King James Bible vs. Modern Translations (Honoring The Deity of Jesus Christ)

[ChosenbyHim]

Do remember you said that about GOD's Word, when you stand before HIM in judgment.

QUOTE:

KJV 1611 ORIGINAL PREFACE:

"
Therefore blessed be they, and most honoured be their name, that breake the ice, and glueth onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of soules. Now what can bee more availeable thereto, then to deliever Gods booke unto Gods people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountaine that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolomee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jewes, as witnesseth Epiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith; A man had rather be with his dog then with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him.)
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?


By Will Kinney

​

“Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

As for the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible, many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators (usually taken out of context) in an effort to prove that the translators themselves would approve of the multiple, conflicting and contradictory Bible Babble Buffet versions seen on the bible market today. It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority. They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought. They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God. It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.


They ask: “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.

The whole quote in context is this. “Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.”

It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."

Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368


Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).

“Men of our profession” refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the “theirs” refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding “the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined” that “all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR” (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)

The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva's, Bishops' and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."

Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.”

In another part they stated: "“So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.

The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.

The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new “Catholic” bible versions. See "Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new 'Catholic' versions" here- Please read both parts

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm


All of grace, believing The Book,
Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

 

[Agricola]

many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators (usually taken out of context)

Its this deluded foolishness and thinking which I wish would cease from this cult. There are no Anti-King James Bible people, that is the delusion these cult members live under, they assume that the people who hate King James Onlyism hate King James Bible, which is not true. I love King James Bible, but just hate the cult that has built up around it.

I had to laugh at the hypocracy of taking things out of context, the whole cult of King James only is built on the foundations of out of context Bible Verses.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Well here is the thing you have to understand Arwen and that's this. That JW (Russellite) is lost. The russellite receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14).

The person who started the thread is no longer taking part in the discussion. However, there are still several non-Trinitarians in the thread.

It is my hope that all those who reject Jesus Christ's deity will come to believe in Him as God. It is my hope that the Holy Spirit will speak to their hearts and show them His truth. He has shown the truth to Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians before. No one is beyond God's reach. However, as long as people persist in denying Jesus Christ's deity, they will always come up with other explanations. Only God can change their hearts.

And while there may be those who read the Holy Bible and still deny Christ's deity, well then that is their peril. The Deity of Jesus Christ can be clearly seen in the Holy Bible, the Authorized Version. Understand though that there are still going to be those who willingly reject the truth and will continue in their willful ignorance and rebellion.

I agree. And that is also my point with the other Bible translations. Jesus' deity is still there, loud and clear.

Colossians 1:15-20

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.


Colossians 1:15-20 in the Authorized Version teaches that all things were created by Jesus Christ and that by Him all things consist. Therefore He is the Creator of all things.

I agree that it does teach that. However, people read what they want to into the text. They do this with all Bible translations of many passages. The context teaches that Jesus created all things. However, someone who is biased against Jesus' deity is going to look for ways to explain it away, or perhaps they honestly do not see His deity there.

Well again Arwen; you have those who will simply choose to remain willfully blind and ignorant to the clear truths of the word of God.

Yes. And this is true, regardless of what translation they read.

Do you know what the problem may be with that person who has come to their non-Trinitarian view?

The real and main problem may be that they do not believe the King James Bible. They may use it and they may read it, but that does not believe that they believe it to be the word of God. Did you ask this person if they believed that the King James Holy Bible is the word of God?

If you have not, ask them that, and see what is that person's response.

I did not ask them, but I think you could say this about any translation. You could just ask them if they believe that the Bible, in general, is God's Word. Some would probably say yes, while others would say no.

Well here is the thing Arwen, that may be so. But that reality still does not change the truth that the modern versions do omit verses, and phrases from the word of God. It also does not change the fact that there are blatant attacks made on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the modern versions.

Arwen, the real question is: What are they understanding?

If the Doctrine is changed, and it surely is changed in the modern versions, then what is it that they are actually understanding?

Doctrine has not changed regarding what the Bibles teach.

