A must read from Servant

I have done some research and
my finding were quite interesting . I
think everybody here must read
the following . I copied this from the
web, but test it our for yourselves.

Compare each of the verses below against the king James and the New King James Bible and the NIV Bible, because the king James and the new King James Bible had all the verses that the NIV did not have. I also found the living Bible and the English standard version to be corrupt, with missing and deleted verses. I also found the Amplified Bible to have a few places with missing verses. Check out your own personal Bibles to see if it is corrupt . God says in Revelation 22:19 - . And if any man shall take away
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out
of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book.

Several readers have asked me
this question so I thought it worthwhile to include my response here. Please
note that these are only WHOLE verses that the NIV deletes. This list does not
include the many words and phrases that were completely deleted from the
NIV--it deletes over 64,000 words including words like mercy seat, Jehovah, and
Godhead. It removes meaningful, well-known Bible words like Calvary,
Lucifer, new testament, regeneration, etc. Most of the modern Bibles line up
very closely with the NIV--and so does the New World Translation--the Bible of
the Jehovah's Witnesses which predates the NIV! Updated When you read below
where I say that a verse is COMPLETELY deleted, I mean
clean/bald-headed/gone/vanished deleted. For instance, if you search for Acts
8:37 in the NIV you will read, 36As
they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said,
"Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38And he ordered the chariot to stop. Then
both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. Verse
37 is CLEAN, BALD-HEADED, GONE, VANISHED, MY FRIENDS (and it is a powerful
verse)! Some foolish people have written me saying, "But it says something
in the footnotes." I have three responses. (1) When you are reading your
Bible do you look at the footnotes after every verse? Do you say "I am
reading verse 3 so let me look below and see if something in verse 3 is
missing."? Even if you did do that (which you don't) the footnotes say
that the "best manuscripts" don't have the verse--will you then agree
with them that the verse doesn't belong? If not, then why are you reading an
NIV? (2) Not all the word deletions are found in the footnotes of the NIV so
don't think for a second that they are letting you know all the changes they
made. (3) The next logical step will be for the NIV to omit the footnotes and
just reorder everything. In the example above verse 38 would become verse 37 so
it wouldn't look funny. Look at the J.B. Phillips translation--that heretic
didn't number the individual verses so you don't know what you're missing. It's
paragraph style. The NIV may go that way too. They are desensitizing you to the
changing of the very words of God. In summary, they'll either renumber or go to
that paragraph format. updated Wait a minute, hold the presses! I got the
following from Bill W. one of our dear readers: "I was in the Christian Book store
today. I saw some thing that shocked me. I look through the Bibles often. I
looked at the CHILDREN'S NIV. I looked up the missing verses and there was
something I could not believe. I looked up Matt 17:21 and of course it is
missing BUT in this Children's Bible it was typed out like this 20/21 and the
21st verse was still missing. They make you think that you read the 21st verse
but it still is just the 20th verse! Can you believe it???!!! If you want to
look for yourself find the CHILDREN'S NIrV BIBLE, and see for yourself. I did
look in the other NIV's to see if they did the same thing. They DID NOT do
that, BUT how long before they do?????!" They are already sneaking the deletions into
the children's Bibles! This is the second time that I've heard of those foxes
pulling one over on little helpless children. The other thing I've seen them do
is retranslate the kids' and prisoners' Bibles to make them gender neutral. Of
course those foxes didn't market them that way, they just snuck in the gender inclusively.
See this article for details. Updated Another update! I just opened the JW
"Bible", the New World Translation (1961 ed.), and looked up all the
verses that the NIV completely deletes. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE DELETES THE
EXACT SAME ONES!!!! I mean ALL of 'em! The only difference between the NIV and
the New World Translation deletions is that the JW Bible does not include any
footnotes! Isn't that what I said above, that the NIV would eventually delete
the footnotes? To learn more about the Jehovah's Witnesses and their damnable
doctrines go to our article on cults. Our illiterate, lazy culture has spilled
over to many professing Christians who have embraced the ways of the sluggard
(and their want shall come upon them as an armed man). They are willing to read
a Satanic "Bible" version missing what God says so they can be lazy
and not do their due diligence. Your modern Bible perversion was written by men
using dynamic equivalence. In other words, they are telling you their
interpretation and their doctrine--NOT what the manuscripts really say. Don't
believe me? Look at the article on the NIV using gender inclusive language.
Gender inclusively wasn't in the "originals"--it is a modern,
feminist concept born of REBELLION. A number of brothers and sisters, after
examining the facts, have said, "I'm getting a King James!" Many have
shared what a blessing the King James Bible has been to them and their
spiritual life. The King James isn't hard. I've seen one and two year olds
quoting it and I am not exaggerating. I've taught it to people who cannot read
and to children whose second language is English. I actually find the modern
Bibles more difficult to read than the King James. If you read a modern Bible,
don't let your pride get in the way of really looking at this information. Some
people get hostile because I'm sharing these facts. Look up the verses and see
that what you call the Bible is not the Bible. Get a real Bible. The King James
conformable to the edition of 1611--NOT the New King James or the KJ21, etc.
they are not King James Bibles.

