Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!

[John146]

i do not trust 'penny' or 'farthing' to be optimal, accurate or appropriate renditions in scripture.


is my faith therefore shipwrecked and/or misplaced?

Your faith in what? Salvation? Nope. The word of God can be trusted every word? Maybe.

 

[John146]

Luke 12:6

what was the thought process for putting 'farthings' in the Bible instead of assarion?

wasn't it something like 'we should use modern 16th-17th century English?'

Is it not the lowest possible currency? Is that the idea?

 

[posthuman]

Is it not the lowest possible currency? Is that the idea?

so is your position that the NIV ((penny)) is superior to the KJV ((farthing)) here?

mine's that neither one is correct. the word is assarion. it's not a coin people use anymore, but assarion is the word Jesus used. if i can trust His word, i don't need to mess with it, and the KJV is just as guilty of messing with this word as any other translation.

 

[Lightskin]

Colossians 1 The blood of Jesus is removed in which we get redemption.

KJV 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NIV 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

What’s the difference if someone understands they have redemption through Jesus’ blood or simply through Jesus? Besides it’s only one verse; if one reads the entire Bible they would fully understand the magnitude of Jesus’ sacrifice.

 

[Blade]

its things like "Modern translators, however, point out that this verse is not present in the earliest manuscripts we possess. "

Like some say "there is now no condemnation to them in Christ Jesus".. they stop there. Do you know why?

So haha you exposed nothing. Just email them call them ask them why..

And speculation is not proof.

 

[Runningman]

The modern New Testament editions are based off of the NA28, the Novum Testamentum Graece, also known as the Nestle-Aland edition.

Not all ancient manuscripts containing what we refer to as the modern Bible are the same. Some have "and fasting" while others don't. Some contain books that are now regarded as inauthentic. Bible scholars tend to take the earliest known manuscripts as closest to the original writing.

So many newer versions of the Bible like the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, and many more omit "and fasting" because it's regarded as a later edition to Bible. That's their best guess based off of the surviving copies of New Testament books that have been discovered.

I don't think it's a malicious act to hide something or a sinister plot to corrupt the Bible. It's just a text issue and their opinion on what archaeological proof suggests. The core doctrine of Christianity is still very well preserved.

 

[Subhumanoidal]

@WithinReason

Disagree all you want, doesn't change the facts. I've been on this site since 2011 and this topic comes up more than a few times a year, minimum. I'd say that's beating a dead horse pretty clearly.
In fact 90% of the BDF is just the same handful of topics of argument over and over. Like this one.

 

[posthuman]

@WithinReason

Disagree all you want, doesn't change the facts. I've been on this site since 2011 and this topic comes up more than a few times a year, minimum. I'd say that's beating a dead horse pretty clearly.
In fact 90% of the BDF is just the same handful of topics of argument over and over. Like this one.

nothing new under the sun

 

[posthuman]

Colossians 1 The blood of Jesus is removed in which we get redemption.

KJV 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

NIV 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

​

. . and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things,
whether things on earth or things in heaven, ​

by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross. ​

(Colossians 1:20 NIV)​

 

[massorite]

I said nothing about Strong's being corrupted. You have sidestepped my assertions regarding the concordances. Kindly address them.


Your opinion that "have me against you" is less severe or 'watered down' from "breach of promise" is just that: your opinion. It carries no evidentiary weight whatsoever. It certainly is no evidence of "corruption".

Which phrase better represents the Hebrew? That is the only question that matters.

Yes you are correct. In my opinion with the evidence I have gleaned from doing a comparison between the two bible versions is that the NIV is a corrupted version of the Word Of God and so is the Strongest Strong's that was created to fit the NIV.
Frankly I don't care whether or not my opinions or proofs hold weight in your eyes or not. I am speaking to you but there are many who read my posts and I now that what I say holds weight in some of their eyes. My targeting is never directed at just one person, my targeting is always at everybody who reads my posts and I know that there are even some who do agree with me but would never admit it.
Like it or not, my message does get through.

 

[massorite]

I said nothing about Strong's being corrupted. You have sidestepped my assertions regarding the concordances. Kindly address them.


Your opinion that "have me against you" is less severe or 'watered down' from "breach of promise" is just that: your opinion. It carries no evidentiary weight whatsoever. It certainly is no evidence of "corruption".

Which phrase better represents the Hebrew? That is the only question that matters.