However, humans read the Bible, any version, and can "make" it support whatever doctrine they want. They can do this by reading things into the text (eisogesis) to make it support the beliefs they already hold. If they deny Jesus' deity, they will explain away all references to His deity.

If they have a New Age type spirituality, they will read the Bible as supporting their views, reading their own spirituality into the Bible.

This doesn't mean that all views people get while reading the Bible are correct. The doctrine in the Bible is there, and it proclaims the same thing, regardless of translation. However, the truth revealed in all Bible translations can become corrupt when humans practice eisogesis instead of exegesis. We're probably all guilty of doing this, to some extent. We are imperfect humans.

We can, and should, ask for the Holy Spirit to help us understand the Bible. But even when we do this, sometimes we still read our own meanings into the text. No one is free of bias when approaching Scripture. That doesn't mean, of course, that it isn't God's Word, or that God can't speak His right doctrine to us. It just means that we have to be really carefully when we read and interpret Scripture. We have to humble ourselves before God and ask for His guidance, regardless of what we think is correct.

For me, God has revealed the truth of Jesus' deity in Scripture over and over again. I cannot deny it. That doesn't stop others from denying it. This also can be applied to other doctrine. Scripture does have a definite, objective teaching and meaning, but people can put blinders on so that they don't see it.....or perhaps they are blinded to the truth and just cannot see it.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Its this deluded foolishness and thinking which I wish would cease from this cult. There are no Anti-King James Bible people, that is the delusion these cult members live under, they assume that the people who hate King James Onlyism hate King James Bible, which is not true. I love King James Bible, but just hate the cult that has built up around it.

I had to laugh at the hypocracy of taking things out of context, the whole cult of King James only is built on the foundations of out of context Bible Verses.

Agricola, the Alexandrian cult is built on sinking sand. There are no Scriptures at all that support the Alexandrian mindset and philosophy. Absolutely none.

 

[Reformedjason]

What exactly is the alexandrian mind set?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

What exactly is the alexandrian mind set?

The Alexandrian Mindset is that "there is no Absolute Final Authority on the Earth today."

And that "no Bible is perfect; all of them have errors in them."

And that "only the original autohraphs were inspired, infallible, and perfect."

 

[Reformedjason]

The Alexandrian Mindset is that "there is no Absolute Final Authority on the Earth today."

And that "no Bible is perfect; all of them have errors in them."

And that "only the original autohraphs were inspired, infallible, and perfect."

Oh so the truth, or anything other than Kjv onlyism.

 

[Reformedjason]

I read wrong. There is an absolute perfect authority and it is found in the original languages and must be found using textual criticism. The perfect doctrines can be found in all conservative bible translations. Any way I give up talking about this with you. Let's just stick to things we agree on like dispensationalism and the essentials if the Christian faith.

 

[VCO]

I read wrong. There is an absolute perfect authority and it is found in the original languages and must be found using textual criticism. The perfect doctrines can be found in all conservative bible translations. Any way I give up talking about this with you. Let's just stick to things we agree on like dispensationalism and the essentials if the Christian faith.

Most of us can agree on the essentials of the Christian faith, however, dispensationalism can stir up some strangely heated debates.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Oh so the truth, or anything other than Kjv onlyism.

The Alexandrian philosophy is a wicked and hellish system set up by the Devil to overthrow the Final Authority of God's perfect word.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I read wrong. There is an absolute perfect authority and it is found in the original languages and must be found using textual criticism. The perfect doctrines can be found in all conservative bible translations. Any way I give up talking about this with you. Let's just stick to things we agree on like dispensationalism and the essentials if the Christian faith.

The Absolute Final Authority is God's holy word, the King James Bible.

Textual Criticism is not needed. Also, doctrine is affected and changed in the modern Vatican versions:


No Doctrines Are Changed?


NoDoctrineChanged - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[VCO]

"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?


O By Will Kinney

​

O “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

O As for the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible, many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators
O (usually taken out of context) in an effort to prove that the translators themselves would approve of the multiple,
O conflicting and contradictory Bible Babble Buffet versions seen on the bible market today.
O It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority.
O They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought. They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God.
O It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.