WHOLE Bible verses deleted in
the NIV

The following WHOLE verses
have been removed in the NIV--whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN
ALL!!!

Matthew 12:47 -- removed in
the footnotes

Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"Howbeit this kind goeth
not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"For the Son of man is
come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the
footnotes

Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence
make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"If any man have ears to
hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"Where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"Where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"But if ye do not
forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your
trespasses."

Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"And the scripture was
fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses)
-- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text.
Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not
have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also
places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.

Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"Two men shall be in the
field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 22:44 -- removed in the
footnotes

Luke 22:43 -- removed in the
footnotes

Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"(For of necessity he
must release one unto them at the feast.)"

John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"For an angel went down
at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first
after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever
disease he had."

John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in
the footnotes

Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's
deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without
believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers
missing?

"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."

Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"Notwithstanding it
pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"But the chief captain
Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our
hands,"

Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"And when he had said
these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY
removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are
you NIV readers missing?

"The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

I John 5:7 -- Vitally
important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness
"Bible"]. In the NIV it says,

Thank you for a very informative article and I am glad that you shared it here with us.

God bless you

Very interesting! I checked and found it same, the verses in the footnotes. I am amazed.

In Christ

With no offense Servant, what difference does it make, the context is never changed. The context of NIV vs KJV is same. If any deletion of any verse changes the context, then surely it is a grave concern. Both the versions preach us the same thing. However I do not think "Good News" and "Gideon" version to be authentic and reliable.

I do appreciate your deep study into the matter and I also believe that KJV is a very reliable translation. Thank you for posting your research on the matter, I really enjoyed going through and working through both the version KJV and NIV. You article is worth reading and pondering on.

God bless

I did some research on the Internet and found this article, it is interesting and may have some truth in it also.

Question
WHY DOES THE NIV VERSION DOES NOT HAVE THESE VERSES... AM I READING THE WRONG BIBLE?

I ONLY FOUND KJV WITH THESE VERSES...
MATTHEW 18:11: KJV. "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.".

ACTS 8:37: "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."

Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!

Answer
Dear Miguel,

Thank you for your interesting question. You have mentioned a lot of individual verses and, basically, the reason is the same for each and all of them. It is, first of all, that the translators of the KJV did not have access to the material that is available today and that sheds much more light on the understanding of the original languages. Secondly, even from the time of the earliest English-language translations, there have been some “problem” texts.

What I would now like to do is to explain just a few of the verses you have mentioned, in some detail.

(1) Matt 17:21
This whole verse is missing from the famous Vatican manuscript, one of the most ancient, and probably most authentic, in the world; and in another one, written in the 11th or 12th century. It is also missing in at least five other MSS. But all of the MSS acknowledge it in the parallel place – Mark 9:29 - although the Vatican manuscript, leaves out “fasting”. It may well be a later addition but, if it is, it is still a very ancient one as many of the early church fathers, accepted it.

