Question:
What's the diff between the KJV and NIV version of the bible.?
jollypig
2006-09-03 03:12:56 UTC
I rather NIV bible. Cos english has evolved and some english in KJV version is different from NIV which uses modern english. What do u think? Such as charity , jesting etc...
Twelve answers:
Shepherd
2006-09-03 03:25:01 UTC
Aside from the differences in the English usage, in which case I would recommend the use of the New King James Version as opposed to the 1661 King James Version and its Old English (which is mostly obsolete in terms of how words are used and how phrases are understood then versus now), there is a translation application difference...



The majority of Bibles, by its nature, are translated from Hebrew & Aramaic texts (for Old Testament) and Greek texts (for New Testament). There are two ways that the Bible is translated: word-for-word (New King James Version) and phrase-for-phrase (New International Version). Both methods of translation produce the same Bible, just that the word-for-word is closer to how the ancient texts are written (making it the favorite of scholars), while the phrase-for-phrase is closer to how the Bible would have been written if it were written using modern speech (making it the preferred choice of those who are new)...
2006-09-03 10:30:14 UTC
People who don't have a clue to what they say will tell you that the KJV is the only true bible..it was written in 1611..and it was out of the old bishops bible..the modern NIV is a far better translation...and scholar will tell you that. I love the KJV but the NIV is simply a better translation for us. The KJV is only good for "English" speaking peoples anyway, so it can't be the the "ONLY" true version...the ignorant and uneducated are a little stuck here on this issue
icheeknows
2006-09-03 10:29:44 UTC
The KJV is a literal translation sort of word for word and it is up to you to understand idioms etc. from the time of the original writting. The NIV on the other hand translats them for you, which means the interpretors have free rain to interpret some things that fit into their personal agenda. Example of possible error. Paul uses the word to discrib where some people's god was. This became appetite so there God was their appetite. Fact is the stomach was the seat of a persons will or their own wishes. My thought that was the proper idea for the verse and to me makes clearer. I prefer to find out this stuff for myself and am willing to go the extra mile. One reason for me is that I disagree with what appears to me to be the NIV translators agenda. Here is the thing the really important stuff is quite clear, it is that extra understanding one gets from understanding those passages that your study Bible does not discuss and that your pastors ignor. I want to know all God has for me as clear as I can get it because those little tid bits help me to know God better.. One example of where paraphrases wabble is on who can be elders and who deacons. I think that is important because it is important that the leadership not lead the lazy astray which is very common in this country. I doubt that if we had an accountable clergy that Bush would have served a second term. Aggression is forbidden in the Bible and w/o evangelical suport he would not have been elected. So the little thing can make a difference.
Laurie V
2006-09-03 10:25:57 UTC
The biggest difference in the two is the fact that the NIV removes many words, phrases, and even entire verses from the Bible. Further, it is not a word-for-word translation and paraphrases most parts. The KJV was translated using the most accurate texts by scribes who had a deep respect for their jobs. (Be sure to research which texts were used for the translations... they are a key factor in why the Bibles are so different.)



Personally, I would do your own research on how the two Bibles were put together, and then decide for yourself which one you want to read. However, make sure that when you do your research, you find authors that aren't biased either way... next to impossible, but it can be done if you look hard enough.
ChiChi
2006-09-03 10:28:02 UTC
The NIV version is worded to be more understandable by today's society-at-large (and therefore, dumbed down in some areas).



It's like taking original Shakespeare and dumbing it down into modern English. Not only does the literature lose *so much* beauty and grace, but loses a lot in the translation.
2006-09-03 10:17:50 UTC
A boat load of people will tell you the NIV is bad... they're wrong.



For almost 25 years I have been using GREEK for most of my study. I have translated much of the New Testament, memorized scriptures IN GREEK. That said, I know a little about texts and meanings.



The kjv includes MANY PASSAGES which don't seem to have been in that book when it was written. Things that are not in any copies before a certain date... the kjv pushers claim that NIV left these out when, in fact, they were added at sometime after the Bible was written and most modern translations are trying to correctly relate the ORIGINAL MEANING.



The kjv deliberately MISTRANSLATES several passages. Like Ac 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people... Easter was not ADDED TO CHRISTIANITY until several centuries after the New Testament was written. It was used here to lend credibility to the imported pagan festival. The Greek word used is the same word they correctly translated as "passover" the other 26 times it is used.