O They ask: “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

O This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.

The whole quote in context is this. “Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet)
O containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.” {Now is that dropping the comma after the "nay", a deceitful word game trick to imply they were saying no that it is not the word of GOD? With the comma there it clearly refers the "nay" back to only saying they contain the word of GOD.} { "containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." }

O It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."

O Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368


Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).

O “Men of our profession” refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the “theirs” refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding “the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined” that “all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR” (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)

O The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva's, Bishops' and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."

O Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.”

O In another part they stated: "“So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.

O The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.

O The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new “Catholic” bible versions.

O See "Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new 'Catholic' versions" here- Please read both parts

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm


All of grace, believing The Book,
Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

t t t
For those who read this quote from above, who do not KNOW who and what Will Kinney is {neither did I}; He is a KJV ONLYism guru, and He at the end of his article, proved he is a denominational Bigot who hates Catholics, and uses His KJV Onlyism to promote and vainly attempt to justify his HATRED for our Christian brothers the Catholics. He apparently saw others who had presented the facts about the KJV 1611 Original Preface, as threat against his using the KJV to Justify his evil Hatred for Catholics. And therefore, he wrote the above article, twisting facts and to using manipulative word games, to attempt to focus the readers attention away from the facts. I was surprised that he showed his true colors of HATE, at end; so I guess the old adage still rings true: GIVE THEM ENOUGH ROPE, AND THEY WILL HANG THEMSELVES. The hypocrisy of it is, after venting his Hatred for Catholics, he signs it "All of grace . . .".

If anyone wants to wade through that difficult to read OLD ENGLISH, in the Original 1611 KJV Preface, as I did; here is a hyperlink to where it is online: King James Version Original Preface

t t t

ChosenbyHim,

LOOK HOW MANY manipulative word game HOOPS, you have to jump through to come to YOUR conclusions, ignoring, disavowing, and planting the seeds of DOUBT, so that you can TURN A BLIND EYE to what the original Translators themselves said about the KING JAMES Bible, which they PARAPHRASED from many other Translations. All that in a vain attempt to hide the facts, that those of your following, have OVER-STATED, EXAGGERATED, OVER INFLATED, and BRAGGED the KJV into being MUCH MORE, than what it is. For a Paraphrased Bible, it is a VERY GOOD ONE; HOWEVER, it is NOT a genuine TRANSLATION from original language manuscripts, and they did not even have all the original Language manuscripts, nor the oldest manuscript, that the Modern Version Translators had available to them. THEREFORE, the KJV at BEST, is a very good Version of the BIBLE, among many VERY GOOD VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE, and nothing more.

AND the shocker of all shockers, is Will Kinney who wrote the above article, that you presented PROVED in his article, that HE IS A DENOMINATIONAL BIGOT WHO HATES CATHOLICS, and even used LIES about the NIV, NASB, ESV to vent his HATRED for Catholics.


1 John 2:11 (HCSB)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and doesn’t know where he’s going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

John 8:44 (HCSB)
[SUP]44 [/SUP] You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars.

 

[LClark]

WHY do people waste so much space [and thus obscure other posters] by re-posting a huge quote? It is poor etiquette.
Simple quote the points that you are going to interact with.

 

[LClark]

Does this tell you anything about the KJ Only people?

 

[Reformedjason]

I rarely read the kjv and I have a grasp on every essential christian doctrine. I got it from modern versions. Hard to argue against that. The Holy spirit does not lead me to only read the kjv .Hard to argue against that.

 

[Allin]

Justin, that took a lot of study.

I think that there are translations that miss and mess things up. I also believe that the primary reason for different translations is that the words that unlike human words, the words that God speaks are alive and active; they change around for different situations, etc. Because of this, no one Bible translation can get down perfectly what is being said, because the words are alive. For instance, Ps. 51:6 says in the NKJV, "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts" while The Message Bible says, "What You're after is truth from the inside out." But what that short sentence is actually saying can be paraphrased and translated so many different ways because of the fact that they are God's words and so are alive. I think Bible translations can sometimes be likened to the English language: as a baby, you learn English but in its very basic form. The more you grow, the more different types or arms of English you pick up on. The NIV is very basic, and the KJV is not. I believe we need several translations and not just one or two.