(2) Matt 18:11
This verse is omitted by five of the major manuscripts (MSS). However, there can be no doubt about its authenticity, as it is found in the parallel place, Luke 19:10, on which verse there is not a single various reading found in any of the MSS. that have ever been discovered, nor in any of the ancient versions.

(3) Acts 8:37
This whole verse is another that is omitted by many of the early MSS: almost all scholars claim that it is a later addition. Professor White in his Kriseos says, "Hic versus certissime delendus," (“This verse, should certainly be deleted”). It is found in several MSS of minor importance, and in the Vulgate and Arabic. In these MSS. it exists in a variety of forms, although the sense of the words is the same.

(4) Rom 16:24
There is a great deal of disagreement among the MSS and versions about this verse; some rejecting it entirely, and some placing the verses either at the end of Rom 14, or at the end of Rom 16.

(5) I John 5:7
It is likely that this verse is not genuine. It is missing from every manuscript of I John written before the invention of printing, with only one exception – the Codex Montfortii (in Trinity College, Dublin) Those that omit this verse amount to about 112!!

Going further back in English-language translations than even the KJV, we discover that in Coverdale's Bible, printed about 1535, this verse is put in brackets.

Tyndale was as critical as he was conscientious; and although he had this verse in the text of the first edition of his New Testament printed in 1526, he also put it in brackets, as Cloverdale (quite separately) did.
I believe fully in the doctrine of the Trinity, and have often taught, preached, and broadcast on the subject. However, this is not a verse that I would use in any “argument”.

Now, please don’t lose faith in the accuracy of the Bible. In none of these cases does the apparent discrepancy in the MSS make any real difference to the message of the text. The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is greater than even minor “typos” made by scribes, or by an earlier generation’s limited material and understanding.

I trust that I have provided a satisfactory answer but, if you wish, please feel free to submit a supplementary question.

Blessings,
C.Brian Ross (Rev)

Source: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/NIV-Bible-2.htm

Although an interesting topic started but I will go with Servant because:

God says in Revelation 22:19 - . And if any man shall take away
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out
of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book.

I personally loved NIV and thought it to be very accurate translation unless I cam across this article sent to me through an email by a friend.

"I was in the Christian Book store today. I saw some thing that shocked me. I look through the Bibles often. I looked at the CHILDREN'S NIV. I looked up the missing verses and there was something I could not believe. I looked up Matt 17:21 and of course it is missing BUT in this Children's Bible it was typed out like this 20/21 and the 21st verse was still missing. They make you think that you read the 21st verse but it still is just the 20th verse! Can you believe it???!!! If you want to look for yourself find the CHILDREN'S NIrV BIBLE, and see for yourself. I did look in the other NIV's to see if they did the same thing. They DID NOT do that, BUT how long before they do?????!"

They are already sneaking the deletions into the children's Bibles! This is the second time that I've heard of those foxes pulling one over on little helpless children. The other thing I've seen them do is retranslate the kids' and prisoners' Bibles to make them gender neutral. Of course those foxes didn't market them that way, they just snuck in the gender inclusivity.

Another update! I just opened the JW "Bible", the New World Translation (1961 ed.), and looked up all the verses that the NIV completely deletes. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE DELETES THE EXACT SAME ONES!!!! I mean ALL of 'em! The only difference between the NIV and the New World Translation deletions is that the JW Bible does not include any footnotes! Isn't that what I said above, that the NIV would eventually delete the footnotes? To learn more about the Jehovah's Witnesses and their damnable doctrines go to our article on cults.

I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says,

"For there are three that testify:"

Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--

"For there are three witness bearers,"

This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the Godhead. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the Godhead and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the Godhead? If so, then this deletion should offend you.

