Bible comparisons
Here are some bible verse comparisons, which shows differences and contradictions, between the kjv, niv, and esv, that I will give comments on :
King James version
Rom 8:1
(1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. | N.I.V.
Rom 8:1
(1) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, | E.S.V.
Rom 8:1
(1) There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. |
Now notice that the KJV shows that they that are in Christ are not condemned, but only if they walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Why would the N.I.V. and E.S.V. leave this information out?
And I have seen people use this scripture in other bible versions which leaves this information out, how they use this saying of there being no condemnation in Christ, no matter what, even justifying there sin.
King James version
Mat 5:22
(22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. | N.I.V.
Mat 5:22
(22) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell | E.S.V.
Mat 5:22
(22) But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. |
Why does the N.I.V and the E.S.V. remove the words: “
without a cause”?
That is to be angry with his brother without a cause?
And the N.I.V. and E.S.V. mentions just being angry with a brother (sister), and not without a cause, in this verse which is not accurate or true.
There is no sin in and of itself, if you are angry with a brother, that is if there is cause for it, and doing so in a type of righteous anger.
King James version
Act 8:36-38
(36) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
(37) 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.
(38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. | N.I.V.
Act 8:36-38
(36) As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized? ”
(38) And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
| E.S.V.
Act 8:36-38
(36) And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
(38) And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
|
The N.I.V. and E.S.V. does not mention for the Eunuch needing to believe with all his heart, and then the Eunuch saying I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Why would you remove that?
It shows the salvation message, why would you remove that?
And you can see that
verse 37 does not even appear in the N.I.V. and the E.S.V., and at this point, I will begin a bunch of comparisons of verses that have been completely removed in the N.I.V. and the E.S.V. .
Next comparison:
King James version
Mar 11:26
(26) But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses | N.I.V.
Mar 11:26
(26) … | E.S.V.
Mar 11:26
(26) … |
The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. completely removes this verse why?
Next comparison:
King James version
Mar 9:46
(46) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. | N.I.V.
Mar 9:46
(46) … | E.S.V.
Mar 9:46
(46) … |
The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. completely removes this verse why?
Next comparison:
King James version
Rom 16:24
(24) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. | N.I.V.
Rom 16:24
(24) … | E.S.V.
Rom 16:24
(24) … |
The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. completely removes this verse why?
Next comparison:
King James version
Mar 9:44
(44) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. | N.I.V.
Mar 9:44
(44) … | E.S.V.
Mar 9:44
(44) … |
The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. completely removes this verse why?
Next comparison:
King James version
Act 15:34
(34) Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. | N.I.V.
Act 15:34
(34) … | E.S.V.
Act 15:34
(34) … |
The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. completely removes this verse why?
Next comparison:
King James version
Act 28:29
(29) And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. | N.I.V.
Act 28:29
(29) … | E.S.V.
Act 28:29
(29) … |
The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. completely removes this verse why?
Next comparison:
King James version
Mat 17:21
(21) Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. | N.I.V.
Mat 17:21
(21) … | E.S.V.
Mat 17:21
(21) … |
The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. completely removes this verse why?
And the thing I have noticed concerning this, is that a similar verse that mentions this, is found in Mark 9:29.
Now the N.I.V. and the E.S.V. does include Mark 9:29, but in the N.I.V. it says this: “He replied, “This kind can come out
only by prayer.””, but in the E.S.V. it says this: “"This kind cannot be driven out by anything but
prayer." ”, so even in this verse, in the N.I.V. and the E.S.V., fasting is missing.
So this kind only coming out by prayer and fasting, is missing in these bibles, therefore this doctrine is missing.
King James version
2Sa 21:19
(19) And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
| N.I.V.
2Sa 21:19
(19) In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod. | E.S.V.
2Sa 21:19
(19) And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. |
In this verse, in both the KJV, and N.I.V. ,
Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, but in the E.S.V. , it says that Elhanan slew Goliath the Gittite himself.
There is a difference between the brother of Goliath, and Goliath himself.
Let us go to our next comparison:
King James version
Isa 14:12
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! | N.I.V.
Isa 14:12
(12) How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! | E.S.V.
Isa 14:12
(12) "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! |
The N.I.V. mentions the name morning star, and the E.S.V. mentions the name day star, but only the KJV mentions the name
Lucifer.
Now the name Lucifer does mean morning star, but the intention of this scripture was not to mention what the name Lucifer means, but to mention what Satan’s actual name was before he fell from heaven.
And his name was Lucifer, and this name is lost in these other versions, which is not good.
And Lucifer was an actual positive name, with a positive meaning, which of course meant morning star, but concerning Christ himself, he is not just known as the morning star, but rather as the
bright and morning star.
And Lucifer had a type of glory upon him, bestowed upon him by God, in some form before his fall, but nowhere near to what Christ had (which he is God), hence Christ being the
bright and morning star.
And you cannot actually know Satan’s name before his fall in these other versions.
And if we only had the modern day versions, today and never knew of older versions, and so on, would we even know of this name of Lucifer?
Now unto our next comparison:
King James version
Luk 9:56
(56) For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. | N.I.V.
Luk 9:56
(56) Then he and his disciples went to another village. | E.S.V.
Luk 9:56
(56) And they went on to another village. |
The exact saying of “for the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” does not appear in the E.S.V. or the N.I.V. at all.
Why?
King James version
Mic 5:2
(2) 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. | N.I.V.
Mic 5:2
(2) “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.” | E.S.V.
Mic 5:2
(2) But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. |
This scripture is actually used to attack the divinity of Christ.
The KJV correctly shows that Jesus is from
everlasting, but the N.IV. and the E.S.V. says that he came from ancient times or ancient days, which suggests that he had a beginning.
Now there is a scripture in the KJV that says this:
Dan 7:22
(22) until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.
But the context of this scripture is totally different than Micah 5:2.
In Daniel it calls Jesus the ancient of days (he is the ancient of the ancients), but in Micah 5:2 it talks of origins, were he is from ancient of days? No but rather he “is”
from everlasting.
Origins wise, he is not from ancient days, but rather from everlasting, which shows the KJV to be right.
