Bible Corruptions

[BlessedCreator]

Every single word in the Bible is vitally important. Any attempt to add, delete or change a word
or text in the word of God, especially in the book of Revelation (Rev 22:19), will attract the wrath of God.

The Bible is the guide to the sanctification and salvation of our souls.
It is how we understand what God's will is. In it are the commandments and words that direct
us in the way in which we are to live to be found worthy of the kingdom of God.

Therefore we need to make sure we are reading from the uncorrupted word of God.
Which to me and many other English readers is found in the King James Bible.

The King James Bible was translated out of the original tongues with former
translations diligently compared and revised by the command of King James. 47 of the best scribes
in the Church of England worked from 1604 to 1611 to complete the work. Creating the original 1611 editon
of the King James Bible.
The following editions up to 1880 were mainly for standardizing the spelling and fixing printing mistakes.
From archaic English to modern English. Here's a few examples.

blinde ---> blind
sinne ---> sin
almightie ---> almighty
raigned ---> reigned
receiue ---> receive
certainetie --> certainty

The meaning of the words have never changed as they have in corrupted Bibles.

Many of us read from the 1762 or 1769 or later editions of the King James Bible.
The same words as the original 1611 edition, only the spelling of the words has been updated.
You can have full confidence in your Kings James Bible.

Beware alterations that attempt to exploit the King James name,
such as the New King James Version.

Most modern Bibles are translated from Westcott & Hort's Greek New Testament.
These two men were known heretics with much evidence proving they were deeply involved in the occult.
Even founding two secret societies. The Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild.
There is plenty of webpages exposing Westcott & Hort so I won't go into much detail here.

What I would like to examine here is what these corrupted Bibles do that is so bad.

If you compare the King James Bible with modern Bibles such as the NIV, NASV, NKJV, ESV, ASV,
RSV, JB, LB, TEV, NEB, NRSV, NAB, CEV, NBV and many others, you will notice there are thousands of
words and verses changed or omitted (removed). You will notice critical points completely altered.
You will begin to notice there are evil agendas in these corrupted Bibles.

Here are some of the blasphemous attacks these wicked Bibles make on the word of God.

CONTINUED IN SECOND POST

 

[BlessedCreator]

Attack on the deity of Jesus Christ by changing the word God to He, changing the word
Christ to One, changing Christ's own words when He says "my Father" to "the Father" and more.
References for you to compare between Bibles:
[Timothy 3:16 / Daniel 3:25 / Acts 3:13,26 / Philippians 2:6 / Acts 8:37 / John 6:69]
[John 9:35 / Matthew 20:20 / John 4:42 / Acts 15:11 / Acts 16:31 / Romans 1:3/ 1 Corinthians 5:4]
[Ephesians 3:14 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19 / 1 Thessalonians 3:11 / 2 Thessalonians 1:8]
[John 14:28 / Philippians 4:13 / Acts 7:59]

They completely remove verses about Christ coming in the flesh or about His flesh.
This is an attack on the incarnation of Christ.
[John 4:3 / Acts 2:30 / Ephesians 5:30]

They alter scripture concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Changing verses to indicate
that He was born of an earthly father and altering verses to cast doubt upon the virginity
of Mary at Jesus' birth.
[Matthew 1:25 / Luke 2:33 / Luke 2:43]

They attack the atonement of Christ of which we are pardoned from our very sins through His blood.
[Colossians 1:14,24 / 1 Corinthians 11:24 / 1 Corinthians 5:7 / 1 Peter 4:1]
[Ephesians 1:14 / Hebrews 1:3]

They question almost every appearance of Jesus after His resurrection, causing doubts
concerning His bodily resurrection and deity.
[Mark 16:9-20 / Luke 9:31 / Acts 1:3 / Ephesians 5:30]
[Luke 13:12 / Luke 24:12,40]

They remove almost every mention of Christ's ascension into Heaven where He now is.
[John 16:16 / Luke 24:51 / Mark 16:19 / John 3:13]

They attack the Godhead. The manifestation of God to us through
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
[1 John 5:7 / Isaiah 48:16 / Romans 1:20 / Acts 17:29 / Colossians 2:9]

They attack the justification of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
(let us not forget that we are only given faith when we strictly obey God)
[Acts 8:37 / Romans 11:6 / Romans 11:30-32 / Hebrews 3:18]
[Galatians 5:22 / John 6:47 / Hebrews 1:3 / Mark 10:24 / Matthew 6:22]