I use my computer Bible software rather than a printed Bible 99% of the time. I carry a notebook computer to worship or Bible class and use that instead of a book. This allows me to assist the minister or teacher in many ways. I leave that software configured so that 1 column has original languages and a second column has English. The "home" version for English is the same version I gave my 7 year old daughter to learn. It is called New International Readers Version or NIrV. Its "reading grade level" is 2.9. I have suggested the version to lots of people since I first learned about it. The Bible should NOT BE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. This version makes it almost impossible to misunderstand. While most of the Bibles I have seen using it are children's editions, Zondervan does publish it in an "adult" edition as well.



The Contemporary English Version, Today's NIV, New American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, and New Living Translation are all similar. They use modern language and try to create an easily readable Bible... NASV is a bit more "literal" making sentence structure more complex and slightly raising the grade level, but teens should easily understand it.



I see kendal with his false kjv agenda is here again. He doesn't understand that the same FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE CAN BE USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS in different passages. Both Jesus and Satan are CALLED "Morning Star" and to the best of my knowledge, neither of them ARE PLANETS.. Figurative language doesn't have exclusivity.



Unfortunately, kendal hasn't confirmed his email address so people can't explain his error.
Deby
2006-09-03 10:23:35 UTC
In olden days during the time of King James,people started writing many Bibles in Differesnt ways so King James ordered the people to use only one Bible which shouldnt be changed..which is now King James Version,but i prefer NIV which has modern English and is easy to understand than KJV..SO DO YOUR BEST TO USE KJV..



God Bless You

Bye; )
retro
2006-09-03 10:17:18 UTC
I was raised on the KJV, so I perfer to read it. When I read NIV, I get confused. KJV is the only version I can understand. I also perfer the interpretatio in KJV, it's slightly different than NIV, but in my opinion NIV diluted the Bible a bit to make it easier to understand.
Sky_blue
2006-09-03 10:31:49 UTC
Brother, the NIV has removed so many verses and words etc, the KJV is the only reliable Bible.



did you know that in Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) calls lucifer the son of the morning, but in the NIV it calls him the bright and morning star !!! Which we all know is Jesus' title, check Revelation 22:16
KREAL1
2006-09-03 10:21:05 UTC
One uses modern english and the other uses 16th century english.
bonzo the tap dancing chimp
2006-09-03 10:15:57 UTC
One is ridiculous whereas the other is ludicrous.
afrasiyab k
2006-09-03 10:45:53 UTC
KING JAMES VERSION IS OLD VERSION, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION IS NEW VERSION OF BIBLE, RSV REVISE STANDARD VERSION OF BIBLE AND THERE ARE ALOT MORE, DIFFERENT VERSIONS SAYS DIFFERENT THINGS , RSV which was revised by 32 eminent christians scholars, followed by 52 christian missionaries , they change the word beggotten son into beloved son ,because begotten is somthing which animals do they found it as audultration of anciant menu scripts, the word trinity is no where in Bible the only verse which christian thinks is refer to trinity is the father ,word and holyghost, the RSV thrown out that verse as a fabrication , as an interpolation.

why are the missionaries and scholars adding and throwing out thing why?

THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE

We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:

1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."

2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."

3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"

You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:

The FIRST Type:

(a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)

(b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

(c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)

Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.

The SECOND Type:

(a) "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ." (Matthew 27:46)

(b) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)

(c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).

Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.

The THIRD Type:

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)

The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.

For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!





ONE: The first kind - THE WORD OF GOD - is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’ân.



TWO: The second kind - THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadeeth.



THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!

The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene - all under the same cover - A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.





It will now be easy for us to analyze a Christian's claim about his Holy Book.

SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF

Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur’ân: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." - (Sir William Muir)

The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words - one Arabic, the other Hebrew - are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2

Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of "his" Psalms.3

1. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept this claim on faith alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qur’ân is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN- The Miracle of Miracles";

2- More evidence later on - "Moses not the author of the Biblical "Torah."

3.. Later on you’ll read how Christian "Brains Trust" confess - "Author; Principally David, though there are other writers."

