Changes in Scripture - A Comparative of the KJV/NIV Side By Side

Over the last few years here, there are many who claim all bibles are the same and have errors. I however do not hold to that position. Though many scholars do they basically say, as in the introduction of the NIV says, "The committee has again been reminded that every human effort is flawed - including this revision of the NIV". The revision this committee alludes to is the 3rd of 1984.

In saying such they lump in the AKJV of the Bible because they believe it is not a preservation of God, Buy only a preservation of man, as Charles Stanley says in his introduction to the NIV/KJV side by side Bible, which he claims concerning they were faithful to the "Original Manuscripts", of which their are none housed in any school or museum in the entire world.

In short the NIV is taken from the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which was compiled from the Alexandrian, the Vaticanicus, the Sinatanicus Which was used for the creation of the English Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582. The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament also produced the NWT of the JW's, and every other English Translation since 1881.

I have not been posting on ATS for the last week as I was busy with a new side by side KJV/NIV bible to show the changes to the KING JAMES AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TEXT. You will notice if you read both versions that the NIV takes great liberty with the English text, it changes word from nous to adjectives thereby having to change sentence structure and the syntax of the English as well. The NIV removed English words and replaced them with what they claim were more modern speech but as noted above they had to change the sentence structure and nouns to Adjectives and pronouns in order to do so. What one does this it is a complete change of the Text all together.

The committee on the NIV and the other versions as well, claim that there are not a few words changed to make it clearer but just read along side on by one and you will see it does not clarity but confuses God's words, making it nothing but a disguise of the Devil in that when you get to Genesis Chapter 3 the Devil removes and adds words to the words of God as spoken earlier. This is how he threw Eve into transgression by beguilment 1 Cor 11:3.

Here is the first Chapter side by side and all the changes the NIV 1984 made (please note that the NIV has not only been revised but they later made the NIV I, NIV II, the NIV III, the Readers NIV, and are currently on another more accurate "Newer" translation of the NIV. the forward slash symbolize the deletion of a word or a deletion or changes in grammar mark (ie Paragraph marks, periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, etc), the circle means an addition of the above as well. A circle or a forward slash with an arrow attached is a movement of a AKJV word. The positive and negative signs are showing that additions and separations were made in the sentence of the NIV You will see their are 578 changes made by the NIV Committee concerning the AKJV in just the first Chapter alone. I am no mathematician but if this could be calculated it would mean that there are roughly a little over 30 thousand changes to the NIV Bible.

The Below Chart hows that AKJV used over 5,000 text to make it translation and the NIV and every English version since 1881 and the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582 use a little over 40 text to make their translation.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I have heard the NIV called the "Nearly Infallible Version".
I don't subscribe to that view- my standard quoting Bible is the RSV.
But it might be easier to compare quality of translation if the parallel texts were laid out more clearly side by side, verse by verse.
(I don't do Hebrew, though)

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I was given a NIV Bible from a dear friend. Only last year did I read somewhere that verses had been changed, some verses left out. I compared my KJV to the NIV and it was true. The little seemingly insignificant changes completely changed the Holiness of Jesus and his works, as well as the meaning of context.

I threw it out.

a reply to: DISRAELI

thought if the parallel passages in English if laid side by side would be good but the Side by Side version I am using is deceitful, it used a slightly smaller NIV text than that of the KJV and at other times they are the same size text. But it is very clear it is not a "NNearly Infallible Version". that claim is of men and reflects they do not hold to the view that God preserved his word to every generation as found in Ps 12:6, 7.

It would be impossible to do a Hebrew Version verse by verse as the Hebrew cannot be verified to be an original. It can only be claimed to be a "Original Language" however the language can't be verified either.

This is just one chapter I have only 50 to go in just this one book of the Old Testament.

a reply to: ccseagull

compare Isa 14:12 in the NIV it changes Lucifer to Morning star making him and Jesus the same person or if anything a lot of confusion.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The problem is that there is no way to tell which translation is better except by comparison with the Hebrew.
There is nothing wrong with "change" in itself. After all, EVERY WORD of the AV is a "change", simply by virtue of being in the English language.

a reply to: DISRAELI

RSV
Reviled substandard per-version as I have heard it called
Though I am not a Calvinist I tend towards the ESV for some reason

Anyway, all bibles have a few errors and I don't mind that at all
All bibles point very clearly to the one and only perfect Jesus Christ, bibles don't point to themselves
I once heard a minister say Christians are saved by the bible, I kid you not, absolutely disgusting

It always makes me a little sad when Christians bicker because we don't all agree on everything. I don't mind if some believe the bible, any version is perfect, just don't really care myself.
My faith is in Jesus, not a bible

a reply to: Raggedyman
I bought the RSV for my course in Theology and just stuck with it. I feel I ought to have a standard for quoting purposes.
However, I've noticed occasional misleading paraphrases, which seem to be common to modern versions.
E.g. in Romans Paul says "By what law? Not the law of works but the law of faith", and the modern ones say "By what principle?"
So it's good to double-check with other versions and the original on crucial points.

not to mention is reads like a 5th grade essay...