Alterations and omissions diminish the authority of Scripture and discourage
confidence in its divine inspiration and preservation.
[Luke 4:4 / Psalm 12:6,7 / 2 John 9 / 2 Corinthians 2:17]

Attack on the masculine deity of God. New versions frequently change masculine
words referring to God to the neuter "One". False religions of this world
often identify their god as "the One". The new "Politically Correct" bible calls
God, "Father-Mother", and Christ, "the human one".
[John 7:8 / Colossians 3:10 / John 6:69 / Revelation 1:18]
[John 12:45 / John 15:21 / Matthew 13:37]

CONTINUED IN 3RD AND FINAL POST

 

[BlessedCreator]

In the only passage of Scripture which describes Lucifer's iniquity and
fall into hell, most new versions omit the name Lucifer
and confuse his identity with Jesus Christ.
[Isaiah 14:12 / Luke 4:8]

New versions exalt man to being "a little lower than God" and omit many references
to his fallen spiritual condition. Cults, the New Age and false religions also
raise mankind to the level of being divine or in the process of evolving into gods.
[Psalm 8:5 / Matthew 18:11 / Colossians 3:6 / Mark 15:28]

[New versions frequently delete words such as "righteousness", "holy", "perfect"
and other requirements of the sanctified life. As a result, the gospel is brought
into reproach by worldliness and corruption in the church.
[1 Thessalonians 5:27 / 2 Peter 1:21 / 1 Peter 1:22 / 1 Corinthians 2:6 / 2 Timothy 3:17]
[Proverbs 21:21 / 1 Peter 2:12 / Titus 1:8 / Jude 1:1 / Mark 10:21 / Matthew 20:16]
[Romans 8:1 / Matthew 5:44 / 2 Timothy 2:15 / 1 Timothy 4:15 / Revelation 22:14]

Attack on prayer. New versions remove 21 words from The Lord's Prayer in
Luke chapter 11 and words of instruction on prayer in other passages.
[Luke 11:2-4 / Matthew 6:13 / Mark 13:33]
[Luke 21:36 / Acts 1:14 / James 5:16 / Mark 9:29]

Important references to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to establish His
reign upon earth are often omitted in the new versions. The New Age Movement,
cults and apostate religions believe that "the Christ" is already on the
earth and will soon be revealed. Sadly they will get the Antichrist
who cometh first to deceive the world.
[Matthew 6:13 / Matthew 25:13 / Revelation 11:15,17 / Titus 2:13 / John 18:36]

New versions change "sin" to "guilt", thus relieving man of his accountability
and placing the blame on God. Rewording of 1 John 5:19 blames the devil
for sin, as did Eve. Modern psychology in the church reflects this
propensity to transfer responsibility for sin rather than to repent. New versions
alter many verses pertaining to sin in order to present it in less relevant,
personal and severe terms.
[Luke 7:30 / 1 Corinthians 5:1-6,13 / Ephesians 5:5 / Galatians 5:19]
[Deuteronomy 23:17 / 1 Timothy 1:10 / Galatians 5:21 / Romans 13:9]
[1 Thessalonians 2:3 / Mark 10:24 / 1 Timothy 6:10 / Mark 11:26 / Matthew 5:22]
[John 7:53 / John 8:11 / Isaiah 53:10 / 1 John 5:19 / Revelation 2:15]
[2 Timothy 3:2,3 / Titus 2:5 / Revelation 22:11 / 2 Corinthians 4:2 / Matthew 23:14]

References to a final Day of Judgment are often missing in new versions.
New Age prophets teach that, since God is love, He does not judge anyone &
belief in a literal hell and fear of God's judgment are both foolishness and
and offence to modern man.
[Daniel 7:10 / Matthew 5:21 / Mark 6:11 / Luke 17:36 / 2 Corinthians 5:11]
[Revelation 6:17 / Revelation 12:12 / Revelation 15:3,4]
[Revelation 21:24 / Revelation 22:19]

And I have no doubt there are many other blasphemous and corrupt things
do they to the word of God.

I believe there is none of that in the King James Bible and that it is the purest translation of original manuscripts for all English readers.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Welcome to Christian chat. I would like to say unity was a normal state but I guess the weeds are fun to crawl through. If I had to use any old English Version it would be the original 1560 Geneva Bible. The Bible of the reformationist. The same Bible the Pilgrims brought on their ship the Mayflower.

The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James Version by 51 years. It was the primary Bible of 16th-century English Protestantism and was used by William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan, author of The Pilgrim's Progress (1678). It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower (Pilgrim Hall Museum has collected several Bibles of Mayflower passengers).

