From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:57:17 GMT


I know this isn't related to music anymore, but I feel this is an extremely
important question.  I hope all of you out there won't be daunted by the
length of this article, and read it.  It concerns interpretation of the Bible.
One poster said this:          (many others have made similar points through
                                email as well as articles, so I felt that if
                                I posted here, I'd reach all with these
                                convictions.)

>   1:  Cross checking of various different translations.  If in different
>       languages make sure that one is not simply a translation of the
>       modern day language of the other.  This way you get to see differnet
>       translators ideas and interpretations.
>   2:  Learn to read the original languages of the Bible, at least Koine, the
>       dialect of Greek used by the New Testement writers.  This is not as hard
>       to do as many people think (arguably easier than learning a developing
>       modern day second language) and will bring enormous rewards.  Any good
>       theological department in a bookshop or good Christian bookshop should
>       be able to help with finding Teach Yourself type of books.
>
>Personally I am always ammazed at the pronouncements of some Christian
>'leaders' as to 'the Bible says this' coming from people who obviously would
>not be able to tell one Greek letter from another.  If you are serious about
>studying God's word, knowledge of original languages will help you much more
>than most other things.  At least the Church of England still insists its
>ministers know Greek (one of the few things I often feel they get right).

This article will say everything I wish to respond to about this posting.
I wrote it myself, researching the data from various sources.  Please give
it some consideration, since most Christians today are not even aware, let
alone emphasize, the points given in it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this century, there's a lot of confusion as to what God's Word
really is.  We've got fifty different versions of the Holy Bible
in English, everybody reading from a different selection of ten or
twelve, and some denominations of churches endorsing one or
another, and the whole thing is just one big giant mess.  Where did
the Bible really go?  Are any of these English Bibles really God's
Word?  Or are all of them God's Word?  Or just one or two?

     - Does the Infallible Word of God Exist Today? -

First of all, we have to establish that there still DOES EXIST the
infallible Word of God today.  In the English language, even, not
just some Greek manuscript.

To begin with, God has made a promise that God will preserve His
Word.  You see, He didn't just inspire the thing, He promised to
preserve it, too.  Which makes perfect sense, for why in the world
would God inspire a Bible that wouldn't survive more than a couple
hundred years, if that?

Turn please to Matthew 24:35.  Jesus is speaking here.  "Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  Simple
as that.  In 1 Peter 1:23, Peter says, "Being born again, not of
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which
liveth and abideth for ever."  The Word of God is incorruptible and
liveth and abideth for ever.  That means that no matter how hard
men might try, the Word of God shall never be lost.  Not only that,
but it will retain its pure form.  Not only will the Word of God
never "pass away," but it will never be corrupted by the attempts
of man to change things in it.  Sure, men will change stuff around
in there and come out with all kinds of versions of it that have
been renovated to some guy's or some council's liking.
2 Corinthians 2:17 says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt
the Word of God..."  People were corrupting the Word of God way
back in the times of Paul!  But I'm not worried about it one bit,
because the Bible tells me that it WILL NOT pass away.

Now let's see what happens to the Bibles that have been changed
around and modified.  First of all, those Bibles are no longer the
Word of God.  They are the words of men.  2 Timothy 3:16:  "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness."  If it is Scripture, it is given by inspiration of
God.  If it is not given by inspiration of God, it is not
Scripture.  If it is Scripture, it is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.  But if
a man goes in there and changes things, you think it is still
profitable for all those things?  Not only that, but it isn't even
Scripture any more and not given by inspiration of God.  Take a
look at Isaiah 40:8.  "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:  but
the Word of our God shall stand for ever."  Well, the last part is
easy enough to understand.  That's another verse that says how the
Word of God will never pass away.  But what's the grass and the
flower?  Look back at verse 6:  "All flesh is grass, and all the
goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. ... The grass
withereth, the flower fadeth...."  Know what that says?  That says
that flesh will pass away, and the works of the flesh will pass
away as well.  That includes the works of men who change the Bible
around.  Those Bibles that people change around and modify to their
own liking will FADE.  "All flesh is grass...the grass withereth."
"The goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field...the flower
fadeth."  And once again, in verse 8, "But the Word of our God
shall stand for ever."