A few Christians have questioned my use of the NIV Bible. One person said to me that “we have the true and infallible word of God in the Authorized or KJV and the use of any other version is heretical”.
Let me set the record straight – the KJV is like every other version of the Bible, simply a translation. It has errors as do all versions, both ancient and modern. Translations are just that, translations – none are the original.
Unfortunately, we do not have original manuscripts of the various books of the New Testament but we do have fragments of very early manuscripts (back to about 110AD) plus many complete texts from after 200AD. In most cases, the earlier the manuscript the more accurate it should be, though there are some early manuscripts, from specific regions, which were clearly flawed. We don’t know if this was deliberate (to make them fit an existing heresy) or just poor copying. Prior to the Nicean Council of 325AD there were numerous heresies within the church.
We also have quotes from New Testament writings found in many letters sent between Christians from about 50AD. I understand that you can read the entire New Testament from the quotes collected up to 200AD! Not only were there quotes directly from the New Testament writings but there were many references to events in the New Testament – for example the solar “eclipse” which occurred when Jesus died on the cross.
According to Dr Dale Robbins (Why So Many Bible Translations?):

“The KJV New Testament (and all editions since Tyndale) was compiled primarily from the Byzantine family of manuscripts (AD 500 – 1000) frequently referred to as the Textus Receptus. But many of the newer translations were produced using a composite of later discoveries of other manuscripts and fragments dating from an earlier period. Among such are The ‘Alexandrian Family’ manuscripts (AD 200 – 400) which include the three oldest The Codex Alexandrius, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, all which were major contributors to most Bible versions after the King James version.”

Which manuscripts (usually abbreviated to MSS) are the ‘right’ ones? Probably none of them because none are original. However, the Textus Receptus MSS does have some problems from a translator’s point of view according to Bible linguist Charles V Taylor (who wrote “Bibles With Holes?”, “The Oldest Science Book In The World”, “Did God Really?”, “The Creator Is Coming”, “Churches Aglow Down The Ages”, et al). Dr Taylor points out that when dealing with Holy works (of any faith), copyists tend to add explanation rather than remove words. This is because the words are considered Holy and therefore must never be removed (cf Rev 22:19), though adding words of explanation was often considered acceptable. <hr align=center width="70%"><hr align=center width="70%">If you check most of the verses ‘missing’ from the NIV and other modern Bibles you will find, in nearly every case, they were an explanation of the previous verse – which makes those verses more likely to have been added by a copyist rather than deleted by a translator. This makes the ‘Alexandrian Family’ of manuscripts more likely to be closer to the original than the Textus Receptus (Byzantine Family) manuscripts, which is why they have been chosen by the later translators. So when someone tells me that the KJV has 790,704 words and the NIV has “only” 726,606 words then I feel even more confident in my choice of Bible translation.
But simply looking at the total number of words is meaningless because the language between the KJV and the NIV are so different – one is 17^th Century English and the other is 20^th Century English. Words, phrases and concepts which meant one thing to a 17^th Century reader often mean something totally different to a 20^th Century reader. What does “suffer little children to come unto me” mean to you? Do you want the children to only come to Jesus if they are in pain or suffering? Or maybe they come to Jesus so they will suffer? I don’t think so. The KJV says in Luke 18:16...

Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God.

While the NIV says:

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Which renders the verse ‘best’? At least the NIV makes sense to a modern reader!
But modern Bibles can be just as ‘wrong’ as older versions. In John 2:1 the NIV says:

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there...

and the KJV says:

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there...