During this time period, several key English Protestant leaders fled to Geneva, Switzerland, to avoid the persecution in England. Among them were Miles Coverdale, John Foxe, Thomas Sampson, and William Whittingham. With the support of John Calvin and the Scottish Reformer John Knox, these English Reformers decided to publish an English Bible that was not dependent upon the approval of English royalty. Building upon earlier English translations such as those done by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, the Geneva Bible was the first English translation in which all of the Old Testament was translated directly from Hebrew manuscripts. Much of the translation work was done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin.

It is quite similar to the KJV but the words are more direct. And King James VI and I didn't like the reformationist's commentary or notes so they excluded that from the KJV.

Either way I have studied and compared many translations current and old. Which is a good study practice regardless. You will obviously by your post disagree with me. But I still haven't felt the need to use a old English Version. Because technically the old English Versions are just translations of older manuscripts. And with our ability to have interlinear or Hebrew/ Greek to English versions we can further study the details of words.

In my opinion this isn't a soul salvation issue. And I read KJV posts all the time. The only thing I disagree with is always the theological interpretation and not the scripture.

I find it easier to evangelize to younger generations by using modern translations. When I write a message or study series. I use multiple translations within finding more accurate wording or easier wording for new believers.

For convenience I use the NIV as that is what I post the most often. But in study I may examine every word and multiple translations.

I respect your opinion and once you get this off your chest and carry out the search for heretics itch. I'm sure I will enjoy your topics on theology.

 

[BlessedCreator]

Hey thanks for the reply @Roughsoul1991

The Geneva Bible is great and as you can see in the picture of the above post it is one of the Bibles in the lineage of the KJB.

I don't see how anyone can read from or promote the use of Bibles such as the NIV once you do research on the corruptions that are
in these corrupted modern Bibles as is shown in the above posts.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

But also the newer translations contain all the new discoveries that build on accuracy.

 

[BlessedCreator]

They make fix a few translation errors but there are not many in the KJB.

Also as is proven, they completely alter verses in these modern Bibles. They literally make up scripture at times. And not only that but remove key words and verses as shown above.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Hey thanks for the reply @Roughsoul1991

The Geneva Bible is great and as you can see in the picture of the above post it is one of the Bibles in the lineage of the KJB.

I don't see how anyone can read from or promote the use of Bibles such as the NIV once you do research on the corruptions that are
in these corrupted modern Bibles as is shown in the above posts.

It has been debated on here many times. I have seen both arguments. Both have problems and strengths. In the end no one should study just one translation. There are plenty of people on here who will debate you until Christ returns. And usually in the end people's feelings get hurt.

To me it just isn't productive. But in your conscience it may be a soul salvation issue. Those topics are what I spend the most time on.

 

[BlessedCreator]

When modern Bibles are removing or altering verses making sinful things no longer sinful, I'd it is questionably a salvation issue.

 

[Runningman]

The King James Bible is good, but too hard for most people to understand because the language is archaic and so is the sentence structure. It doesn't resonate well, especially new Christians who are just trying to understand what the word of God says, but instead find they are too busy Googling definitions for hundreds of words they aren't comfortable with and then learning how they apply to contexts. There are better versions like the NKJV or ESV that I would recommend. I think it is important to understand concepts thoroughly and for this reason discipleship is important. The Bible is so complex that it has spawned thousands of interpretations and hundreds of denominations, many of which don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[BlessedCreator]

The King James Bible is good, but too hard for most people to understand because the language is archaic and so is the sentence structure. It doesn't resonate well, especially new Christians who are just trying to understand what the word of God says, but instead find they are too busy Googling definitions for hundreds of words they aren't comfortable with and then learning how they apply to contexts. There are better versions like the NKJV or ESV that I would recommend. I think it is important to understand concepts thoroughly and for this reason discipleship is important. The Bible is so complex that it has spawned thousands of interpretations and hundreds of denominations, many of which don't stand up to scrutiny.

That is not true in my opinion concerning, I picked up the KJB and read it easy and I'm not a greater reader anything. The language is beautiful. Also I am not talking about the 1611 edition. That has archaic English. But the 1772/1779 editions were made with modern English, the words didn't change in meaning from the original 1611 but the spellings did, so it is easy for all English readers to read.

How those that claim to be real Christians suggest people read corrupted modern Bibles that do such wicked things as proven in the above posts I have no idea.

 

[Runningman]

That is not true in my opinion concerning, I picked up the KJB and read it easy and I'm not a greater reader anything. The language is beautiful. Also I am not talking about the 1611 edition. That has archaic English. But the 1772/1779 editions were made with modern English, the words didn't change in meaning from the original 1611 but the spellings did, so it is easy for all English readers to read.