Of course the phrase in the KJV best represents the Hebrew concept of God. To the Hebrew God is not at all fussy, murky or complicated. To the Jew God is black or white, there is no middle ground.

Biblica, formerly International Bible Society, was founded in 1809 and is the worldwide copyright holder of the New International Version of the Bible (NIV), licensing commercial rights to Zondervan in the United States and to Hodder & Stoughton in the United Kingdom. Biblica is also a member of the Forum of Bible Agencies International and Every Tribe Every Nation.
Biblica is a corrupted organization and or responsible for the production, publishing and marketing of the NIV in 1978 and more recently a Gender Neutral NIV version of the bible. If God wanted there to be a Gender Neutral version of His Word He would have seen fit to make that a gender neutral version of Hs Word would have been written by the authors of the 66 books we have in the original manuscripts. By creating a Gender Neutral Bible, Biblica rebelled against the natural order of thing which God has put in place for a reason and a purpose. This means that not only is the organization of Biblica corrupted by the corrupted way of thinking of the world but it also means that any bible version they have created or have been a part of crteating are equally corrupted and should all be burned to ashes.

 

[massorite]

Thank you for sharing; I appreciate you doing so. Now are there any verses with equivalent inaccuracies regarding believers in Christ?

I don't understand your question. Could you please rephrase?

 

[Subhumanoidal]

nothing new under the sun

Should read "Nothing new in BDF"

 

[WithinReason]

The translators examined the evidence and decided that the omitted words were not part of the Scriptures as originally written

"Yea, hath God said ..."

 

[WithinReason]

So my advice is to learn about manuscripts.

Let us consider more mss:

Acts 8:37

Act 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.​

The NIV and NWT follow the same pattern:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8:37&version=NIV;KJV

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/acts/8/#v44008037

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

P45, P74, Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), C, H, L, P, psi, 049, 056, 0142; MAJORITY, Vulgate-pt, pesh, harc, sa, bo, Eth​

Here is the extant literature which has the text in it:

"... E​

Cursives: pc (27 are cited in our other Digest)​

Old Latin: ar, c, e, l, (m*), ph, r, Vulgate-pt​

Syriac: Harclean**​

Coptic: MAe (Middle Aegyptian)​

Armenian​

​

The verse is cited by Irenaeus (178), Tertullian (220), and Cyprian (258). ... See KJVMT p 60 for further evidence. ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The A.V.; by Jack Moorman, pages 113​

Additionally:

​

"... E, 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, others. ...​

Von Soden indicates: I b1 (522, 1758), I b2 (2298).​

Lectionary: 59.​

Old Latin: ar, c?, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, r;​

Vulgate: Clementine am-2, tol, demid​

Syriac: Harclean-with asterisk;​

Coptic: Middle Egyptian​

Armenian, Georgian.​

​

Irenaeus, Lyons, Latin, 178.​

Tertullian, N. Africa, Latin, 220.​

Cyprian, Carthage, Latin, 258.​

Ambrosiaster, Latin, 384.​

Pacianus, Barcelona, Latin, 392.​

Ambrose, Milan, Latin, 397.​

Augustine, Hippo., Latin, 430.​

"Praedestinatus", Latin, 434.​

Bede, England, Latin, also cites Greek mss., 735.​

Theophylact, (cor.), Bulgaria, 1077. ..." - When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text of Hodge & Farstad, cited by the corrupt NKJV, by Jack Moorman, page 60-61.​

Additionally:

"... IRENAEUS, Against Heresies (I 1:433) "the believing eunuch himself ... said, "I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God."​

CYPRIAN, Treatises (I 5:545). "Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"​

PONTIUS, Life of Cyprian (I 5:268), "the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip because he believed with his whole heart." ...​

​

... I have found no indication in the ANPF of a pre-400 AD Father quoting the above general passage with the disputed words omitted. There were no references to verses 36 and 38 in the indices. ..." - Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 52​

Additionally:

"... Acts 8:37 is in the Byzantine Greek text used by the Orthodox Greek Churches all over the world today. Here is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese​

​

http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/?id=4&book=Acts&chapter=8​

​

ἰδοὺ ὕδωρ· τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι;εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος· εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε· πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν.​

It is also in the Modern Greek Bible and in the Modern Hebrew Bible.​

​

The whole verse is also found in Old Latin manuscripts from the textline that predates any Greek manuscripts, including the Old Latin texts of ar, c, dem, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, r, t, w. Even the notes in critical text editions tell us that this verse existed in the Old Latin copies, the Coptic Middle Egyptian version, the Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta and Armenian early Bible versions. It is also found in the Vulgate Clementine.​

