THE BLOOD IS REMOVED IN THE NEW BIBLES

[DougE]

[Colossians 1:14 KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:"

[Colossians 1:14 NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

The New Bibles remove "through his blood". It is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness
and justification

 

[Gerbolski]

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.

 

[NBTT]

I use the KJV. On occasion when studying some verses in depth I may look at other translations. I tend to like the word demons for what the KJV refers to as devils as I think of the devil as singular.

But yes translations matter and the KJV is an excellent one.

 

[DougE]

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.

Thanks I will save this

 

[faithman]

I believe the King James and New King James versions and they are versions I preached and teached from. I used others as crossreferences and give another clarity to the King James Version.

 

[DougE]

I believe the King James and New King James versions and they are versions I preached and teached from. I used others as crossreferences and give another clarity to the King James Version.

I have read the NKJV also uses the Alexandrian texts which are corrupt

Just one example
[Galatians 3:13 KJV] "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:"

[Galatians 3:13 NKJV] "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"),"

Christ has become a curse

 

[Gerbolski]

I have read the NKJV also uses the Alexandrian texts which are corrupt

Just one example
[Galatians 3:13 KJV] "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:"

[Galatians 3:13 NKJV] "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"),"

Christ has become a curse

It makes me think of the Jesus died spiritually doctrine, which of course is false, and they in that doctrine say, that Jesus became a sinner on the cross, rather than a sacrifice.

Of course Jesus was a perfect sacrifice for us, on the cross, never, ever a sinner.

And yes Jesus was made a curse for us, in the sense of being a perfect sacrifice for sin, he did not become a curse, but rather was made one, through becoming a perfect sacrifice for sin (dying to set us free from sin).

 

[Bill]

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.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

I have a 1929 version of the King James Bible from my mom and if you read it compare it to today's translation you would think they're two separate Bibles all together there is so much different between the two of them

 

[Gerbolski]

I have read the 1611 one to some degree, the only difference I find with that one, is that they wrote words differently back then because of were the English language was, but otherwise, it really is saying the same thing.

Now I know about the apocrypha, and the apocrypha is not the bible, but is history, but in those histories, it is mixed with some truths and some legends, some truths and some lies, and I think for historical purposes, it was left in the original KJV, but eventually taken out, and I can see why it was eventually taken out, because no doubt it brought about confusion.

 

[Gerbolski]

I will show things via the kjv of now, and the 1611 one, so to show what I am saying, via a future post.

 

[Gerbolski]

The apocrypha even contradicts itself, so not reliable, so if you do read these things, be very discernful about it, though in reality, you do not really need to read it.

 

[Gerbolski]

Here is one example:

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.

KJV 1611 Rom 8:1 (1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus, who walke not after the flesh, but after the spirit.

It is saying the exact same thing, just that the way they wrote walk back then was walke, and Jesus as Iesus, because the English language went through changes.

 

[Bill]

The apocrypha even contradicts itself, so not reliable, so if you do read these things, be very discernful about it, though in reality, you do not really need to read it.

May Jesus fill us with his love and discernment

Just something to think about. We say that it was Jesus who directed the authors of the scripture to write it. We also believe that Jesus is the one that directed everyone to come together at the appointed time to bring together the books that were written in it. And to have it written in the way that it was orchestrated.

At what point do we believe that Jesus was not the one who directed the scripture to be written in the first place, because in the first scripture it included the apocryphal???

Because what you're saying now, is that was written in the Apocrypha is not of the Lord because you're saying that's a lie. So why would Jesus lie in his own words that he inspired those to write in the Bible?

 

[DougE]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

I have a 1929 version of the King James Bible from my mom and if you read it compare it to today's translation you would think they're two separate Bibles all together there is so much different between the two of them

There are many verses and words removed in the new Bibles

 

[Gerbolski]

May Jesus fill us with his love and discernment

Just something to think about. We say that it was Jesus who directed the authors of the scripture to write it. We also believe that Jesus is the one that directed everyone to come together at the appointed time to bring together the books that were written in it. And to have it written in the way that it was orchestrated.

At what point do we believe that Jesus was not the one who directed the scripture to be written in the first place, because in the first scripture it included the apocryphal???