Now, there is one other thing that Isaiah 40 tells us.  It tells
us that not only is the Word of God still around, but it's not just
those Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  You see, Hebrew and Greek have
passed away.  Oh, there's manuscripts and the like in those
languages, but nobody speaks them any more, and only a few study
them.  What are Hebrew and Greek, anyway?  They are languages of
men.  Languages that men spoke in some time ago.  And Isaiah 40:6
just told us that flesh and the goodliness thereof will wither and
fade.  It is not everlasting.  It is not permanent.  It will pass
away.  You see, God uses the flesh sometimes.  He doesn't claim it
will last forever, like He does His Word, but He uses it sometimes.
He used the Hebrew and the Greek a long time ago to communicate His
Word to the people in a way they could understand.  Just as today,
He uses the English language to communicate His Word to the English
speaking people of today.  There IS one or more English Bibles out
there that ARE the INFALLIBLE, INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.

Other verses supporting the incorruptibility of God's Word are:
Psalm 12:6-7:  "The words of the Lord are pure words:  as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep
them from this generation for ever"; Luke 16:17:  "And it is easier
for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
[Refering to the God-given law.  See in context.]

     - So Where Is the Infallible Word of God In English? -

To start off with, here's a brief outline of the history of all
these Bibles.  In 1611, the King James Bible was translated.  From
1611 to 1884, the King James Bible was the ONLY English Bible in
existence.  That's enough to prove that at least the King James
Bible is the infallible Word of God.  You think God's going to let
all those people who lived from 1611 and 1884 and spoke English go
without His Word?  Anyway, the majority of the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts were all the same, and those are the manuscripts that
the King James Bible was translated from.  However, there were a
few manuscripts that differed, and these were compiled together in
1881.  Starting with 1884, new translations were made from these
manuscripts.  ALL the new Bibles were translated from this.  The
American Standard, the New American Standard, the New International
Version, the Living Bible, the Catholics' Bible -- everything that
is accepted as a legitimate translation of the Bible came from
this, with the exception of the New King James.  Small portions of
the New King James were translated from the same manuscripts that
the King James was translated from, but still, the majority of the
New King James comes from this 1881 compilation of Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts.

All the new Bibles seem to be pretty much the same in content and
differ only in style, readability, and that sort of thing.  This
will be made clear.  The King James Bible is different, and this
also will be made clear.  There are two questions to be asked, and
each will be answered.  First, is the King James Bible the Word of
God?  Second, are the new Bibles legitimate, God-supported updates
into modern English, or corruptions of man?

Many of you many already accept that at least the King James Bible
is the infallible Word of God.  As stated before, the argument that
it was the only Bible in the English language for over two and a
half centuries is sufficient enough.  If you are not convinced,
however, take note of the arguments concerning the second question,
and see how they reflect the answer to this one.  All evidence
states that the King James Bible, at least, is the infallible Word
of God.

     - The King James versus the New Bibles (nonscriptural) -

The point I will prove, both with nonscriptural arguments and
scriptural arguments (the latter FAR more important) is that the
King James Bible is the ONLY infallible Word of God in the English
language.  I will also prove that the new Bibles -- NASV, NIV, and
NKJV included -- are not the infallible words of God, but the
fallible, errant words of men.

Note that the nonscriptural arguments that follow are NOT
conclusive at all -- they are here merely as food for thought.
The Scriptural arguments in the next section are the proof and
support behind my claim.

Before we get into Scripture, consider the fact that all the new
Bibles are copyrighted.  Some man or company owns those copyrights,
and they receive royalties any time one of their Bibles is sold or
somebody publishes a book using quotations of their particular
translation.  Now this, to me, is pretty stupid and tells me right
off that something's fishy about those translations.  Nobody should
have a copyright on the Word of God.  The King James Bible has no
copyright.  Of course, I agree that what should be and what is are
two different things.

The second thing is that the purpose of the NKJV -- officially
stated by the translators of the NKJV -- was to get people AWAY
from the King James Version.  Stop and think.  Why in the world
would anybody care whether you were using a King James Bible or
not?  Man, it's anything to get you away from that Book.

Third, if you ever talk to the translators of the new Bibles and
pin them to their beliefs, they don't even belief there IS an
infallible Word of God ANYWHERE on this Earth today.  Well what
in the world are people who believe that doing translating Bibles?
To tell you the truth, I have absolutely no idea.  Maybe they've
got some fool idea that they can at least improve the accuracy of
the Word of God by translating it again and again, but it doesn't
take much sense to realize that the more man tampers with the Word
of God, the more it's going to get all bent out of shape and full
of errors.  I, personally, believe a good portion of the reason
is those royalties they are getting from the sales of their
particular version.

