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

again, this criticism is equally applicable to the KJV translating body themselves.

and moreover, to hold any foreign language translation as an higher authority than what manuscript evidence we do have, is doing the same thing. English is a foreign language -- all of this was given in Hebrew & Greek. there is necessarily error involved in any translation, so the most accurate we can be while depending on language itself to transmit the ideas recorded in this book is to be able to read the languages they were originally given in.

language itself is a translation -- when i say 'blue' i'm trying to communicate a color; the color blue itself is not a 'word' it is a color. when you read the word 'blue' there is very little chance that the concept being transmitted to your mind by the vocabulary word i write is the same hue, shade & tone that i have in mind. language itself is inherently faulty -- see: tower of Babel.
the answer to this is to show you an image of a color swatch; that transmits the idea i am trying to communicate by saying 'blue' far better than any word. and the scripture is like this: even if you had the original script of the Torah, and you were 100% fluent in Hebrew, even the Hebrew of Moses' day, you could not comprehend what is being said, even though you have 100% accurate mechanical understanding of each word, unless the Spirit of God Himself opens your mind to understand and your heart to receive the word. that is abundantly clear from the NT -- the scribes and pharisees had every available scripture at hand, as close to the original as humanly possible, and had zero lack of comprehension of the language it was transmitted in. but they did not understand what they read.

the answer is not trusting that the 1611 human translating body are the authority on what God has said.
God is the authority on what He has said, and He is Spirit.
if i have the Spirit of God teaching me, the NIV is not going to lead me astray just because it's translators made different decisions about what is the most accurate rendition according to the larger breadth of resources they had available to them. it is the Spirit that teaches, and His words are Spirit.

I guess it comes down to faith. Do you believe God has perfectly preserved His words for us today? If so, where are His perfectly preserved words? If not, why did God give His words, commanded man to live by His words, and not perfectly preserve them for us today?

The greatest revival? That's an opinion.
So what was Mr. Spurgeon's view of the KJV?
Spurgeon loved the King James Version of the Bible — it was the version he used the most. But Charles Spurgeon was not King James onlyist.

On occasion, Spurgeon mentioned textual variants from the pulpit. Sometimes he even rejected the reading of the KJV in favor of the reading in the critical Greek text, represented in the Revised Version.

Here are three times that Spurgeon rejected the reading of the Scripture found in the King James Version.

1. Romans 8:1
KJV: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

ESV: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

In 1886, Spurgeon said that the phrase at the end of Romans 8:1 was not part of sacred scripture. He acknowledged, “The Holy Ghost meant to say this very thing a little further on, in its proper place [in v. 4].” Justification must come first, and only after that may good works follow. Spurgeon added, “The more nearly the text of Scripture is restored to its original purity, the more clearly will the doctrines of grace be set forth in it. The more we get back to true Scripture, the more we shall escape all interference with the complete and perfect salvation which comes of our being in Christ.”

2. 1 John 3:1
KJV: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not."

ESV: "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him."

Spurgeon’s most famous break from the KJV happened in July 1885, when he preached a sermon titled “'And We Are' – A Jewel from the Revised Version.” The great preacher trusted the judgments of textual critics and based his sermon on a phrase not found in the KJV. He began by saying,

"A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is far too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, 'Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost?' The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. ... They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration."

3. Luke 4:18
KJV: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."

ESV: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed."
Spurgeon himself admitted to being startled when he opened up to Luke 4:18 and saw these words were missing.

In the case of Luke 4:18, scribes added the extra phrase to some manuscripts because the verse is a quotation from Isaiah 61:1. Well-intentioned scribes intended to make the quotation complete, even though Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose not to keep the phrase when he wrote his Gospel.

Spurgeon, "I intended to have preached from these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled.”
“It is a pity that the unknown brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning.”
Some more words from Mr. Spurgeon, "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to pro- duce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. ... We have nothing but the Bible; and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found, we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand."

Looks like Mr. Spurgeon was pretty keen on the revised version.

Maybe because the rv supported his Calvinist view better.😜

Btw, there is condemnation for those in Christ Jesus who walk after the flesh. It’s not eternal condemnation in hell, but temporal condemnation in the flesh.

I full well know the consequences of failing to do his word. However God be praised for his mercy, that even those who find themselves far away side tracked can be brought back in repentance.

How would a person in different times in history know which Bible was the uncorrupted one?

The verse you shared pertains to Jews. Are there any verses pertaining to believers with overwhelming different meanings from one translation to another?

Let me get this straight:

You are arguing that it is closer to the truth to say that God breaks His promises??
And you think it's fairly inconsequential for God to be against someone?

Genetic fallacy: invalid.

You claimed that in Numbers, the NIV's "have me against you" is less severe or 'watered down' than the KJV's "breach of promise". My question is this: Which phrase better represents the Hebrew?

That reasoning stands equally against the KJV, which cast doubt on the accuracy of the Vulgate and every preceding English version.

Because this is your argument, you'd do well to stop attempting to defend your "faith position" with arguments of reason. Your position is not reasonable, in the sense that it can be arrived at by reasoning. You have an a priori belief that the KJV is the accurate word of God in English.

You prefer the KJV, on faith; fine for you. Others don't. Why can't you simply accept that others don't share your faith in the KJV? Why can't you simply leave the issue alone and be content with your belief?

I certainly know others don't share my belief. And yes, sometimes reasoning with facts does not work. Ultimately, it is faith. I have faith that God has perfectly preserved His words for us today in the KJV. Most, if not all others believe that God has not perfectly preserved His words anywhere and there is no single Bible that can be trusted in its entirety.

The issue is of utmost importance to me. I will continue to defend my position.

To breach a promise is to lie. The KJV calls God a liar? How how revealing of the heart of the translators.

@John146

Say, John, did you want to respond to the above question? If you don't want to, that's ok.


I'll try fleshing it out a bit more. Suppose we use this as an example.


I came across a language called Mizo a few months ago. I stumbled across a song called "Ka Thupui Ber" on YouTube, and really liked it even though I mostly didn't know what they were saying.


Mizo is spoken by about a million people mostly in the very far east section of India. there's a good number of Christians for whom it's their primary language.


As far as I can tell, there's basically two translations of the Bible available.

https://www.bible.com/bible/1048/GEN.1.MIZO


So, for a Mizo speaking Christian who only has a sketchy knowledge of English, has God given them a test whereby they can know which version is his word?

God never said that He would preserve His word in every language, only that His words would be preserved. The gospel was commanded to be preached in all the world.

God did not give His “originals” in every language, but He did allow the apostles to preach the gospel in different languages. Translating the KJV into different languages is good, but I would not call those translations the word of God.

How would a Mizo speaking person know whether or not one of their translations was the word of God?

Did God preserve His words in that language? All I know is that He did preserve His word in the English language in the KJV.

I have presented mss evidence, and you have presented? Which of us is truly spamming? It is amazing that you call mss evidence "spamming", while your own posts, which have very little such documentary mss evidence, is left unnoticed in your identification of "spamming".