Because what you're saying now, is that was written in the Apocrypha is not of the Lord because you're saying that's a lie. So why would Jesus lie in his own words that he inspired those to write in the Bible?

Just read the apocrypha, it is easy to discern that it is not the word of God, it has many contradictions, and it does have some truths and some lies, and legends.

In the book of Maccabees you can read of the history of the Maccabeans, which speaks of the time of Hanukah, and Antiochus Epiphanes, but even in these books there are some contradictions, it makes a while that I have not looked at these.

His word does not contradict itself.

Here is some info on this:

(Chick.com: Why Did the King James Translators Include the Apocrypha?)

(By David W Daniels

Many Christians today are surprised when they open a 1611 King James Bible and find extra books tucked between the Old and New Testaments. These writings are called the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha is not Scripture at all, but a collection of fables and man-made stories that were never inspired by God. Yet some publishers continue to include it in modern printings.

You might be surprised to learn that nearly 30% of Bible versions today contain the Apocrypha in some form. Because of this, it’s important to understand what these books are, why they sometimes appear in Bibles, and why they are not part of the Word of God.

The word Apocrypha means “hidden” or “secret.” These books were said to have been written in the time period between the Old and New Testaments, sometimes called the “400 silent years.” They include loosely-historical writings, like 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as folk tales and add-ons to biblical books. These writings were never recognized by the Jewish people as Scripture, nor quoted by Jesus or the apostles.

During the translation work of 1604–1611, Anglican Archbishop Bancroft, an overseer of the project, ordered the Apocryphal books to be placed within the covers of the King James Bible. However, the translators refused to place them into the text of the Bible. They were kept separate. Here’s why.

The King James Translators gave seven objections to the books of the Apocrypha.

1. None of them are written in Hebrew, which alone was used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers claimed divine inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fanciful statements and statements which contradict the canonical Scriptures and even themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is claimed to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. It promotes doctrines that directly conflict with the Bible. Examples include praying for the dead and the ability to reach sinless perfection through good works.
7. It teaches immoral practices such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incantation.

When they translated the books, the KJV translators were careful to separate the Apocrypha from the text of the Bible, putting it in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, with each page clearly labeled, “Apocrypha.” The last page of II Maccabees, in the 1611 King James reads, “End of Apocrypha.” Then it returns to God’s inspired words in Matthew....)

 

[Gerbolski]

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.

KJV 1611 Mat 5:22 (22) But I say vnto you, that whosoeuer is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the Iudgement: and whosoeuer shall say to his brother, Racha, shal be in danger of the counsell: but whosoeuer shall say, Thou foole, shalbe in danger of hell fire.

In both cases, without a cause is mentioned, just words like whosoever (whosoeuer), judgment (judgement), and so on, were written differently in English back then, yet saying the exact same thing.

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.

KJV 1611 Luk 9:56 (56) For the Sonne of man is not come to destroy mens liues, but to saue them. And they went to another village.

It is saying the exact same thing, just certain words were spelled differently back then.

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.

KJV 1611 Act 8:36-38 (36) And as they went on their way, they came vnto a certaine water: and the Eunuch said, See, here is water, what doeth hinder me to be baptized? (37) And Philip said, If thou beleeuest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered, and said, I beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God. (38) And he commanded the charet to stand still: and they went downe both into the water, both Philip, and the Eunuch, and he baptized him.

It is saying the exact same thing, just certain words are written differently because of the changes that took place in the English language.

I can go on, and on, and on, in giving examples, but this will suffice for now, sometimes people say statements so to bring doubts toward people.

 

[Bill]

Just read the apocrypha, it is easy to discern that it is not the word of God, it has many contradictions, and it does have some truths and some lies, and legends.

In the book of Maccabees you can read of the history of the Maccabeans, which speaks of the time of Hanukah, and Antiochus Epiphanes, but even in these books there are some contradictions, it makes a while that I have not looked at these.

His word does not contradict itself.

Here is some info on this:

(Chick.com: Why Did the King James Translators Include the Apocrypha?)

(By David W Daniels

Many Christians today are surprised when they open a 1611 King James Bible and find extra books tucked between the Old and New Testaments. These writings are called the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha is not Scripture at all, but a collection of fables and man-made stories that were never inspired by God. Yet some publishers continue to include it in modern printings.