Fourth, why the HECK do we NEED all these Bibles anyway??  I mean,
we've got a different version of the Bible for just about
everything.  Different denominations have their own, different
people have theirs.  Some denominations endorse many different
versions, and some people have a wide assortment sitting on their
shelves.  Some people are more confused than enlightened by the
whole deal.  Question:  if we've got thirty different English
versions of the infallible Word of God, why the heck would God,
in Heaven, inspire another translation?  I can't think of any
answer to that one.  But I can answer this one without any
hesitation:  If inspiring a zillion different translations would
drag people away from the real Word of God, would the devil
inspire them?  Sure would.  I'll tell you something, that devil
fools around with the Word of God all the time.  Heck, the WHOLE
of the devil's doings from the beginning of man to the end is
getting man away from God and the Word of God.  The very first
question in the Bible was asked by the devil and it was about
whether or not God said something.  Man, that devil even twisted
the Scripture around to Jesus himself when he tempted Jesus.
Satan would do that in a second, which means we have to be
watching out for that and know what to avoid.

Fifth.  The American Standard Version was translated in 1901, and
everybody everywhere were getting so caught up in it, claiming it
was the most reliable Word of God for the English language.  But
then, when the New American Standard Version came out decades
later, the American Standard Version disappeared.  Vanished.  Now,
you can't hardly find a single copy of the American Standard
Version.  Everybody's using the New American Standard.  Well,
from Isaiah 40:8 which says God's Word will not pass away, the
only logical conclusion is that the American Standard Version
must not have been the Word of God.  It passed away.  It passed
away quickly.  Now quite frankly, I'm very glad that the New
King James Version came out, because it offers the other side of
the picture.  The New King James Version came out, and guess what?
The King James Version is not disappearing from the picture like
the American Standard did when the New American Standard came out.
More food for thought.  God's Word doesn't pass away.

Sixth and last, whenever a Bible was translated into a particular
language, it was done -- understandably -- at the peak of that
particular language.  The King James Bible was translated at the
peak of the English language.  As a result, it comes out more
specific and clear, however archaic the language.  In many cases,
the archaic language is an asset, rather than a hindrance.
Consider the words for "you."  In modern English we have an
overwhelming one word for it.  "You."  In 1611, when they
translated the King James Bible, they used four words.  "Thou,"
"thee," "ye," and "you."  "Thou" and "thee" are singular; "ye"
and "you" are plural.  "Thou" and "ye" are subjective case; "thee"
and "you" are objective.  Now that alone could make clearer
something that modern English could confuse.  Suppose there was
some king ruling over some people, and the Lord said something
like, "You must offer a burnt offering."  Is He talking to the
king or the people?  You don't even know.  It's in modern English.
Now, if He had said, "Thou must offer a burnt offering," well, then
you know He was talking to the king alone.  But if He had said, "Ye
must offer a burnt offering," why, then you know He's talking to
the people.  Do you see how that old archaic language can be an
asset?  There is very good reason why the King James Bible was
translated in 1611 and God has not inspired a modern-English update
since then.  We are now working with a very degenerated language
at this present time.  Why bother using that for God's Holy Word
rather than a more highly developed version of it?

     - The King James versus the New Bibles (scriptural) -

What I'm now going to do is cite several differences between the
King James Bible and the new Bibles.  For the most part, the new
Bibles all say the same thing (being translated from the same
manuscripts).  The New King James is an exception here.  Not all
the differences between the King James and new Bibles will hold
for the New King James, since pieces of them were translated from
the same manuscript.  Note, however, that a Bible with less error
that other errant Bibles does not make it the Word of God.  The
Word of God is infallible and contains NO errors.  I will quote
the NIV to show what the new Bibles say, but recognize that ALL
the new Bibles will say pretty much the same thing.  The strongest
arguments are placed at the beginning, though all are significant.

DIFFERENCE:  Mark 1:2-3

KJV says:  "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before
thee.  The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

NIV says:  "It is written in Isaiah the prophet:  I will send my
messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.  A voice of
one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make
straight paths for him.'"

The difference here is quite clear.  The King James says all that
stuff is written in the prophets -- plural -- and the new Bibles
say it's written in Isaiah.  Well, let's see where that stuff is
really written.  Isaiah 40:3 says this: (KJV) "The voice of him
that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make
straight in the desert a highway for our God."  Nifty.  But guess
what?  That part about sending a messenger which will prepare a way
DOES NOT EVER appear in the book of Isaiah.  Well, where does it
appear?  Malachi 3:1 says:  "Behold, I will send my messenger, and
he shall prepare the way before me..."