 

[VCO]

Does this tell you anything about the KJ Only people?

View attachment 68416

Oh, boy does is. They use language real Christians would not, and the idolize the false prophet Jack Chick. Jesus told us, you will know them by their fruit. That kind of language, is definitely rotten fruit, and the fruit of Jack Chick is vicious arguments and hatred between Christians. I had to hide the Chick tracts in the store room when I was a Volunteer Protestant Chaplain in Maximum Security prisons. Because those Tracts always produce hostile arguments, and in Maximum Security Chapels that could lead to a stabbing in the Chapel very quickly.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Justin, that took a lot of study.

I think that there are translations that miss and mess things up. I also believe that the primary reason for different translations is that the words that unlike human words, the words that God speaks are alive and active; they change around for different situations, etc. Because of this, no one Bible translation can get down perfectly what is being said, because the words are alive. For instance, Ps. 51:6 says in the NKJV, "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts" while The Message Bible says, "What You're after is truth from the inside out." But what that short sentence is actually saying can be paraphrased and translated so many different ways because of the fact that they are God's words and so are alive. I think Bible translations can sometimes be likened to the English language: as a baby, you learn English but in its very basic form. The more you grow, the more different types or arms of English you pick up on. The NIV is very basic, and the KJV is not. I believe we need several translations and not just one or two.

What you must understand Allin is that the NIV is a counterfeit. It along with the other modern versions are translated from two of the most corrupt Greek texts out there: Siniaticus and Vaticanus.


That's why these modern versions are simply Catholic perversions.

Now having said that, you need to also understand that there is a perfect translation available to all Christians. And that translation is the Authorized King James Bible.

 

[weakness]

It seems to me that there is more written about Gods voice ,Or the Spirit bearing witness in our hearts, for we are children of God. Some commands to read epistles written to other churches ,exhortations to the word of God, Which most basically Is Jesus himself. The word made flesh, dwelling among us.There are some prophesies about the word being written in our hearts ,and the law being in our hearts instead of written on tables of stone (or paper)I read the KJ mostly , only because it is familiar .I've read other and there is a difference ,maybe for me just the style. But some are really off the wall.Again today if you hear his voice, harden not your heart. I could not be a christian without hearing Gods voice, and getting my love from God second hand. I don't talk to my father by sending him letters ,I speak to him,and he speaks to me ,if I am open and my eye is single. One thing I read earlier ,calling the terminology of it vs. him or he is a heresy. I think heresy should be saved for important doctrinal foundations . God bless

 

[VCO]

What you must understand Allin is that the NIV is a counterfeit. It along with the other modern versions are translated from two of the most corrupt Greek texts out there: Siniaticus and Vaticanus.


That's why these modern versions are simply Catholic perversions.

Now having said that, you need to also understand that there is a perfect translation available to all Christians. And that translation is the Authorized King James Bible.

And the Authorized was NEVER Authorized by a Decree from King James; and Neither was it Translated from the Original Languages. And what you just quoted about the Greek texts, is a total LIE, generated by a KJV ONLY Zelot. Here is an excerpt from the NIV Preface stating what texts they used for the Translation, and the two you mentioned are not listed, validating you believed and reiterated a LIE about the NIV:

NIV PREFACE

The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars. The translation took ten years and involved a team up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more.

The intent of the translators was to produce an accurate and readable translation that would fall between formal equivalence (colloquially known as "literal" or "word-for-word") and dynamic equivalence (colloquially known as "meaning" or "thought-for-thought").

The text used for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. The text used in translating the New Testament was the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding traditionally difficult passages to translate. Familiar spellings of traditional translations were generally retained.

Preface for NIV

[SUP]
And you should know by now that Jack Chick or whoever you got that false information from, has been caught in lies, and you know who is the father of all liars.
[/SUP]