What about the Injeel? INJEEL means the "Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):

1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew 9:35)

2. "... but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark 8:35)

3. "... preached the gospel. . ." (Luke 20:1)



The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!

The question before us is: "Do you accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein - "Which Bible are you talking about?", we may ask. "Why, there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.

THE CATHOLIC BIBLE

Holding the "Douay" Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible" claim.

The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":

". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:

The Book of Judith

The Book of Tobias

The Book of Baruch

The Buck of Esther, etc.

* This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.

THE PROTESTANT BIBLE

Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".

"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."

The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians - both Catholics and Protestant - use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.

GLOWING TRIBUTES

First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-

1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." - (Church of England Newspaper)

2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." - (Times literary Supplement)

3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." - (Life and Work)

4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" - (The Times)

The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride.

"THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"

But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;

"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."

Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:

"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.





FIFTY THOUSAND ERRORS (?)

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline - "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).

While I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. "Good morning'" he said. "Good morning" I replied. He was offering me his "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines. Yes, a Jehovah's Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people's doors! I invited him in.

As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph at the top of the page, I asked, "Is this your's?" He readily recognised his own. I said, "It says: 50 000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?" "What's that!" he exclaimed. I repeated, "I said, that it says, that there are 50 000 errors in your Bible." "Where did you get that?" He asked. (This was published 23 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, "Leave the fancy talk aside - is this your's?" pointing again to the monograph - "Awake!" He said, "Can I have a look?" "Of course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing. They (the Jehovah's Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.





I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy Ghost" had tickled him. He began, "The article says that "most of those errors have been eliminated." I asked "If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?" He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!

If I had this booklet ready, I would have offered him, saying - "I would like to do you a favour, give me your name and address, and your telephone number. I will lend you this booklet - IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD?" for 90 days. I want a written reply!" If you do this, And a few other Muslims do the same. They and the other missionaries will never darken your doors again. I believe that this publication will prove the most effective talisman to date. Insha-Allah!

This "cult" of Jehovah's Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the "Word of God," is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review - "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" - they say: "there are probably 50 000 errors . . . errors that have crept into the Bible text . . . 50000 such serious (?) errors… most of those so-called errors... as a whole the Bible is accurate." (?)

We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of - grave or minor - defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those "minor" changes.

1. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

(Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

The indispensable "VIRGIN" in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."

BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE

"Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:

2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 - AV)

No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication - "BEGOTTEN" - has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud.





The Muslim World should congratulate the "Fifty cooperating denominations" of Christendom and their Brains Trust the "Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence" for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Qur-anic truth.





"CHRISTIAN MES-A-MATHICS"

3. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER,

the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one."

1st Epistle of John 5:7 - AV

This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.’s who have been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For the Holy Qur'an says:



* Not one in a trinity. Not one in a trinity.

THE ASCENSION

One of the most serious of those "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in Christianity - OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:

4a. "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19)

4b. "While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." (Luke 24:51)

Now please look at the image below, which is a photocopy where the quotation 4a above ought to appear. You will be shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in "small print" as a footnote at the bottom of the page. If you can lay your hands on a RSV 1952, you will find the last six words of 4b above, i.e. "AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?





From the Chart - "The Origin and Growth of the English Bible" - appearing below, you will note that all the Biblical "Versions" prior to the Revised Version of 1881 were dependent upon the ANCIENT COPIES - those dating only five or six hundred years after Jesus. The Revisers of the RSV 1952, were the first Bible scholars who were able to tap the "MOST Ancient Copies" fully, dating three and four centuries after Christ. We agree that the closer to the source the more authentic is the document. Naturally "MOST" Ancient deserves credence more than mere "ANCIENT." But not finding a word about Jesus being "taken up" or "carried up" into heaven in the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts, the Christian fathers expurgated those references from the RSV 1952.



THE DONKEY CIRCUS

The above facts are a staggering confession by Christendom that the "inspired" authors of the Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus- Yet these "inspired" authors were unanimous in recording that their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a close.

“ . . . And they sat him thereon." (The Donkey) (Matt. 21:7)“ . . . And he sat upon him." (The Donkey) (Mark 11:7)

“ . . . And they set Jesus Thereon." (The Donkey) (Luke 19:35)“ . . . Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey) (John 12:14)

Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation - going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording of His "son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City - and yet "inspiring" them to black-out the news about His "son's" heavenly flight on the wings of angels?