I could stop right here, and I still would have proved the new
Bibles to be the fallible words of men.  You can't explain away
this one.  It is clear cut.  The King James says, "As it is written
in the prophets..."  Well, specifically, it was written in Isaiah
and Malachi, and both of those books are prophetical books, and
both Isaiah and Malachi were prophets.  The new Bibles say that
those statements were written in Isaiah.  Well, one of them was.
But one of them was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the book of Isaiah!
That means Mark 1:2-3 in the new Bibles is an out and out LIE,
nothing better.  Now granted, the difference itself is (relatively)
trivial, but we are talking about the Word of God here, which is
INFALLIBLE and WITHOUT ERROR.

DIFFERENCE:  Luke 2:22,24

KJV says: (verse 22)  "And when the days of her purification
according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought
him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord."

NIV says: (verse 22)  "When the time of their purification
according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and
Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord."

The difference is not the King James saying "they" and the new
Bibles saying "Joseph and Mary."  Read in context, there is no
question that in the King James Version, the "they" refers to
Joseph and Mary.  The difference here is "her purification" and
"their purification."  Well, people say that the "their" refers
to Mary and Jesus, whereas the King James "her" obviously refers
to just Mary.  Well, that's fine and dandy, but let's look at
verse 24: (KJV) "And to offer a sacrifice according to that which
is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young
pigeons."  The new Bibles say the same thing in different words.

Now let's look at what "a pair of turtledoves, or two young
pigeons" "according to the law of Moses" was for.  Look at
Leviticus 12:2-8.  "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man
child:  then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days
of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean."  Verses
3-5 go on to say what she has to do during that time of uncleanness
and that seven days after a woman bears a son, she is purified.
It also gives a separate set of instructions when a woman has a
daughter.  Note back at Luke 2:22, When the time of her/their
purification according to the law of Moses is accomplished....

Continuing on in Leviticus (verse 6):  "And when the days of her
purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall
bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young
pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering..." (down to verse 8)
"...And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring
two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for a burnt offering,
and the other for a sin offering."

So here's what happened.  Mary had Jesus, and then she was unclean,
according to the law of Moses, and she had to go through a seven
day purification routine.  Well, the new Bibles say THEY had
completed their purification according to the law of Moses.  Huh?
According to the law of Moses, it was only a woman who had just
had a child that needed to go through the purification routine.
Not the child him/herself.  Not her husband.  Just her.

But more importantly is the part about the sacrifices.  In Luke
2:24, "two turtledoves, or two young pigeons" were sacrificed
"according to that which is said in the law of the Lord."  What
is said in the law of the Lord (Leviticus 12:6-8) tells us that
if the woman wasn't able to bring a lamb, she should bring two
turtledoves, or two young pigeons, which, according to Luke 2:24,
is what Mary did.  But what were they for?  Leviticus 12:8:  "The
one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering."

Well, if the new Bibles are correct using "their" instead of "her"
in verse 22, then that means Jesus needed a sin offering.  I don't
think so.  If you believe that, you better read that Bible a little
more carefully, for everything the Bible ever says is that Jesus
was totally and completely without sin.  (Hebrews 4:15 and 9:28,
among others).

Do you see the problem when "their" is used instead of "her"?  It
actually creates TWO problems that contradict what the law of
Moses said (only the woman goes through the period of purification,
and only the woman offers the sacrifices).  And to top it all of,
it is explicitly stated TWICE that all was done "according to the
law."  Like Mark 1:2-3, this difference alone is sufficient to
disprove the new Bibles.

DIFFERENCE:  Matthew 5:22

KJV says:  "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."

NIV says:  "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his
brother will be subject to judgment..."

The problem here, is that in the new Bibles "without a cause" is
removed.  So in other words, you can't be angry with anybody
without exception.  There are no qualifiers.  "...anyone who is
angry with his brother will be subject to judgment..."  No two
ways about it.  The King James Version implies it is all right
to be angry WITH a cause, but if you don't have a cause, you are
in danger of the judgment.

Well, guess what?  If the new Bibles are right, that means JESUS
"will be subject to judgment."  Jesus was angry on more than one
occasion.  Mark 3:5 states explicitly:  "And when he [Jesus] had
looked round about on them with anger..."  I'm not kidding.  Read
it in context if you don't believe the "he" refers to Jesus.  The
new Bibles admit Jesus was angry, too.  The NIV says:  "He looked
around at them in anger..."