You might be surprised to learn that nearly 30% of Bible versions today contain the Apocrypha in some form. Because of this, it’s important to understand what these books are, why they sometimes appear in Bibles, and why they are not part of the Word of God.

The word Apocrypha means “hidden” or “secret.” These books were said to have been written in the time period between the Old and New Testaments, sometimes called the “400 silent years.” They include loosely-historical writings, like 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as folk tales and add-ons to biblical books. These writings were never recognized by the Jewish people as Scripture, nor quoted by Jesus or the apostles.

During the translation work of 1604–1611, Anglican Archbishop Bancroft, an overseer of the project, ordered the Apocryphal books to be placed within the covers of the King James Bible. However, the translators refused to place them into the text of the Bible. They were kept separate. Here’s why.

The King James Translators gave seven objections to the books of the Apocrypha.

1. None of them are written in Hebrew, which alone was used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers claimed divine inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fanciful statements and statements which contradict the canonical Scriptures and even themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is claimed to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. It promotes doctrines that directly conflict with the Bible. Examples include praying for the dead and the ability to reach sinless perfection through good works.
7. It teaches immoral practices such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incantation.

When they translated the books, the KJV translators were careful to separate the Apocrypha from the text of the Bible, putting it in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, with each page clearly labeled, “Apocrypha.” The last page of II Maccabees, in the 1611 King James reads, “End of Apocrypha.” Then it returns to God’s inspired words in Matthew....)

May Jesus fill us with his love and discernment.

I will read through your article a little more when I stop. However, if the Apocrypha was in the scripture from the beginning how can you say that it is not valid now just because you don't agree with it? The whole thing I'm trying to say is that they're going to disagree with one piece of the Bible, then you're going to have to just acknowledge the fact that Jesus was not the author of The Bible either. And for me that doesn't make any sense. I know that Jesus is the author and the orchestrator of the Bible. To take away from that to say that the Apocrypha doesn't agree with my philosophy, that's beside the point. Your understanding of the scripture is based on Bibles that have never had the Apocrypha. Your understanding of scripture does not include things like purgatory, something that the Apocrypha has in it. But to say that the Apocrypha is not of the Lord would then be saying that the whole Bible is not of the Lord also

 

[Gerbolski]

May Jesus fill us with his love and discernment.

I will read through your article a little more when I stop. However, if the Apocrypha was in the scripture from the beginning how can you say that it is not valid now just because you don't agree with it? The whole thing I'm trying to say is that they're going to disagree with one piece of the Bible, then you're going to have to just acknowledge the fact that Jesus was not the author of The Bible either. And for me that doesn't make any sense. I know that Jesus is the author and the orchestrator of the Bible. To take away from that to say that the Apocrypha doesn't agree with my philosophy, that's beside the point. Your understanding of the scripture is based on Bibles that have never had the Apocrypha. Your understanding of scripture does not include things like purgatory, something that the Apocrypha has in it. But to say that the Apocrypha is not of the Lord would then be saying that the whole Bible is not of the Lord also

It was not part of what the bible is via the Hebrew Old testament, and it was not in Hebrew, nor was ever claimed to be, the KJV guys explained that it was not, and it was put in as historical documents that are partially true and partially false, mixed with legends and had it's own separated section to show a distinction between the bible and it, and things that totally go against the bible, like praying for the dead, lying, magic and so forth, even 3 contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes are in there, how can you even try to make it be from the bible when those real, true contradictions are there in plain site for all to see, and it does not end there.

The bible says this:

Deu 18:11
(11) Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

We as Christians do not consult the dead, Roman Catholicism does, and the Popish office is not biblical, and being called a spiritual Father via as the pope is called is against what the bible says:

Mat 23:9
(9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

And the whole system of Catholicism is not biblical, we no longer have physical priests today, today it is pastors, teachers etc.

So if the Catholic church is truly dedicated to truth, why would they choose the apocrypha as cannon when it promotes lying, magic, suicide, and it is known in many, many parts, to contradict not only the bible, but it's own self ?

You would have to be crazy to do that.

