not tell us in this verse. They simply state that Christ was sacrificed, but they do not inform the Bible reader of the results and extent of the atonement. The KJV makes it clear that the work of Christ as a sin-bearer was on the behalf of his people, making that obvious by the inclusion of the two words, "for us." The believer who uses the NAS or NIV would never know that two words had been stolen from him, unless he were to compare his version with the KJV.

1 Corinthians 6:20

  • KJV: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
  • NAS: "For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."
  • NIV: "You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
  • NAB: "For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore glorify God in your body." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "For YOU were bought with a price. By all means, glorify God in the body of YOU people." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Even a grade-school child can count the number of words deleted from the modern versions in this verse: seven! Those who would seek to excuse the rendering of the modern versions need to face up to the fact that seven words inspired of the Holy Spirit are missing from their "bibles." Paul did not simply say that the Corinthians should glorify God in their bodies, but that they should also glorify him in their spirit. The apostle also exhorts this church to cleanse themselves from all filthiness "of the flesh and spirit" in 2 Corinthians 7:1. Let us listen to the words of Christ as they are recorded in Luke 11:40: "Did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?" The inner man is just as important as the outer man. We must guard our hearts as well as our actions. The KJV makes it clear that both our bodies and spirits belong to God. Not so the newer translations!

1 Corinthians 7:5

  • KJV: "...that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer."
  • NAS: "...that you may devote yourselves to prayer."
  • NIV: "...so that you may devote yourselves to prayer."
  • NAB: "...to be free for prayer." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "...that YOU may devote time to prayer." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Dealing with the topic of the mutual obligations of husbands and wives in their intimate relationships, the apostle Paul instructed the Corinthian believers to fulfill the needs of their partners. They were not to deprive one another in fulfilling normal desires unless they mutually agreed to give themselves for a time to fasting and prayer. Once the season of fasting and prayer was concluded, they were to return to the normal sexual relationship. What concerns us is the fact that the modern translations have omitted two words that make reference to fasting. It should be obvious that prayer alone would not be a sufficient cause to cease the intimate unions of husband and wife, for all believers are regularly engaging in the exercise of prayer. This rare exception that Paul is making reference to must undoubtedly be speaking of a serious time of need when a believer devotes himself to prayer and fasting. Making reference to the NIV, you may recall that that version completely deleted Matthew 17:21 from its text, a passage that deals with the topic of prayer and fasting. And the NIV also excised the words "and fasting" from Mark 9:29. What do you think about these omissions? For some reason, the textual critics seem to have an aversion to fasting.

1 Corinthians 11:24

  • KJV: "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you."
  • NAS: "This is My body, which is for you."
  • NIV: "This is my body, which is for you."
  • NAB: "This is my body that is for you." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "This means my body which is in YOUR behalf." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Why the omission of these three words from the text? The NIV rendering leaves one wondering what happened to the bread after Christ made his statement. Did he lay it to the side for later use? Without the words, "take eat," one cannot be sure what it was that the disciples were to do "in remembrance" of him. The NIV tells us that Christ told his men to drink the juice in remembrance of him (v.25), but it does not tell us that he told the apostles to eat the bread! We also see that the KJV states that his body was to be "broken" for his people. Without the knowledge of hindsight, the NIV translation would not make it clear that Christ was going to suffer to the point of brokenness. That reality is missing from this version. What excuse can be offered to clear the NIV of a disreputable excision of Christ's sufferings from this verse? No defense can cover the gaping hole left in Christ's words to his disciples as recorded in the modern translations.

1 Corinthians 11:29

  • KJV: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
  • NAS: "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly."
  • NIV: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
  • NAB: "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "For he that eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment against himself if he does not discern the body." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

We notice that the modern translations have chosen to dispense with the thought of partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. Upon whom does the apostle Paul place such a serious warning about eating the bread and drinking of the cup at the Lord's table? The KJV makes it clear that the warning is against those who partake of the "supper" in an unworthy manner, not discerning the Lord's body. The NIV jumped ship from the other translations by specifying that the apostle was speaking of the body of the Lord, thus lining up with the KJV, a rare occurrence indeed. However, the other translations omit the word "Lord," and thereby change the meaning of the verse. The Bible reader would believe that the charge was to rightly discern one's own body, not the body of the Lord, since the preceding verse spoke of a man examining himself in preparation for receiving the Lord's Supper. Although we should definitely consider our own lives in preparation for partaking of the supper, the KJV (and the NIV) states that it is the Lord's body that must be properly discerned. The translation of the KJV makes good sense, while the remaining versions cause confusion by their omissions.

1 Corinthians 15:47

  • KJV: "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
  • NAS: "The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven."
  • NIV: "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven."
  • NAB: "The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man, from heaven." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Like a bad pileup of vehicles on a foggy highway, so the modern translations just continue time and time again to pile up their deletions of words that speak of Christ's Lordship and/or names. There almost seems to be enjoyment on the part of liberal textual critics in deceptively erasing as many words as possible from God's holy Word. We see in this verse that the modern versions speak of the second man from heaven, but they do not name him as "the Lord" from heaven. What is the problem in acknowledging the uniqueness of the second man from heaven by retaining the two words that speak of his regal title? Perhaps liberals detest the thought of a mere man being referred to as the Lord, since most liberals do not believe in the deity of Jesus of Nazareth. The omission of those two words would be just fine with the Jehovah's Witnesses! A seemingly insignificant omission, yet full of weighty importance in describing the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:10

  • KJV: "Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus..."
  • NAS: "Always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus..."
  • NIV: "We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus..."
  • NAB: "Always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus..." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "Always we endure everywhere in our body the death-dealilng treatment given to Jesus..." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

As seen in 1 Corinthians 15:47, so again here "the Lord" is removed from the biblical text of the modern versions. What more can we say about these monotonous erasures? At least we can say that they are consistently devious in snatching precious words from the text that were inspired of the Holy Spirit! Do you remember a former analogy of missing bricks from a home? If you pull out enough of the bricks, eventually the structure will become quite unsound. How many times does the names and/or titles of the Lord Jesus Christ have to be removed before the structure of a bible is totally undermined? What think ye?

