King James Version or RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?

Lets take a look at this comparison of the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV….

The NIV and RSV have changes on emphasis and even delete parts that are significant in our understanding of theological issues. Here are some examples:
KJV—(King James Version) versus RSV—(Revised Standard Version) and NIV—(New International Version)

1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
KJV—For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
RSV—For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
NIV—( missing )

Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV—Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
RSV— concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
NIV—regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV—wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
RSV—and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
NIV—wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Some people say it doesnt matter, that its just a different translation or one with more modern words. The problem is that some of these new versions are not just a ‘different translation’, they basically have done editing to actually change or take out whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with a doctrine they hold or someones traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own… and eventually you get to a point which the video brings up where ‘You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV…’

So its not just a ‘different translation’….

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus (which is the vast majority of copies from original) has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. So it does make a difference.

What do YOU think?



  1. Will the mark of the beast be “in” the hand, or “on” the hand?

    Revelation 13:16

    (KJV) “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:”

    (NIV) ” It also forced all people, great and small,(AL) rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,”

    (ESV) “Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] (AC)to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, ”

    Who fell from Heaven in Isaiah 14?

    Isaiah 14:12

    (KJV) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

    (NIV) “How you have fallen(AH) from heaven,
    morning star,(AI) son of the dawn!
    You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!(AJ)”

    (ESV) ““How (R)you are fallen from heaven,
    O Day Star, (S)son of Dawn!
    How you are cut down to the ground,
    you who laid the nations low!”

    How do we identify antichrist?

    1st John 4:3

    (KJV) “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

    (NIV) “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist,(F) which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.(G)”

    (ESV) “and every spirit (H)that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and (I)now is in the world already.”

    When can a person be baptized?

    Acts 8:36-37

    (KJV) “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
    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.”

    (NIV) “As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” VERSE 37 is removed.

    (ESV) “And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! (AY)What prevents me from being baptized?”[e]VERSE 37 is removed.

    ***As already stated in the posts above, the KJV is the ONLY english Bible translated from the correct manuscripts. The manuscripts used to translate the other versions do not compliment each other, but rather contradict each other in numerous places, not to mention how often the contradict the manuscripts used to translate the KJV. Not only that, but the manuscripts used to translate the other versions were given to us by the whore of Babylon, the enemy of our faith, the roman catholic church. Also, the manuscripts hail from Alexandria Egypt, during a time where Gnosticism and heresy were prevelant in that area.******

    The issue above are just a sample of the differences, but each is of vital importance. Using the other versions, the beast would be able to convince Christians that the mark of the beast was not the one from the Scriptures, because if they are using the new versions the mark is ON the hand and not IN. This gives room for deception.

    Also, if we identify antichrist by his denial that Jesus IS COME IN THE FLESH, then the other versions have identified themselves as antichrist by removing “IS COME IN THE FLESH” from their texts.

    Lucifer is the fallen angel. But according to the other versions, it was the MORNING STAR who fell from Heaven. Revelations and Peter identify the morning star/day star as Jesus Christ! So who fell?

    According to the Scriptures, one should only be baptized upon sincere confession of faith. But the modern versions erase this and give room to lacsidasical baptism, which leads to unconverted men/women being given a sense of false security.

    The version issue IS a vital issue. Thank you for this post!

  2. Redbuck40 says:

    Have you noticed how in many passages of the KJV have been translated in error, just read the NIV.

    Same argument, different people.

    Is the KJV is agreement with the previous versions? Then what translation is right? Where do we go from here? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    • Holyroller_11 says:

      I have been told by reliable sources, the niv had some of its translaters were gay,I have not checked for myself,mainly because I only use KJV,for this reason, 1st its the oldest,2nd the latter day rain was started 300 years ago with great signs and wonders. 3rd The dead sea scrolls were almost word for word, 4th The great revivials that started pentecostals and such that spread across countries,were using KJV, I do not want to vary from the oldest and proven,by time version there is, My life depends on it,and It has proven itself to me not by words but by the power of God’s word in it. today;s world will take anything almost,because they don’t know the power like the older generations did. They trusted every word and so do I,How deep you want to go depends on how much you trust the word, everyone has a choice

  3. The Textus Receptus (the vast majority of copies from original, and what the King James is based on) has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands….

    “…Textus Receptus

    Before we considerthe King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.

    Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: “The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian’s enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian’s day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian’s unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful.” (Ref: J2) The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim, under whose editorship it was printed in in 1524-5).
    Two Bibles

    In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller’s first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:
    Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). For 45 years I was in this camp; but I thank God for opening my eyes.
    Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text – Textus Receptus. I have now joined this camp.
    Fuller continues: Quote: “First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
    All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text.” ( Ref: F1)
    Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?

    The answer is because:
    Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
    Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
    Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
    Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
    Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
    Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour’s miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
    Textus Receptus was – and still is – the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
    Reverend Gipp comments further:
    Quote: “The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version….We describe this text with the term “Universal,” because it represents themajority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, “The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants.” (Ref:B3)

    Continuing from page 66 in Gipp’s book: Quote: “Professor Hodges concludes, ‘Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.’ ” (Ref:B4)
    In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus: Quote: “Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out.” (Ref3) In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
    Quote: “For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… “Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text… If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be.”(Ref: E1)

Speak Your Mind


Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonYouTube Icon