​

Many church fathers who lived before anything we have in the way of Greek copies directly quote this verse, including Irenaeus 178 A.D., Tertullian 220, Cyprian died in 258, as well as Ambrosiaster 384, Ambrose 397, Augustine 430, and Venerable Bede of England in 735.​

​

For example, Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) supports the inclusion of verse 36-37 Textus Receptus when he says, "In the Acts of the Apostles Treatise 12:3: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Phillip, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian )​

​

Irenaeus (115-202 AD), Against Heresies 3.12: "Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God."​

​

Cyprian (200-258 AD), "For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because "he believed with his whole heart," this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah," (Cyprian)-Cyprian THE LIFE AND PASSION OF CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 200 - 258 paragraph 3​

​

Augustine (354-430 AD), Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament - Sermon 49: "The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water." ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/acts8372829.htm​

 

[WithinReason]

So my advice is to learn about manuscripts.

The mss evidence indeed:

Acts 15:34

Act 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

The NIV and NWT follow the same pattern:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15:34&version=NIV;KJV

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/acts/15/#v44015034

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

P74, Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), E, L, H, P Psi, 049, MAJORITY, some Old Latin, Syriac: Pes.hitta.​

"... Codex א and B (fourth century), Codex A (fifth century), Codex E (sixth century), Papyrus 74 (seventh century), Codex L (eighth century) Codex H, L, P, Ψ, and Uncial 049 (all ninth century), and the vast majority of all other Greek manuscripts on through the middle ages. The verse is not present in a number of Old Latin manuscripts and in older copies of the Vulgate. Likewise, the Syriac Peshitta ..." - https://carm.org/KJVO/was-acts-15-34-removed-from-modern-bibles​

Here is the extant literature which has the text in it:

"... This verse, as it is found in the KJV, is present in a number of medieval Greek minuscules, one thirteenth-century Latin copy, a late Syriac recension, multiple Coptic witnesses, and in some later translations such as the Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Ethiopic. ...​

​

... Codex C (fifth century) ... Codex D (sixth century) and a number of Old Latin manuscripts ... While Papyrus 127 (fifth century) is damaged in this section, scholars estimate based on the available space that it also contained this longer version of the verse. One late "Old Latin" copy, itw (15th century) and the Clementine Vulgate manuscripts preserve an even longer reading, as also seen in the 14th-century John Wycliffe Bible, "But it was seen to Silas, to dwell there; and Judas went alone to Jerusalem." The 1539 "Great Bible," the first "authorized" English version, likewise contained this longer form of the verse, though the extra material from the Latin was marked with brackets and smaller print. ..." - https://carm.org/KJVO/was-acts-15-34-removed-from-modern-bibles​

Additionally:

"... Ruckman (57) Acts p 442, states that Aleph and B omit the verse. It is found in the Syriac and Byzantine manuscripts, in D (Western family), in C (Alexandrian family) and in the Old Latin. Berry's Greek text supports this passage. ..." - http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html​

Additionally:

Short - https://greekcntr.org/manuscripts/index.htm?GA20004#44015034​

Long - https://greekcntr.org/manuscripts/index.htm?GA20005#44015034​

​

The passage is also in most Modern translations - https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts 15:34

 

[WithinReason]

So my advice is to learn about manuscripts.

Mmmmm mss.

Acts 24:6-8:

​

Act 24:6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.​

Act 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,​

Act 24:8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.​

The NIV and NWT follow the same pattern:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+24:6&version=NIV

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/acts/24/#v44024006

The words do not occur in the following corrupted texts:

Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus)​

Here is the extant literature which has the text in it:

"... These words ARE found in a multitude of Greek copies and in the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Scrivener, and the Modern Greek New Testament used throughout the Greek speaking churches of the world today.​

​

They are found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin copies ar, c, dem, e, gig, p, ph, ro, w. Even the notes in critical text editions tell us that this verse existed in the Old Latin copies, some Coptic versions, the Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic, the Syriac Peshitta and Armenian early Bible versions. It is also found in the Vulgate Clementine.​

​

Early church fathers who witness to it's being a part of inspired Scripture are Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chromatius,Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Ambrose, Augustine and Theophylact. ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/acts2468inspired.htm​

 

[WithinReason]

Disagree all you want

Ok, I disagree.