 

[Bill]

It was not part of what the bible is via the Hebrew Old testament, and it was not in Hebrew, nor was ever claimed to be, the KJV guys explained that it was not, and it was put in as historical documents that are partially true and partially false, mixed with legends and had it's own separated section to show a distinction between the bible and it, and things that totally go against the bible, like praying for the dead, lying, magic and so forth, even 3 contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes are in there, how can you even try to make it be from the bible when those real, true contradictions are there in plain site for all to see, and it does not end there.

The bible says this:

Deu 18:11
(11) Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

We as Christians do not consult the dead, Roman Catholicism does, and the Popish office is not biblical, and being called a spiritual Father via as the pope is called is against what the bible says:

Mat 23:9
(9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

And the whole system of Catholicism is not biblical, we no longer have physical priests today, today it is pastors, teachers etc.

So if the Catholic church is truly dedicated to truth, why would they choose the apocrypha as cannon when it promotes lying, magic, suicide, and it is known in many, many parts, to contradict not only the bible, but it's own self ?

You would have to be crazy to do that.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

You see that's where the mistake comes from though. It's the ideology of today's people not those days. In those days people actually listen to the spirit. They were drawn together to bring the Bible into verse and into writing.

Most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. And the fact that the Bible is the word of God means that apocrypha is also the word of God it was only during the Protestant Reformation that it was removed. Not before.

But this also brings up some other points that many Protestants just close their minds to all together. That there were many doctors of the church in the first second third fourth fifth centuries and so on that were accepted by everyone. And now because that they are labeled as Catholic, now the prices will not bother to listen to anything that is said no matter who says it because they have that label of being in the Catholic Church. Even though they were accepted by everyone.

For the hypocrisy of today's Christians continues because they are living in darkness and they don't even know it. Have I not said repeatedly that the Protestants have to get over it and to forgive the Catholic, and have I not said that the Catholics need to get over it and forgive the Protestants. And have I not said that both churches are going to be under God's gun basically because of this stupidity that goes on between them because of how stubborn they are.

Don't kid yourself, until the churches can forgive each other until the individuals can accept each other as brothers and sisters God is going to come down so hard on the Christian churches you will not believe it. Because the Christians know better than anybody while other than the Jews of the great salvation that they have received and yet they want to bicker about it for the littlest stupid things that are just so ridiculous. The Christians are as bad as the Israelites with the Muslims arguing over the stupid things and not bothering to see that they are still brothers and sisters and Sons and Daughters of Abraham. We of course are the adopted children of Abraham

 

[Gerbolski]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

You see that's where the mistake comes from though. It's the ideology of today's people not those days. In those days people actually listen to the spirit. They were drawn together to bring the Bible into verse and into writing.

Most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. And the fact that the Bible is the word of God means that apocrypha is also the word of God it was only during the Protestant Reformation that it was removed. Not before.

But this also brings up some other points that many Protestants just close their minds to all together. That there were many doctors of the church in the first second third fourth fifth centuries and so on that were accepted by everyone. And now because that they are labeled as Catholic, now the prices will not bother to listen to anything that is said no matter who says it because they have that label of being in the Catholic Church. Even though they were accepted by everyone.

For the hypocrisy of today's Christians continues because they are living in darkness and they don't even know it. Have I not said repeatedly that the Protestants have to get over it and to forgive the Catholic, and have I not said that the Catholics need to get over it and forgive the Protestants. And have I not said that both churches are going to be under God's gun basically because of this stupidity that goes on between them because of how stubborn they are.

Don't kid yourself, until the churches can forgive each other until the individuals can accept each other as brothers and sisters God is going to come down so hard on the Christian churches you will not believe it. Because the Christians know better than anybody while other than the Jews of the great salvation that they have received and yet they want to bicker about it for the littlest stupid things that are just so ridiculous. The Christians are as bad as the Israelites with the Muslims arguing over the stupid things and not bothering to see that they are still brothers and sisters and Sons and Daughters of Abraham. We of course are the adopted children of Abraham

No Bill, Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not any denomination, true forgiveness is not absence of truth.

And would you not agree that if something promotes lying, magic and contradicts it's own self, that it should not be reliable ?
God does not make us to be brainless people.

And the Spirit does not contradict himself.

It is not the love, love gospel, it is the be separate unto him gospel, to were love is not absent from truth.