NOT FOR LONG!

The hot-gospellers and the Bible-thumpers were too slow in catching the Joke. By the time they realised that the corner-stone of their preaching - THE ASCENSION OF JESUS - had been undermined as a result of Christian Biblical erudition, the publishers of the RSV had already raked in a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars! (Fifteen Million). The propagandists made a big hue and cry, and with the backing of two denominational committees out of the fifty, forced the Publishers to re-incorporate the interpolations into the "INSPIRED" Word of God in every new publication of the RSV after 1952, the expunged portion was "RESTORED TO THE TEXT."

It is an old, old game. The Jews and the Christians have been editing their "Book of God" from its very inception. The difference between them and the ancient forgerers is that the ancient forgers did not know the art of writing "prefaces" and "footnotes", otherwise they too would have told us as clearly as our modern heroes have about their tampering, and their glib excuses for transmuting forged currency into glittering gold.

"MANY PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATION WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY INDIVIDUALS AND BY TWO DENOMINATIONAL COMMITTEES ALL OF THESE WERE GIVEN CAREFUL ATTENTION BY THE COMMITTEE.

"TWO PASSAGES, THE I LONGER ENDING OF MARK (16:9-20) . . . AND LUKE 24:51 ARE RESTORED TO THE TEXT." (Preface - Collins' pages vi and vii)

"Why 'restored'"? Because they had been previously expunged! Why had the references to the Ascension expunged in the first place? The MOST Ancient manuscripts had no references to the Ascension at all. They were interpolations similar to 1 John 5:7 about the Trinity. (Refer to the earlier example 3). Why eliminate one and re-instate the other? Do not be surprised! By the time you lay your hands on a RSV, the "Committee" might also have decided to expunge the whole of their invaluable Preface. The Jehovah's Witnesses have already eliminated 27 revealing pages of their FOREWORD to their "New World Translation of the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES," (this is their way of saying - New Testament).

ALLAH IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

The Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.’s in the "Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" The Christians had thus swallowed the camel - they seemed to have accepted at last that the name of God is Allah - but were still straining at the gnat by spelling Allah with one "L"! (Photographic reproduction of the Bible page showing the word "ALAH" is preserved here for posterity below). References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent "Scofield Reference Bible" has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1, but has, by a clever sleight-of-hand, blotted out the word "Alah" altogether. There is not even a gap where the word "Alah" once used to be. 1 This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.

1. See "WHAT IS HIS NAME" for more information on this Biblical omission of the word Allah. Under the section of "Now you see it, now you don’t".



Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible."

"THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN TRANSCRIBING."

In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: "I SAW THAT GOD HAD ESPECIALLY GUARDED THE BIBLE" (from what?) "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."

DEVELOPED SICKNESS





The mental malady is a cultivated one. This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that "Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word of God." "Yes, it is adulterated, but pure" "It is human, yet divine." Do words have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a "poetic license" in their preaching.

THE WITNESSES

The most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD" mentioned earlier, they confess:

"IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE" Now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with their own erudition.

POT-LUCK

Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now expunged Foreword:

"THE EVIDENCE IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE ORIGINAL TEXT Of THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES 1 HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX2 HAS BEEN,"

Yet this incorrigible Cult has the effrontery to publish 9 000 000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a 192-page book entitled - "Is the Bible REALLY the Word of God?" We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?). This is Christian logic.

1. New Testament.

2. "LXX" meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton." meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton."

A PATIENT HEARING

Dr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:-

"AND LET US BE PERFECTLY FAIR AS WE PURSUE THE SUBJECT (Is the Bible the Word of God?). BEARING IN MIND THAT WE ARE TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF. IN A COURT OF LAW WE ASSUME THAT A WITNESS WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND MUST ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS UNLESS WE HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING HIM, OR CAN PROVE HIM A LIAR. SURELY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND SHOULD RECEIVE A LIKE PATIENT HEARING."

The plea is fair and reasonable. We will do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself.

In the first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is NOT the Author of these books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see:

• "And the Lord said unto him. Away, get thee down . . ."

• "And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come. . ."

• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people . . ."

• "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . . ."

• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the . . ."

It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.

MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?

Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...