How those that claim to be real Christians suggest people read corrupted modern Bibles that do such wicked things as proven in the above posts I have no idea.

That's a fair opinion and you're entitled to it, but are you saying I'm a fake Christian because I hold a different opinion than you about the KJB?

 

[Mii]

I'll just put forward that without the Lord's spirit within your reading it's just words. Think of the texts that the Pharisees had access to. The heart matters and when your heart is in the right place, the Lord working within our understanding can use whatever he chooses.

The enemy may have made alterations in new versions (or it could simply be non-believers humanistic influence) but I am reasonably confident that the Lord provides a barrier of sorts in different ways and will lead people to where they need to be.


Unless someone is reading the message or the passion translation and considering that a stand alone, I don't nitpick about it. I encourage people to read the KJV and indeed it has helped me with tough passages and I could give a few examples where I mentally went off on an obscure tangent that doesn't exist in the KJV and seems like a frivolous waste and at worst...err the enemy working in my thinking somehow.

So I mostly use the NASB and the KJV although ty @Roughsoul1991 for the info on the Geneva translation. So those are the two standards I use and I've been defaulting to the KJV often because I love the language although in some sections it's clunky (like certain psalms)


I also use Strong's concordance and unless I'm mistaken, it seems to only work well for the KJV.



The KJV has a unique ability to mentally stimulate me into new modes of thinking that I can't quite explain and it's also open source so I don't have to bother with citing and I can use it as freely as I'd like (within scriptural dictates).

It's also the cheapest to mass produce. I picked some NT KJVs from the dollar store in december and they are made with regular book paper, great to have as a lay around coffee table/car bible. I had one get rained on and it still works just fine.

It took a while but I'm partial to the fact that I have to think a little harder to translate sometimes the KJV and as a result I am thinking deeper about the word.



Good bit to be said for it. I started with Kid's quest bible (NIrV), moved to NKJV, then to TNIV, then to NLT, LB, eventually rested strongly in the NASB and then felt moved to the KJV. He moved me along and I have serious talking points about certain translations for certain verses (or their omission) but I leave that up to the Lord to work out in others. I wouldn't read some of the prior versions again unless there was nothing else available. One I read until it fell apart but I haven't picked it up since.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

That is not true in my opinion concerning, I picked up the KJB and read it easy and I'm not a greater reader anything. The language is beautiful. Also I am not talking about the 1611 edition. That has archaic English. But the 1772/1779 editions were made with modern English, the words didn't change in meaning from the original 1611 but the spellings did, so it is easy for all English readers to read.

How those that claim to be real Christians suggest people read corrupted modern Bibles that do such wicked things as proven in the above posts I have no idea.

With as many manuscripts as we posses within the Church. It is quite easy to have different spellings, different words, or even omitted verses. Usually like omnipotent may be changed to almighty but in Greek that is the same. The Kjv isnt the standard. The ancient manuscripts are. So in less us average folks have spent decades learning the ancient languages and use textual criticism to compare and contrast the mountains of manuscripts/ fragments then you can only depend on those translators who have. This also includes all the new discoveries that the older translators didn't have.

This is the typical claim. The newer versions omit this and that or change this or that. But it is all based on the manuscripts being used and converting it to English. Omitted scripture is usually found somewhere else in the text. Or like the end of Mark it may be a footnote due to its limited usage in manuscripts. Changed words often dont change very much when compared to the original language.

Of course there are more accurate translations but all have flaws. And all are criticized.

Are we trying to divide the Church? Is it worth it to divide the church? Because many churches use newer translations or semi new translations.

I suppose maybe you feel it is worth it. Idk. I personally do not see the worth in less the translation is extremely heretical like the Queen James Bible.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I'll just put forward that without the Lord's spirit within your reading it's just words. Think of the texts that the Pharisees had access to. The heart matters and when your heart is in the right place, the Lord working within our understanding can use whatever he chooses.

The enemy may have made alterations in new versions (or it could simply be non-believers humanistic influence) but I am reasonably confident that the Lord provides a barrier of sorts in different ways and will lead people to where they need to be.


Unless someone is reading the message or the passion translation and considering that a stand alone, I don't nitpick about it. I encourage people to read the KJV and indeed it has helped me with tough passages and I could give a few examples where I mentally went off on an obscure tangent that doesn't exist in the KJV and seems like a frivolous waste and at worst...err the enemy working in my thinking somehow.