Galatians 3:1

  • KJV: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?"
  • NAS: "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?"
  • NIV: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."
  • NAB: "O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?" (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "O senseless Galatians, who is it that brought YOU under evil influence, YOU before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly portrayed impaled?" (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

The KJV reveals the reason for Paul's censorious rebuke of the Galatians: They were not obeying the truth that had been revealed to them by the apostle, but were following the aberrant beliefs of false teachers! The modern translations are lacking seven words that fill us in on why the Galatians were being admonished. The continual practice of liberals in cutting words from the new Greek text is reprehensible! Modern-day believers who use the new versions little realize that they are suffering from malnourishment, since they think that their plates are actually full, when the truth is that servants in the "revision" kitchen have been eating freely of the sacred contents. Is it not amazing how successful the Bible publishing companies have been with their sales of these abbreviated translations?! Where are the faithful shepherds who are warning the people of God about those who have stolen the precious words of God from their Bibles? May God raise up a new generation of believers who will have their eyes opened, and will choose to use their brains to think and analyze. If such a generation arises, the Bible companies will be in trouble!

Galatians 3:17

  • KJV: "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
  • NAS: "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."
  • NIV: "What I mean is this: The Law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."
  • NAB: "This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "Further, I say this: As to the covenant previously validated by God, the Law that has come into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate it, so as to abolish the promise." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

It is interesting that the newer translations would delete the words "in Christ," since the apostle Paul had just been speaking of Christ as the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham in the preceding verse. Why did the textual critics expunge these two words from the verse and violate the flow of the immediate context? Is it not obvious that the deletion "in Christ" violates the thought of Paul that was being written down for the churches of Galatia? We must simply be reminded that Westcott, Hort, and all of their followers are liberals who question the deity of Christ, and by their textual philosophies have undermined his uniqueness in the Scriptures by continously removing his name from various passages of the Bible. The new versions would be more aptly referred to as new "erosions."

Galatians 4:7

  • KJV: "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."
  • NAS: "Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God."
  • NIV: "So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."
  • NAB: "So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "So, then, you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

Deceptive, isn't it?! Continuously remove the name of Christ from the text, and noone will ever know the difference, right?! Not unless they make a comparison with the KJV. One would almost get the idea that there was a mastermind behind all of these erasures from the newer versions, for there are so many of them that it couldn't just happen by chance. Who is it that despises the name and authority of our Lord? Well, we know that the devil despises the name of Christ, and we also realize that liberal theologians and/or textual critics do not care for his uniqueness, yea, they even deny his glorious majesty. Then we should not be surprised to discover that the newer bibles are the products of men whose hearts and minds reject the exclusive claims of the Lord Jesus Christ to his eternal existence and unique glory. The liberals will allow him to be a great teacher or noble prophet, but misguided in his understanding of truth and revelation. Adopting such a view of the Son of God, they have no qualms of conscience in repetitiously removing his sacred name from their bibles.

Galatians 6:15

  • KJV: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."
  • NAS: "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation."
  • NIV: "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."
  • NAB: "For neither does circumcision mean anything, nor does uncircumcision, but only a new creation." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but a new creation [is something]." (Note: The New World Translation is the "bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses)

The translation of the new versions seems to contradict the teachings of the Old Testament, for surely circumcision did mean something to the Jews, being a sign of the covenant that God had made with the people of Israel. Only the KJV makes sense with its inclusion of "in Christ Jesus." In our salvation, external rituals and signs have no involvement in producing a new heart. Only the supernatural work of God can regenerate an uncircumcised heart. The Christian has experienced new life in and through Christ, not by means of circumcision or baptism. The KJV gives the true reading in this verse, while the modern translations cause confusion by seeming to express the idea that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. Those were the exact words of the NIV, and standing alone such a statement is erroneous.

Galatians 6:17

  • KJV: "From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus."
  • NAS: "From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus."
  • NIV: "Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus."
  • NAB: "From now on, let no one make troubles for me; for I bear the marks of Jesus on my body." (Note: The New American Bible is a popular Catholic translation)
  • NWT: "Henceforth let no one be making trouble for me, for I am carrying on my body the brand marks [of a slave] of Jesus."

The seemingly unending deletions of Jesus, Lord, and/or Christ from the pages of the modern translations can tend to make one nauseated after awhile. The omissions become almost frightening in their extent! Paul referred to Jesus as "Lord" in this verse, but modern-day bibles can't seem to recall the apostle uttering any such words. Paul bore the scars of a faithful follower because he believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the sovereign Lord of creation and redemption. Sad to say, multitudes of professing believers in our generation do not acknowledge Christ as their Lord, but confess their belief that his Lordship is optional. Leading conservative authors of our day have written books denying "Lordship salvation." As we continue our study of the translations, we believe we are coming to see why these leaders are making such monstrous denials of Christ's Lordship in the lives of believers: Their own "bibles" repeatedly deny his Lordship by cutting his glorious names and titles out of the text!