 

[WithinReason]

1 Samuel 13:1

1 Sam 13:1 KJB - Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

1 Sam 13:1 HOT - בן־שׁנה שׁאול במלכו ושׁתי שׁנים מלך על־ישׂראל׃​

​

The Geneva, Young's Literal, The Living Bible, etc, and even Jerome's Latin Vulgate gets this right.

Yet:

NIV:

1 Sam 13:1 NIV [©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011] - Saul was thirty[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.

Acts 13:21 NIV - Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years.

a. 1 Sam 13:1 A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint; Hebrew does not have thirty.
b. 1 Sam 13:1 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Acts 13:21); Masoretic Text does not have forty-.​

​

Contradiction. 42. 40. No Hebrew for 30.

In fact the so-called LXX, LXX+ [Strong's and Robinson's Morphological Analysis codes], and Brenton's LXX, I have on E-sword does NOT list 1 Sam 13:1, it is MISSING, DELETED as in the GNT.

ESV:

1 Sam 13:1 ESV - Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel,[a]​

NASB:

1 Sam 13:1 NASB - Saul was [a]thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty two years over Israel.

Acts 13:21 NASB - Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.​

Contradiction. 42. 40. No Hebrew for 30.

DRA:

1 Sam 13:1 DRA - Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

Acts 13:21 DRA - And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years.​

Saul was an infant as King?

NEB:

1 Sam 13:1 NEB - Saul was fifty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for twenty-two years.

Acts 13:21 NEB - Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for forty years ...​

​

Contradiction. 22. 40. No Hebrew for 50.

CEV:

1 Sam 13:1 CEV [Bible Gateway] - Saul was 30 years old[a] when he became king, and he ruled over Israel forty-two years.

1 Sam 13:1 CEV [E-Sword] Saul was a young man when he became king, and he ruled Israel for two years.

Acts 13:21 CEV - but the people demanded a king. So for forty years God gave them King Saul, the son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin.

a. 1 Sam 13:1 LXXL; Syr twenty-one; MT lacks a number; 13:1 is omitted in LXXB.

b. 1 Sam 13:1 Part of the number is missing in MT (… and two years) and all ancient witnesses. Acts 13:21 says Saul ruled forty years, as does Josephus (Ant. 6.14.9 [378]), though Josephus also says Saul ruled twenty years (Ant. 10.8.4 [143]).​

Contradiction. 42. 2. 40. No Hebrew for 30, or "young man".

NWT:

1 Sam 13:1 NWT - Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, a and for two years he reigned over Israel.

Acts 13:21 NWT - But afterward they demanded a king,+ and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin,+ for 40 years.​

Contradiction of 2. 40.

MSG:

1 Sam 13:1 MSG - Saul was a young man when he began as king. He was king over Israel for many years.​

They didn't even try to attempt an accurate translation and just fudged it.

MEV:

​

1 Sam 13:1 MEV - Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty-two years over Israel.[a]

a. 1 Sam 13:1 Lit. “The son of a year was Saul in his ruling and two years he ruled over Israel.” Most translations read in Saul’s age and length of reign from external evidence (Josephus) or from the New Testament (Paul, who mentions a forty-year reign for Saul in Ac 13:21).​

​

GNT:

1 Sam 13:1 GNT - MISSING, DELETED​

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge [E-Sword]:

​

"... reigned one year: Heb. the son of one year in his reigning, This verse is variously interpreted; but probably it only means, according to the Hebrew idiom, that, during the first year nothing remarkable occurred; but after two years (or in the second year of his reign), the subsequent events took place. Exo_12:5; Mic_6:6 *marg. ..."​

 

[WithinReason]

Ever hear about the 90% similar argument?

90% similar:

KJB:

Joh_7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.​

Joh 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.​

Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.​

NIV:

8 "You go to the festival. I am not [b.] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”​

9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.​

10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.​

Yep, 90% similar. Yet are they saying the same thing? Clearly not. In the KJB, Jesus is specific about "yet" (meaning later He would go when He was ready). In the NIV, Jesus is contradictory in what He was doing, "not going", "he went also".

Hmmm, seems there's more to the 90% similarity argument than first given:

90% similar:

God:

"thou shalt surely die"​

Serpent:

"Ye shall not surely die:"​

​

Yep, 90% similar. ... They must be the same thing according to the 90% similar argument.