So I mostly use the NASB and the KJV although ty @Roughsoul1991 for the info on the Geneva translation. So those are the two standards I use and I've been defaulting to the KJV often because I love the language although in some sections it's clunky (like certain psalms)


I also use Strong's concordance and unless I'm mistaken, it seems to only work well for the KJV.



The KJV has a unique ability to mentally stimulate me into new modes of thinking that I can't quite explain and it's also open source so I don't have to bother with citing and I can use it as freely as I'd like (within scriptural dictates).

It's also the cheapest to mass produce. I picked some NT KJVs from the dollar store in december and they are made with regular book paper, great to have as a lay around coffee table/car bible. I had one get rained on and it still works just fine.

It took a while but I'm partial to the fact that I have to think a little harder to translate sometimes the KJV and as a result I am thinking deeper about the word.



Good bit to be said for it. I started with Kid's quest bible (NIrV), moved to NKJV, then to TNIV, then to NLT, LB, eventually rested strongly in the NASB and then felt moved to the KJV. He moved me along and I have serious talking points about certain translations for certain verses (or their omission) but I leave that up to the Lord to work out in others. I wouldn't read some of the prior versions again unless there was nothing else available. One I read until it fell apart but I haven't picked it up since.

I'll just put forward that without the Lord's spirit within your reading it's just words. Think of the texts that the Pharisees had access to. The heart matters and when your heart is in the right place, the Lord working within our understanding can use whatever he chooses.

Exactly. In a religion where the Holy Spirit literally gave miraculous power to the Apostles, guided the early church, inspired the writings of the NT including the acceptance of the canon. And after centuries of hostility and literature burning we still have mountains of manuscript evidence.
And we are now supposed to believe the Spirit isn't protecting the Bible or guiding us in truth?

 

[Kim82]

For all the persons who are able to understand the KJV, I congratulate you. Well done.

But I do not understand some things in the KJV and as such I compare it with other translations.

This is what I would encourage others to do.

Today I was reading in Leviticus 19 and I came across this verse: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him (19:17)

I don't know what that means. So I looked it up in the New World Translation. It says: You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may not bear sin along with him.

Now that I can understand, and I will not let anyone make me feel less because I don't understand everything in the KJV.

But I do agree that we have to be careful about which Bible we choose as our main Bible, because some translators have taken out words, or changed words as they see fit. So we have to be careful that we don't believe lies or come to wrong conclusions.

 

[NotmebutHim]

I was raised with the KJV and I still view it as one of the top most reliable translations.

But I also like the NKJV (which is the one I use to study by and quote Scripture from) and the original edition of the NIV.

And I use the HCSB in my Sunday school class at church.

There are some versions or translations which I would definitely stay away from, but by the same token I don't believe that ANY OTHER version or translation besides the KJV is necessarily corrupt or even Satanic.

Many of the modern translations rely on manuscripts which were discovered long after the 1611 KJV was created.

 

[breno785au]

When modern Bibles are removing or altering verses making sinful things no longer sinful, I'd it is questionably a salvation issue.

Have you not realised the KJV removed and added things compared to the bibles that preceded it?

 

[Dino246]

How those that claim to be real Christians suggest people read corrupted modern Bibles that do such wicked things as proven in the above posts I have no idea.

You would have no idea if you've only read biased materials on the subject. Have you read The King James Only Controversy by James White?

It is easy to believe that an argument proves a case when you only listen to one side. The Bible even states this, in Proverbs. It takes wisdom to suspend judgment until both sides have been fairly considered. The tone of your opening posts tells me you haven't done that.

 

[Dino246]

Attack on the deity of Jesus Christ by changing the word God to He, changing the word
Christ to One, changing Christ's own words when He says "my Father" to "the Father" and more.
References for you to compare between Bibles:
[Timothy 3:16 / Daniel 3:25 / Acts 3:13,26 / Philippians 2:6 / Acts 8:37 / John 6:69]
[John 9:35 / Matthew 20:20 / John 4:42 / Acts 15:11 / Acts 16:31 / Romans 1:3/ 1 Corinthians 5:4]
[Ephesians 3:14 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19 / 1 Thessalonians 3:11 / 2 Thessalonians 1:8]
[John 14:28 / Philippians 4:13 / Acts 7:59]...

If you're comparing modern versions to the KJV and claiming that the newer versions "remove" or "add" parts, you are simply being obtuse... hopefully inadvertently. The KJV is not the standard against which all others are measured. One could just as easily make the claim that the KJV is missing bits or has bits added.

Both need to be compared with the original-language texts.