Romans 13:

Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power

Pay your taxes too, for these same two reasons. For government workers need to be paid s

are you F'ing kidding me. is this the common core bible for all the idiots in America? i really don't understand the point other than a whitewash and chance to edit the parts you don't like.

and God said "yeah dude that's mad not cool"

My case is even worst, I read the spanish translation (I'm hispanic) and most of the time I have the english version for comparison. Adding to that I use the internet to make multiple comparisons. Is just crazy.

I'm trying to learn some hebrew to get as close as I can to the original source.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That is why it is a act of faith in God to know which bible is the preserved one, namely the one that has the promise intact.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The ESV is just another in the line of Bibles based on the same texts as the NIV.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The problem is that there is no place where God tells us which version is the "preserved" one.

a reply to: DISRAELI

But there is no "Original Hebrew" to compare it to. The New Hebrew Tanak is a copy from English both of the KJV and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Don't you see the problem yet?

We can't compare any current English version to to any supposed "Original Autographs" because we have no "Original Autographs" in any school, church or synagogue. There are no "Original Languages" spoken today to verify any Spoken Hebrew, Chaldean, or Koine Greek of the past.

We have nothing that is original when it comes to the text only copies and they are not verifiable, so all we can do is trust through faith, that God has kept to his word that he preserved them to this generation forever as found in the AKJV Psalm 12:6, 7.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Study alone is the act of faith in God. Through prayer He leads us on the right path. This to me is less about pontificating over Bibles and more about using our own wits and trust in Him to guide them.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Once we label a Bible as having errors then we don't have any proof that God has done what he says in he will do in his word, because we don't know what those errors are seeing we don't have verified Original Autographs.

I believe God preserved and inspired his word in the AKJV without any errors, whole and complete. Because in the AKJV says he will preserved them forever in Psalm 12:6, 7, that all his words are settled in heaven Psalm 119:89 which means they will never change or be done away with.

a reply to: smkymcnugget420
And what is the addresses to these quotes of yours?

It would do well for us to see them and compare them.

The AKJV is written in 6th grade English that is true. So no excuse for anyone saying they can't understand it. If anyone wants to know what the Thees, Thous and Ye's all mean they would do well to get a free copy of those nasty thees and thous by James Knox of Deland Baptist Church.

To reply to the reply you made I would like to point out that the Bible talks more about a "promised land", "its king" and "his people" than about Christian Doctrines of obedience to our Government, sacraments, baptisms, being filled with the Holy spirit, tongues, communion, the body of Christ, prophets, and any other doctrines put together.

a reply to: Abednego

That is one of the reasons I settled on the AKJV Bible, it at least errors or not, it has ALL the words, verses, sections, and paragraphs in it. I know I can't go wrong. And it is in 6th grade English which I am sure you can understand.

We have no "Original Source" except God to go to. Check out 1Cor 2:13 and see that it is the person of the Holy Ghost that teaches us the word of God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Oh but you can know. But I can only give you my understanding it is a personal decision of faith of yours alone.

Consider these four points that I have found to be true of the AKJV after 12 years of Studying it.
1) The AKJV has all the verses in it (disputed or not).
2) The AKJV defines every English word it uses by the context it is found.
3) The AKJV has a built in cross-reference that is not biased by denominational preference.
4) The AKJV is a true dynamic equivalence of the Original Autographs because God is the one who inspired it and preserved it into English. (Unlike any previous English before it or after it.)

So the real problem is not that the Bible doesn't tell us which is preserved it is our unbelief that God has done so as promised.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
We can't compare any current English version to to any supposed "Original Autographs" because we have no "Original Autographs" in any school, church or synagogue. There are no "Original Languages" spoken today to verify any Spoken Hebrew, Chaldean, or Koine Greek of the past.

Yes, all the manuscripts are necessarily copies; they can't be originals, because papyrus doesn't last long enough. But I think you over-estimate the importance of that point. All the books you read are copies, I suspect, not autograph original manuscripts. And the AV translators were using texts drawn from those manuscripts, just like everybody else, so if that is a difficulty the AV translation is not free from it.

You also exaggerate the problem of "no living speakers" because you don't understand the role played by continuous tradition. There was a continuous tradition of Greek-speakers from the time of the Roman empire through the period of the Byzantine empire. When time changed the language so that it became less like the KOINE, the tradition continued through that change, so that the current generation could still be taught how to read the older texts. The Byzantines passed on this knowledge to the western scholars of the Renaissance, which is where the lexicons come from, and the Renaissance scholars ultimately taught the English translators. (There has been a similar continuous tradition for the Hebrew language) How do you think the AV translators did their work? It was through the same despised process of reading manuscipts and using lexicons and comparing other translations that everybody else employs.

all we can do is trust through faith, that God has kept to his word that he preserved them to this generation forever as found in the AKJV Psalm 12:6, 7.

I must repeat that God has not specified which version is the preserved version. You haven't got round the problem of proving that point. Doesn't the text of that Psalm in the NIV carry a similar promise? If so, the NIV can be shown to be the "preserved" version on exactly the same logic that you're using.