So the new Bibles are telling me that Jesus is "subject to
judgment"?  Think again.

DIFFERENCE:  John 1:18

KJV says:  "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

The NIV is way different, but it doesn't say what some of the other
new Bibles say, and that is instead of "begotten Son," "begotten
God."

Jesus was a begotten Son, but there is no way you can be truthful
calling Him a begotten God.  He was always God, but He wasn't a
Son until He was begotten in Bethlehem.  If you don't think Jesus
is eternal, look at 1 Timothy 6:16, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 5:10,
and 2 Peter 1:11, among many others.  Now how could Jesus be
eternal if He was a begotten God?  He couldn't.

DIFFERENCE:  Colossians 1:14

KJV says:  "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the
forgiveness of sins."

NIV says:  "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

"Through his blood" is left out in the new Bibles.  I guarantee
you, unless Christ died on that cross, we wouldn't have redemption
or forgiveness of sins.  Well, Ephesians 1:7 says the same thing,
almost word for word, and in the new Bibles, "through his blood"
has not been omitted there, like it has in Colossians 1:14.  Well,
that's fine for those at Ephesus, but what about the poor misguided
souls of Colosse?

DIFFERENCE:  Mark 16:9-20

KJV talks about Jesus after His resurrection.

In the new Bibles those twelve verses aren't even there!  If they
are, it's in brackets or something saying the text isn't reliable
or authoritative.  Well, I have a question, if it isn't reliable
or authoritative, what is it doing in the Bible at all?  Goes back
to the translators of these new Bibles not believing the infallible
Word of God exists today in the first place.  The edition of the
NIV I have here does have Mark 16:9-20, but preceding the passage
is this:  "The most reliable and early manuscripts and other
ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

I've got a couple questions for whoever wrote that BESIDES what the
heck is it doing there if it isn't reliable.  One is, What do you
know about the most reliable and early manuscripts when the
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that the NIV was translated from
weren't even compiled into Hebrew and Greek Bibles until 1881?
Second question is, if Mark 16:9-20 is not authoritative, what is
it doing in the King James Bible without any disclaimer on it?

Along the same lines, the edition of the NIV Bible I have has all
kinds of footnotes and such at the bottom of several pages saying
how some manuscripts don't have this word or this phrase and how
the earliest manuscripts say this instead of that, etc.  If the
NIV is the inspired, infallible Word of God, why are so many
pieces -- one as big as twelve verses -- labelled as
nonauthoritative?  What, couldn't God make up His mind whether He
wanted Mark 16:9-20 there or not?

Take note of the content of these verses, in particular verses
19-20 which talk about Jesus' ascension.  This isn't the only
place Jesus' ascension is attacked in the new Bibles.  Take a
look at the next one.

DIFFERENCE:  Luke 24:51-52

KJV says:  "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was
parted from them, and carried up into heaven.  And they worshipped
him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."

The NIV is in the clear on this one, but some of the other new
Bibles leave out Jesus' ascension and even the people worshipping
Him.

DIFFERENCE:  1 John 5:7-8

KJV says: (verse 7) "For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:  and these
three are one." (verse 8) "And there are three that bear witness
in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood:  and these
three agree in one."

NIV says: (verse 7) "For there are three that testify:" (verse 8)
"the Spirit, the water and the blood:  and the three are in
agreement."

1 John 5:7, the strongest verse about the Trinity in the entire
Bible, taken out.  Some versions don't even try to hide it.  Some
versions omit verse 7 completely and jump from verse 6 to verse 8.

You can still prove the Trinity without that verse by taking
Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29; Matthew 28:19, Matthew 3:16-17;
Philippians 2:5-6, John 10:30, John 14:7; John 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-2,
1 Corinthians 8:6; John 14:26, John 15:26; and 2 Corinthians 3:17
into consideration, collectively.  This means that the omission of
1 John 5:7 does not make the Bible more accurate.

The whole deal sounds like somebody along the line wanted to attack
the Trinity, just as somebody wanted to attack the ascension.

DIFFERENCE:  1 Timothy 3:16

KJV says:  "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory."

NIV says:  "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed
on in the world, was taken up in glory."

The problem here is "God" and "He."  Why is that a problem?  There
is absolutely NOTHING that should lead an NIV reader to believe the
"he" refers to God and not Jesus.  True, "God" is the nearest thing
"he" could have referred to, but somebody could very easily tell
you, "Yes, but 'appeared in a body' and all that other stuff
shows us quite clearly that the verse is talking about Jesus.