But what does this mean? Did it take Jesus three days to walk to Cana? If so, from where? The translation is ‘wrong’ in a modern English sense because, in many cultures (specially Greek), days of the week are numbered so “the third day” simply means “Tuesday” (the first day of the week is Sunday). A sensible modern translation would be “On Tuesday a wedding took place...” <hr align=center width="70%"><hr align=center width="70%">So the act of translation itself can cause problems. When the original says “on the third day” should we accept that and translate it literally, or should we render it so that it makes the same sense to us as it did to the 1^st and 2^nd Century audience it was written for? This is the dilemma of all translators – specially if they are translating Holy books.
In French the adjective follows the noun rather than precedes it so that the phrase “the green door” becomes “the door green” in French. If you were translating either from or to French which would you use? Would you say that the phrase must be rendered exactly (ie word-for-word) or would you agree with most translators and say that it must be rendered into its equivalent phraseology for the target audience. And if you did translate word-for-word, would the resultant translation be ‘more accurate’? Alas, no. In fact, in many cases there are no direct translations so equivalent English phrases must be substituted so that the correct tense and concept is portrayed.
The translation from ancient Greek (specially when the New Testament ancient Greek had an Aramaic accent!) to modern English is therefore not just a matter of taking one word and translating that single word into English – you must try and render a phrase into a correct rendition of what the original writer meant when he or she wrote it as if they they were writing in modern English. Not so easy...
But there are even more potential problems when an English translation of ancient Greek text has to be also rendered into a rhyming style, as was the KJV. This adds another barrier to accurate translation because the translator must translate into prose. What liberties must be taken with the original for this to be accomplished? <hr align=center width="70%"><hr align=center width="70%">The problems with translations are compounded because, if the publisher of a modern translation wants his version to be accepted by people who have been reading an older version, he has to make it compatible with that version. What translation errors have there been since Tyndale’s Bible, faithfully reproduced so that existing readers are not alienated by an apparent change in doctrine. While the NIV had the KJV to work from, so the KJV had previous versions which it had to be compatible with. Going back to Dr Robbins:

“After Tyndale, several other famous Bibles were produced in the 16^th century. The Cloverdale Bible in 1535, Matthew’s Bible in 1537, The Great Bible in 1539, The Geneva Bible in 1560 (the first to use chapters, verses, and the italicization of added words), and the Bishops Bible in 1568.”

In fact, some 80% of the KJV was copied from the Geneva Bible. It is clear, then, that the KJV really was ‘just another English translation’, excellent when it was written (specially considering the limited number of manuscripts available at that time) but still ‘just a translation’ – just like the NIV and other modern Bibles... I wonder if the Christians who used the Geneva Bible of 1560 complained loudly about the “heretical new KJV Bible” when it was first introduced?
How about the foreign language versions of the Bible? Are they too somehow inferior because they aren’t the KJV? Should a Chinese-speaking Christian be forced to read the KJV because it is “the only true and infallible word of God”?
So which version is right? As Christians, let us not get into dispute over this because I really don’t believe it is important. What is important are the core teachings in the Word, and these do not change between any of the major versions of the Bible (not counting the New World Translation, a Jehovah Witness version which is deliberately flawed to follow the teachings of that cult). <hr align=center width="70%"><hr align=center width="70%">Finally, if you think that the NIV and other modern versions are somehow the work of Satan (or non-Christian humanists) then I urge you to read the Addendum to the excellent article Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D (Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary).
This says (paragraph breaks added and emphasis mine):

“One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books villifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory.
First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books.
Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them!
Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!).
Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000 – and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree.
Those who villify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.”

The KJV, like other translations, is a superb document. However, it is not the only version and it is not necessarily the ‘best’ version. If it suits you, great, but it might not suit other people. If the doctrine stated in the more modern translations, including the NIV, is virtually identical to the doctrine in the KJV then what is the problem?
As Christians we should not get involved in petty disputes which do not honor the Father and do, in fact, honor Satan. Let us remember who the Enemy is, and it isn’t fellow Christians who might, or might not, have identical doctrine to you. God honors our hearts, not our doctrines!
May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, dwell in you and in your house forever.

This discussion is really hotting up and I would love to read more on this subject.

In Christ

I would love to agree with all those who are supporting NIV but I am afraid I donot buy the excuse. If the KJV translation was inferior or the translators were not able to understand, even then, NIV has no right to delete any verse or put any verse in the footnotes.

In Christ

I totally agree with you Stephen

If the KJV translation was inferior or the translators were not able to understand, even then, NIV has no right to delete any verse or put any verse in the footnotes.

God bless