And that's true.  The King James is talking about Jesus as well.
What is not communicated by the new Bibles and IS communicated by
the King James is that Jesus IS GOD.  Read the King James verse
again.  It's one of the strongest verses for the deity of Christ
in the Bible.  Read the same verse in the NIV or another new Bible.
Pull out the book and read it in context, if you like.  There isn't
much of any way to use that verse to show the deity of Christ, is
there?

That runs the total up to three points that the new Bibles attack.
Jesus' ascension, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ.  Funny
thing is, those are the same points cults and unbelievers attack
all the time.  Now those attacks are in what many people call the
Word of God itself -- in the new Bibles.

DIFFERENCE:  Luke 4:4

KJV says:  "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

NIV says:  "Jesus answered, 'It is written:  Man does not live on
bread alone.'"

After reading the Luke 4:4 in one of the new Bibles, one might say,
"Well, that's nice, but what else DOES man live on, if not by bread
alone?"

Not a major difference, and not one that causes an internal
contradiction in the new Bibles, but significant enough to note
nevertheless.  What is gained by removing "but by every word of
God" other than that we now have one less verse that says we
should live by the Word of God?  This should please the
translators of the new Bibles, since they don't believe we have
the infallible Word of God anyway.

DIFFERENCE:  Matthew 6:13

KJV says:  "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil:  For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for
ever.  Amen."

NIV says:  "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
the evil one."

Again, not a major problem, but still significant.  The Lord's
Prayer was constructed the way it was on purpose.  It was to
provide an example of a prayer to God.  In "Willmington's Book
of Bible Lists," H. L. Willmington lists the pieces of the Lord's
Prayer and the part they serve in it:

A personal relationship with God -- "Our Father"
Faith -- "which art in heaven"
Worship -- "hallowed be thy name"
Expectation -- "thy kingdom come"
Submission -- "thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven"
Petition -- "give us this day our daily bread"
Confession -- "and forgive us our debts"
Compassion -- "as we forgive our debtors"
Dependence -- "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
               from evil"
Acknowledgment -- "for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and
                   the glory, for ever."

Well, according to the new Bibles, you don't need to acknowledge
God's omnipotence or His position as the Most High.  Hmmm.


     - Summary -

According to the Scripture, in Isaiah 40:6-8, Psalms 12:6-7,
1 Peter 1:23, and Matthew 24:35, God not only inspired His Word,
but He has promised to preserve it as well.  And though the
languages of men may come and go, the Word of God will stand
forever, whatever the language used to carry it.  The King James
Bible is indisputably the infallible Word of God in the English
language, and the new Bibles and new translations that come out
all the time now are NOT the Word of God but the words of men.

Several internal contradictions were cited that are present in
the new Bibles, such as Mark 1:2-3, where the new Bibles
incorrectly cite the Old Testament; and Luke 2:22-24 which says how
Mary followed Old Testament law, when in fact, she didn't.
These contradictions are not present in the King James Version.

In the new Bibles, there are at least two statements that
indirectly, though undeniably, state that Jesus had sin and/or
was subject to judgment.  Luke 2:22-24 said Jesus required a
sin offering.  In Matthew 5:22, Jesus said that if you were
angry at someone without a cause, you would be subject to
judgment.  These are also internal contradictions, since in
Hebrews 4:15 and Hebrews 9:28, it says Jesus was without sin.
In the King James Bible, only Mary needed the sin offering in
Luke 2:22-24, and Jesus said only those who were angry without
a cause would be in danger of judgment.

Also in the new Bibles, various doctrines are attacked.  Jesus'
ascension (Mark 16:9-20 either eliminated or labelled non-
authoritative, and Luke 24:51-52 changed), the Trinity (1 John
5:7 removed), and the deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16 changed).
Other things are attacked as well such as living by God's Word
(Luke 4:4) and acknowledgment in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:13).
In the King James Bible, none of these things are attacked.

In the new Bibles, false implications are made, such as in
1 Peter 2:2, where it says you "grow" to salvation, and Colossians
1:14 where it does not say redemption is through Christ's blood.
The King James Version makes neither of these errors.

Look at the evidence.  Especially the internal contradictions which
prove by themselves that the new Bibles cannot be the Word of God.
Isn't it obvious that the King James Bible is the only true Word
of God in the English language?
-- 
Sam.                                             ss1@kepler.unh.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An egotist is a person of low taste--more interested in himself than in me.
-------------------------------------------------Ambrose Bierce----------------
From: rhm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Miller)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:33:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Accountability in CCM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA