Another King James Bible Believer

1 Corinthians and the Catholic influence in the ESV, NIV, NASB and NKJVs

 

Notes on 1 Corinthians showing the Catholic influence in versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB and NKJV.

"Will the true Bible please stand up". This is easy. The true one has been standing in the English language for almost 400 years now. The false ones have been falling by the wayside one after another. They come out with big fanfare, are popular for a few years, and then are cast into the dustbin of oblivion. The "scholarly" NASB is rapidly following in the footsteps of the ignominious ASV of 1901, and, with those who desire to have their ears tickled with something new, is now being replaced by the NIV.

   Others, with little spiritual discernment or reverence for the words of God, have ignorantly taken up the NKJV, thinking it is just like the KJB but with "modern" speech. In this study we will be comparing the modern versions with the new Catholic bibles like the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.  We will clearly see the influence of the Catholic-Evangelical Combine put together in the current United Bible Society (UBS) Greek texts and the "inter-confessional" bible translations now being churned out and foisted on  and every more indifferent and undiscerning public market.


I Corinthians 3:5 KJB "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, EVEN AS THE LORD GAVE TO EVERY MAN?" 

     This carnal church of believers was in danger of splitting apart at the seams because they had their focus on different great teachers instead of seeing Christ as the source of their salvation and author of their faith.

  It is the Lord Himself who gives the gift of faith to His own people; it does not come from man himself. See Romans 12:3; Phil. 1:29, Heb. 12:2; Acts 13:48; 14:27; 18:27; Eph. 2:8,9 and Titus 1:1 for just a few examples of this truth. This is clearly what the verse teaches and is confirmed by the very next verse: "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." Man can sow the word of truth and another can come along and water it with more teaching, but unless God quickens it and produces life, it is all in vain.

    The RV, ASV, Geneva, Tyndale, NKJV, Darby and Spanish all agree with the KJB. However the NASB says "servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one." The NASB has italicized this word "opportunity", but is changes the meaning to fit more with modern, easy on the ears, flattering to the ego and promoting self esteem theology of today's  Christians. The NASB implies that God only gives you the opportunity to believe, but the decision is up to you. This is false doctrine.

     The NIV gives this verse a whole new slant than even that of the NASB. The NIV says: "servants, through whom you believed--as the Lord has assigned to each his task." There are no words in any text anywhere that say "his task". By this ruse, the NIV simply changes the meaning and says the tasks of Paul and Apollos was to preach, and avoids here the whole doctrine that God is the Giver of saving faith. The ESV is similar to the NIV in that it says: "What then is Apollos?  What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each."

 This is the type of thing that is referred to in another letter to the Corinthians by the Holy Ghost when Paul said "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God".

I Cor. 4:7 KJB "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

     I personally just love this verse. It gives all the glory to God, and none to man. If I am different in any way, or have any good, it is solely because of the good pleasure of Almighty God. Most versions teach the same thing here, even the NKJV and NIV. 

     But when we look at the NASB, something is just a little bit out of place. The NASB asks: "For who regards you as superior?" instead of "For who maketh thee to differ from another?" What does the NASB even mean? and how would you answer the question? 

The ESV is equally confusing.  It says: "For who sees anything different in you?"  If we say God, then is there something different in us who have come to believe in Christ that is not found in the others?  Are we smarter, or better, or more spiritual by natural inclination?  My Bible says God makes of the same lump one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. Romans 9:21.   How about yours?

    The obvious answer to the question in the KJB, NKJV and even the NIV is "God, of course". Now if you answer "God" to the NASB, does God regard me as superior? I thought He said He chose the foolish, weak, and despised to confound the wise, mighty and exalted, that no flesh should glory in His presence.

 1 Corinthians 8:4 - The vaunted NASB comes out with another gem in I Cor. 8:4. Whereas the KJB, NKJV and NIV are in agreement with "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, WE KNOW THAT AN IDOL IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD, and that there is none other God but one".

    An idol is just a piece of wood or stone; it has no real spiritual power. However the NASB actually says: "We know that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IDOL IN THE WORLD." I'm sure the Catholic church is delighted with this verse. This is plainly a stupid statement put out by the type of men God is refering to when He says that He will destroy the wisdom of the wise. The ESV says: "we know that an idol has no real existence".  Well, besides not translating the words found in all texts "in the world" it also teaches a lie.  Idols DO exist and everybody knows it.


The Greek texts are all the same here, except the Alexandrian texts have omitted the word 'other' in the phrase "none OTHER God but one".

The reading of AN IDOL IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD is found in the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the KJB, NKJV, Third Millenium Bible, KJV 21st Century Version, NIV, Webster's and others. However there is a definite change in the meaning of the NASB. I think the Catholic church would be pleased with the NASB rendering here. It says: "we know THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IDOL in the world."

Then why is the Old Testament and the New constantly warning against making, worshipping or following after idols? The NASB tells us there is no such thing as an idol in the world.

Not only are most modern versions based on the Catholic Greek New Testament, which by the way is called VATICANus, and is edited by the Jesuit cardinal Carlo Martini, but there are also several other readings that go hand in glove with official Catholic doctrine.

One of the main differences in the traditional Lord's Prayer has been the ending used by Protestants as opposed to that used by the Catholic church. When Jesus starts to teach His disciples to pray He first states: "But when ye pray, USE NOT VAIN REPETITIONS, as the heathen do." Matthew 6:7 

Protestants have for centuries applied this phrase of "vain repetitions" to the use of the Rosary, where the same words "Hail Mary, full of grace, pray for us sinners...." is repeated over and over. These are vain repetitions. VAIN REPITITIONS is the reading of the KJV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, TMB, KJV 21, Young's, Darby's, World English Bible, Webster's, and the Spanish Reina Valera's "vanas repeticiones".

However to accomodate the Catholics use of the Rosary and not to condemn it, the NASB now reads: "Do not use meaningless repetition" while the NIV says: "Do not keep on babbling". The Catholic New Jerusalem reads like the NIV with "do not babble like the gentiles do". The Catholics can easily say their Rosary is not meaningless nor is it babbling, but it is certainly "vain repetition".

The traditional Protestant reading of the Lord's Prayer is "Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."


This last part is found in the Greek manuscripts at a 100 to 1 ratio. It is in the ancient versions of the Syriac, Coptic, Old Latin, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopian versions. It is in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati and in Luther's German translation.

However this last phrase is omitted in the RSV, NRSV, ESV, the Jehovah Witness bible, the NIV and in all Catholic versions. The NASB puts the phrase {in brackets}. Now today's modern Christians can repeat alongside their Catholic friends the Lord's prayer without that embarrassing addition of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, for ever. Amen."

See the article on what is called the Lord's prayer as found in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 - http://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew613.htm

More subtle changes in wording are such as are found in the NASB. In Luke 21:5 "gifts" becomes "votive gifts"; in Luke 11:38 "washed" becomes "ceremoniously washed"; In I Corinthians 9:27 "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection" becomes "I buffet my body and make it my slave" (NASB) and "I beat my body and make it my slave" (NIV). This ties in with the Catholic idea of self flagellation.

Instead ot those who ARE SAVED - "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God." - the NKJV, ESV, NIV and NASB now read "to us who ARE BEING SAVED". See I Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15. This fits in with the Catholic doctrines. No Catholic would say he is saved, but he is in the process of being saved. The Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 says: "for those of us WHO ARE ON THE ROAD TO SALVATION it is the power of God."

The doorway has now been opened in many new version to promote the Catholic doctrine that we can pray for the souls who have already died to be forgiven their sins.

In Psalms 79:8, 9 we read: "O remember not against US FORMER INIQUITIES: let thy tender mercies speedily prevent us: for we are brought very low. Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake."

Remember not against us FORMER iniquites ties in nicely with Psalm 25:7 "Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions." FORMER iniquities would be sins we ourselves have committed in the past and is the reading of the KJV, NKJV, KJV 21, Geneva Bible, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's, Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, the New Century Version and the 2001 English Standard Version. Even a modern paraphrase like the New Living Translation says: "Do not hold us guilty for our former sins."

However when we get to the NASB we now read: "Remember not the iniquity of OUR FOREFATHERS". From the NASB reading we can get the idea that we can ask God to forgive and not remember the sins of those who have died and gone on before us. The NASB concordance shows they have translated this Hebrew word as 'former' 25 times and as 'forefathers' only once. The NIV 1984 edition says: "Do not hold against us the sins of the fathers." and the "new" 2011 NIV has now changed this to: "Do not hold against us the sins of past generations." The New Jerusalem bible has: "Do not count against us the guilt of former generations."

All roads lead to Rome, as the saying goes. All the new versions are recommended by the Catholic church today except one. Guess which one the Catholic church hates with a passion. That's right; only the King James Bible. Take a wild guess as to why that might be.

See the Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB are today's "new" Catholic bible versions - http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm


I Corinthians 9-11

9:1 "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus CHRIST our Lord?"

The majority of Greek texts read just as the KJB, but the Alexandrian texts reverse the word order here and the NASB, NIV, ESV read: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle?"; and so does the Catholic New Jerusalem bible. The Alexandrian texts, as we shall see in this short section, constantly disagree with each other as well as the traditional text.

Likewise the Alexandrian texts omit the word CHRIST, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and so does the Catholic New Jerusalem bible. Jesus CHRIST our Lord is the majority reading as well as the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic, Gothic and Armenian ancient versions.

9:18 "I may make the gospel OF CHRIST without charge" is the majority reading, the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet the NASB, NIV, ESV omit the words of Christ because not in the Alexandrian texts, and so does the New Jerusalem bible.

10:9 "Neither let us tempt CHRIST, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of the destroyer."

This verse strongly attests to the full deity of Christ. It tells us that the children of Israel who in the Old Testament tempted God were actually tempting Christ. Christ = God.

CHRIST is the reading of the majority, Syriac, Coptic, D and P 46, which predates Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by 150 years. Yet Siniaticus and Vaticanus read THE LORD, which could refer to God the Father and not the Son, and so the NASB, NIV 1984 edition say: "we should not test the Lord, as some of them did", and so does the Catholic New Jerusalem bible. However the NIV 2011 has changed their underlying Greek texts here and now read "should not test CHRIST". 

One of the other Alexandrian texts called A (codex Alexandrinus) says "let us not tempt GOD, as some of them did"

It is of interest that the latest United Bible Society 4th edition has gone back to the KJB reading of CHRIST, yet the NASB, NIV 1984 are now out of date with the ever changing views of todays scholars. Don't worry though, they will soon come out with the late$t ver$ion, I'm sure. In fact the 2001 English Standard Version now reads CHRIST here, just as the KJB has all along.

10:20 "But I say, that the things which THE GENTILES sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God."

Vaticanus omits "the Gentiles" but it is found in Sinaiticus and this time the NASB leaves it in; so do the ESV and NIV but they translate the word as "the pagans" as does the Catholic New Jerusalem.  But in verse 11 where it says: "Now ALL these things happened unto them for ensamples", there the word ALL (panta) is in Sinaiticus but not in Vaticanus and now the NASB, NIV, ESV did the opposite and followed Vaticanus and omitted the word. However the New Jerusalem bible keeps the word "all". Go figure. They do this sort of thing constantly where these two false witnesses disagree, one time following the one and the next the other - so as not to show any favoritism, I suppose.

10:28 "But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND THE FULNESS THEREOF".

This last part is omitted in the NASB, NIV, ESV and the New Jerusalem bible because not in the Alexandrian texts, though it is found in the majority of  all Greek texts and in Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Great Bible 1545, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 bibles, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1995, the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and Bíblia Sagrada bibles - "porque a terra é do Senhor, e toda a sua plenitude."  and the Modern Greek N.T. as seen on The Unbound Bible site to name but a few.

11:24 Regarding the celebration of the Lord's supper. " That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said: TAKE, EAT; this is my body, which IS BROKEN for you: this do in remembrance of me."

Here the words TAKE, EAT are found in the majority of texts including many uncial copies (capital letters), the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. Church fathers quote it such as Ambrosiaster, Basil, Euthalius, Chrysostom, Theodoret and John Damascus.

However the Alexandrian texts omit these words and so the NASB, ESV, NIV merely read: "he broke it and said, This is my body which is for you." Notice too the NASB, ESV, NIV all leave out that important word BROKEN for you. The Catholic bibles read the same as the ESV, NIV, NASBs.

The word IS BROKEN, refers not to Christ's bones, but rather to the lacerations and open wounds on his body caused by the thorns, the beating with a scourge, the nails in His hands and feet and the spear in His side.

"My body, which is BROKEN for you" is the reading of the majority, but also the correction of Sinaiticus and C, and in codex D as well as many other uncial copies, and almost all ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic and Armenian. But today's NASB, NIV, ESV, J.W. bible and RSV omit all these words "TAKE, EAT, BROKEN", as do the Catholic bibles.

11:27 'Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily (here Sinaiticus adds an additional OF THE LORD, but it is not in Vaticanus) shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

11:29 "For he that eateth and drinketh UNWORTHILY, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the LORD'S body."

In this verse Vaticanus omits UNWORTHILY, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 though it is found in the majority of all Greek texts and in the correction of Sinaiticus and in D and many other uncials as well as ancient versions. The word "Lord's"in "not discerning the LORD'S body" is omitted by the NASB, ESV and Catholic New Jerusalem because not in Vaticanus, but it is found in the NIV 1984 edition because in the majority, Sinaiticus correction, D and many ancient versions. However now that the "New" New International Version has come out in 2011, they have once again changed their text to read: "without discerning the body OF CHRIST".  The 2011 NIV now adds "of Christ" yet these words are NOT found in any Greek text at all.

The previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible read exactly like the King James Bible with: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 

Thus we can see that most of the 5000 word changes made in the KJB by the NASB, NIV, ESV and other modern versions are because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet these two manuscripts are constantly differing from one another. 



1 Corinthians 13 

13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not CHARITY, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Many modern bible proponents criticize the King James Bible for using the word charity. If they would only consult a dictionary they would find that one of the principal meanings of the word charity is Christian brotherly love. Even the word Love can have many meanings. What love might mean to Hugh Hefner is not the same as it would mean to a godly Christian.

The word charity expresses Christian love for other Christians. The word charity is never used in the King James Bible to express  the love relationship between God and man, a husband and wife, between parents and their children, or between the believer and the nonbeliever. It is always used in referrence to the love Christians should have for other Christians.

Not only does the King James Bible use the word Charity, but so also do the Geneva Bible 1599, Coverdale 1535 - Romans 14:15 "walkest thou not after charite"; Jude 12 "feasts of charite", Bishop's Bible 1568, the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible - "and have not charity",  Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755 "salute ye one another with a kiss of charity" 1 Peter 5:14, Webster's 1833 translation, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, the KJV 21st Century,  Green's Modern KJV 1998, and the Third Millenium Bible. It is not an archaic word and it is properly used in these various versions both old and new.

As noted many times, the so called oldest and best Alexandrian texts are responsible for the thousands of words omitted from the modern New Testament. Yet right here the original Sinaiticus manuscript omits all the following words from verses one and two. "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity".

This whole portion is missing from Sinaiticus but it is found in Vaticanus. They constantly differ from each other.

13:3 "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body TO BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

It is of interest to note that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have the spurious reading of: "And though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST" instead of "to be burned". This false reading is still in the UBS 4th edition as was adopted by Westcott and Hort. Yet the NASB, NIV, ESV and Catholic New Jerusalem thought better to go back to the majority text and read along with the KJB "to be burned", though all four versions give footnotes saying "some early manuscripts read "that I may boast."

In fact versions that have adopted this reading of THAT I MAY BOAST include the NRSV, and the New Living Translation called The Book, which is being promoted by Pat Robertson. It is interesting that the old Living Bible read just as the KJB, but now the new one changes it. The RSV read as the KJB, then the NRSV says "that I may boast", but now the new 2001 ESV revision has gone back to "to be burned". See where modern scholarship has taken the Christian community. They change their texts from one revision to the next, yet they tell us the message is the same, when it clearly isn't the same. 

The NASB, NIV, ESV have tossed out literally thousands of words based on both or only one of these false manuscripts, yet they didn't follow them here. Where is the consistency? 

13:5 Charity "SEEKETH NOT HER OWN, is not easily provoked, THINKETH NO EVIL."

Only Vaticanus reads: "does not seek THAT WHICH IS NOT HER OWN", which is the opposite in meaning. No one that I know of followed Vaticanus here. 

The greek is the same in all text for THINKETH NO EVIL, and this is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the previous Douay-Rheims "thinketh no evil", and several others. However the NASB says: "does not take into account a wrong suffered." All bibles do not mean the same thing. There is a difference between thinking no evil and not taking into account a wrong suffered. They are not the same. 

The NIV has: "keeps no record of wrongs", which again does not mean the same as "thinketh no evil", while the ESV has "is not resentful". The Catholic New Jerusalem bible says: "does not store up grievances". All of these are paraphrases that miss the point.

13:7 "BEARETH ALL THINGS". Here again, the texts are the same, but the NIV changes the meaning. "Beareth all things" is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV and others, but the NIV says "IT ALWAYS PROTECTS". That is not the same meaning as beareth all things.


1 Corinthians 14:38

It is a marvel to behold the twisted lies of modern scholarship. A case in point is verse 38. To get the context we will quote 37 as well.

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of God. But if any man be ignorant, LET HIM BE IGNORANT."

We have God's pure words today in the King James Bible. Through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost we have these words of truth. All of them. Yet if any man is ignorant of these things, let him be ignorant.

It reminds me of the words of our Lord and Saviour when he said in Matthew 15: 13,14: "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. LET THEM ALONE: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

The reading here of "let him be ignorant" is found in the majority of all Greek texts, the Textus Receptus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus correction and Sinaticus correction. It is found in P 46 which dates to about 150 years earlier than both Vaticanus and Sinaticus. It is the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Armenian and Ethiopic versions.

Even when Westcott - Hort changed the Greek text, still the Revised Version and the American Standard Version keep this reading of "Let him be ignorant"!

The NASB, NIV however have a very different reading. The NASB says: "but if anyone does not recognize this, HE IS NOT RECOGNIZED"; the ESV has: "if anyone does not recognize this, HE IS NOT RECOGNIZED while the NIV 1984 edition has: "If he ignores this, HE HIMSELF WILL BE IGNORED." However the 2011 "new" NIV now reads: "But if anyone ignores this, THEY WILL THEMSELVES BE IGNORED." The NKJV gives its usual footnote of doubt when it says the Nestles, United Bible Society text reads "he is not recognized". This subtle difference is only two letters in the Greek, but what a difference. Let him be ignorant is agnoeitW, while he is not recognized is agnoeitAI.

The Catholic New Jerusalem bible follows this spurious reading too (big Surprise;-) and it reads: "If anyone does not recognize this, it is because that person is not recognized himself."

This spurious reading is based on Sinaticus original and A original, yet both of these were later corrected by other scribes to agree with the traditional reading. Even Vaticanus and P46 read like the KJB. So the scholars follow the oldest and best, huh?

The difference in meaning is the KJB says one who does not know that we have God's commandments is to be left in the state of ignorance. He is not truly spiritual and is no true prophet.

The meaning of the NASB, NIV, ESV and Catholic bible is that this person is not recognized by others. There are multitudes of modern scholars and Bible correctors who are widely recognized, applauded, respected and listened to every day. They are hardly ignored; YET THEY ARE IGNORANT, and so are those who follow them in their folly.



1 Corinthians 15 "Your faith is not in vain"

15:2 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wheren ye stand; By which also ye are saved, IF YE KEEP IN MEMORY what I preached unto you, UNLESS ye have believed in vain."

Many Christians misunderstand the phrase "unless ye have believed in vain". The Holy Ghost through Paul is expounding upon the central importance of the resurrection of Christ. If there is no resurrection, there is no true Christianity and the faith we profess is in vain. It is worthless because not based on reality.

Compare verses 13,14, 17 and 58. "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching VAIN, and your faith is also VAIN." "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is VAIN; ye are yet in your sins." Then he continues to show the reality of the resurrection and ends the chapter with: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is NOT IN VAIN in the Lord."

What we believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ is not in vain because it is the truth. Verse 15:2 is not teaching that if we hold on tight then we will be saved. We can hold on very tightly, but if the doctrine of the resurrection is not true, then it is all in vain.

The NIV has completely missed the meaning of the verse. The NIV say in 15:2: "By this gospel (not in any text) you are saved, IF YOU HOLD FIRMLY TO THE WORD I preached to you. OTHERWISE, you have believed in vain." This is basically the same as the New Jerusalem bible which says: "you are saved by it, if you keep to the message I preached to you, OTHERWISE your coming to believe was in vain."

The NIV and Catholic bible are teaching the erroneous view that unless we hang on tightly we have believed in vain. This is mainly accomplished by the change of a single word. They change UNLESS to OTHERWISE and the whole meaning is altered. We are not holding on to God but He is holding on to us. We are secure in Christ Jesus our Lord and our faith is not in vain, because the resurrection of Christ really happened.



The King James Bible is right, as always, and the statement by scholarly experts such as James White, who works for the NASB committee, that we need to compare all versions to get an accurate sense of the meaning, is utter nonsense and confusion.

Stick with the old King James Bible and you will not go wrong. 
 

 I Cor. 15:33 "Be not deceived: EVIL COMMUNICATIONS CORRUPT GOOD MANNERS."

  Paul has been talking about the doctrine of the resurrection, and how our whole faith is made vain if this fact is not true. He has mentioned in verse 12 "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

    Imagine that, some "Christians" were saying and telling others that there is no such thing as the resurrection. This is the context of Paul's statement in verse 33 - evil communications. 

    The word is homiliai - plural, not singular, and it comes from the verb to speak, to talk, to commune. It pertains to what is being said; thus communications. We get the word homily from this Greek word.

The verb is homilew and is found four times in the New Testament.  In Luke 24:14 it is translated as "talked" - "and they TALKED together of all these things which had happened."  In Luke 24:15 "while they COMMUNED", Acts 20:11 "and TALKED a long while, even till break of day", and in Acts 24:26 "wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and COMMUNED with him."

 The Wycliffe bible 1395 says "evil speeches destroy good conduct".  Tyndale renders 1 Cor. 15:33 as "malicious speakings corrupt good manners". The Great Bible of 1540 says: "1Co. 15:33 Be not ye deceaued: euell wordes corrupte good maners."  Matthew's Bible of 1549 has: "1Co. 15:33 Be not deceiued: malicious speakinges corrupte good maners." While the Geneva Bible says: "evil speakings corrupt good manners."  The Bishop's Bible 1568 has: "evil words corrupt good manners."

Agreeing with the King James Bible "evil communications corrupt good manners" are Young's, Darby, the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims - "Evil communications corrupt good manners.",  Coverdale 1535, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Douay Version 1950, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez all agree with the Greek and the KJB reading: - "las malas conversaciones corrompen las buenas costumbres." and the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and the recent Bíblia Sagrada - "as más conversações corrompem os bons costumes." 

However the NKJV, NASB, and NIV, as well as many other modern versions like the RSV, ESV, ISV and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible have messed up what this verse actually says, and have replaced it with a popular proverb: "Bad company corrupts good morals." The New Jerusalem says: "Bad company corrupts good ways." Well, this may be true, but it is not what God has inspired to be written here in this verse. The ESV and New Jerusalem bible and now the NIV 2011 (not the previous 1984 NIV) all unite in giving us a footnote that tell us that the apostle Paul was probably quoting a popular proverb from the literary comedy called Menander's Thais!!! I would say "bad bibles corrupt good minds." 

Get yourself the true Bible, the Authorized King James Holy Bible, the only one believed by thousands to be the complete, inerrant and 100% historically true words of the living God. 

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Notes on 1 Corinthians showing the Catholic influence in versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB and NKJV.

 

"Will the true Bible please stand up". This is easy. The true one has been standing in the English language for over 400 years now. The false ones have been falling by the wayside one after another. They come out with big fanfare, are popular for a few years, and then are cast into the dustbin of oblivion. The "scholarly" NASB is rapidly following in the footsteps of its abandoned predecessor, the ASV of 1901, and, with those who desire to have their ears tickled with something new, is now being replaced by the NIV and the ESV.

 

Others, with little spiritual discernment or reverence for the words of God, have ignorantly taken up the NKJV, thinking it is just like the KJB but with "modern" speech. In this study we will be comparing the modern versions with the new Catholic bibles like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.  We will clearly see the influence of the Catholic-Evangelical Combine put together in the current United Bible Society (UBS) Greek texts and the "inter-confessional" bible translations now being churned out and foisted on an increasingly indifferent and undiscerning public market.

 

1 Corinthians 1:18 KJB - “ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto US WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God.”


NKJV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT - “ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us WHO ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.”


Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - “…but for THOSE OF US WHO ARE ON THE ROAD TO SALVATION it is the power of God.”


A man names William Lance Huget fancies himself to be quite the expert in Greek and he thinks the KJB’s “are saved” is wrong.  He says: “Since the Greek is a present participle, perishing/being saved is the best translation. The KJV translators got it right in other places using the same underlying grammar, but they are weak here…The Bible also does not teach OSAS. A believer can still fall away/apostasize. There is no conspiracy. Change your views to match the Bible instead of changing the Bible to match your views.” [End of Bible critic’s remarks]


1 Corinthians 1:18 KJB - “ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto US WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God.”



This is not a case of a textual variant, but of how the verb is translated.


The words “but to us which ARE SAVED” are τοις δε σωζομενοις ημιν δυναμις θεου εστιν


The verb under question is a present passive participle. The present participle often serves as a verbal adjective. All bible versions often translate present participles in this way.  Here are a few examples of present participles being translated in the same way as the KJB has “are saved”


Matthew 26:28 “ For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”  - IS SHED =  NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET - “IS POURED OUT”.  Not “is being poured out”


Matthew 1:16 “of whom was born Jesus, who IS CALLED Christ.” - NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET = IS CALLED Christ.  Not “is being called Christ”


Galatians 2:16 - “ Knowing that a man IS not JUSTIFIED by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” - NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET - IS JUSTIFIED. Not “is being justified”.


Ephesians 5:13 - “all things that ARE REPROVED are made manifest by the light” - NKJV, NASB, ESV, NET - ARE EXPOSED. Not “are being exposed”


James 2:9 “ARE CONVINCED of the law as transgressors” - NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET - ARE CONVINCED.  Not “are being convinced”


Hebrews 12:5 “nor faint when THOU ART REBUKED of him” - NKJV, ESV, NASB - “when you ARE REPROVED”. Not “are being reproved”


1 Corinthians 11:32 - “But when WE ARE JUDGED, we are chastened of the Lord” - NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET = KJB.

 

Luke 13:23 "Lord, are there few that be saved?"

 

It is more than a little hypocritical for these modern version advocates to claim that the KJB is wrong for translation a present passive participle as "ARE SAVED", when many of them do the very same thing in Luke 13:23 The verb here is another present passive participle - οι σωζομενοι  

 

Yet versions like the ESV, NKJV, ASV say: "Lord, are there few who ARE SAVED?”

 

The same thing happens in Revelation 21:24 but here we have a textual variation.  In the King James Bible as well as the NKJV we read "And the nations OF THEM WHICH ARE SAVED shall walk in the light of it."  

 

This is the reading of the traditional Reformation bibles, but the Critical text versions omit the words "of them that are saved"

 

Once again it is a present passive participle, and the NKJV translates it as "And the nations of those who ARE SAVED shall walk in its light".

 


Back to 1 Corinthians 1:18 - “but unto US WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God.”



Agreeing with the reading found in the KJB of “unto us which ARE SAVED” are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bbiel 1587, Beza’s N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston’s N.T. 1745,  John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, the Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, the Clarke N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, the Thomson N.T. 1816, the Wakefied N.T. 1820, the Kneeland N.T. 1823, the Dickinson N.T. 1833, Websters Bible 1833, The Living Oracles 1835, the Pickering N.T. 1840, the Longman Version 1841, the Hussey N.T. 1845, the Morgan N.T. 1848, the Etheridge Translation 1849, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Julia Smith Translation 1855,  Sawyer N.T. 1858 - “to the saved”, the Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, the Anderson N.T. 1865, the Ainslie N.T. 1869, the Smith Bible 1876 - “to us saved”, Darby 1890, the ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Anderson N.T. 1918, Lamsa’s Translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, the Douay Version 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, God’s First Truth 1999,  The World English Bible 2000, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Tomson New Testament 2002 - “to us which ARE SAVED”, The Evidence Bible 2003, the Context Group Version 2007, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Revised Geneva Bible 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010 - “to us WHO ARE SAVED it is the power of God”, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The World English Bible, The Conservative Bible 2011 - “to those of us who are going to Heaven” (a paraphrase, but still true), The New Simplified Bible 2011, and The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 “to them that ARE SAVED, it is the power of God”

 

The Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 also has it right. 1 Corintios 1:18 - “Porque la predicación de la cruz, locura es, a la verdad, para los que perecen; mas para nosotros, que SOMOS SALVOS, es poder de Dios.” = WE ARE SAVED

 

The Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 got it right - “Perciocchè la parola della croce è ben pazzia a coloro che periscono; ma a noi, che SIAM SALVATI, è la potenza di Dio.” = WE ARE SAVED


The Portuguese Almeida 2009 got it right - “Porque a palavra da cruz é deveras loucura para os que perecem; mas para nós, que SOMOS SALVOS, é o poder de Deus.”  = WE ARE SAVED


The French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 got it right - “Car la prédication de la croix est une folie pour ceux qui périssent; mais pour nous qui SOMMES SAUVES, elle est une puissance de Dieu.” = WE ARE SAVED


The Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 got it right - “dar nouă care suntem salvaţi, ne este puterea lui Dumnezeu.” = we that ARE SAVED


 


The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it!


God bless.

 

 

I Corinthians 3:5 KJB "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, EVEN AS THE LORD GAVE TO EVERY MAN?" 

 

τις ουν εστιν παυλος τις δε απολλως αλλ η διακονοι δι ων επιστευσατε και εκαστω ως ο κυριος εδωκεν 

 

     This carnal church of believers was in danger of splitting apart at the seams because they had their focus on different great teachers instead of seeing Christ as the source of their salvation and author of their faith.

 

  It is the Lord Himself who gives the gift of faith to His own people; it does not come from man himself. See Romans 12:3; Phil. 1:29, Heb. 12:2; Acts 13:48; 14:27; 18:27; Eph. 2:8-9 and Titus 1:1 for just a few examples of this truth. This is clearly what the verse teaches and is confirmed by the very next verse: "I have planted, Apollos watered; BUT GOD GAVE THE INCREASE."

 

Man can sow the word of truth and another can come along and water it with more teaching, but unless God quickens it and produces life, it is all in vain.

 

The RV, ASV, Geneva, Tyndale, NKJV, Darby and Spanish all agree with the KJB - "ministers by whom ye believed, EVEN AS THE LORD GAVE TO EVERY MAN?". Spanish Reina Valera - "¿Qué, pues, es Pablo, y qué es Apolos? Servidores por medio de los cuales habéis creído; y eso según lo que a cada uno concedió el Señor.

 

However the NASB says "servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord GAVE OPPORTUNITY to each one."

 

The NASB has italicized this word "opportunity", but is changes the meaning to fit more with modern, easy on the ears, flattering to the ego and promoting self esteem theology of today's "I chose of my own free will to believe the gospel and got saved" Christians. The NASB implies that God only gives you the opportunity to believe, but the decision is up to you. This is false doctrine.  

 

See my article "Why do some believe the gospel and others do not?"

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/originoffaith.htm 

 

     The NIV gives this verse a whole new slant than even the NASB. The NIV says: "servants, through whom you believed--AS THE LORD HAS ASSIGNED TO EACH HIS TASK."

 

There are no words in any text anywhere that say "his task". By this ruse, the NIV simply changes the meaning and says the tasks of Paul and Apollos was to preach, and avoids here the whole doctrine that God is the Giver of saving faith.

 

The ESV is similar to the NIV in that it says: "What then is Apollos?  What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, AS THE LORD ASSIGNED TO EACH." 

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The Catholic Douay 1950 says: "What then is Apollos? What indeed is Paul?  They are servants of him whom you have believed - SERVANTS according as God has given to each TO SERVE."  The capitalized words are NOT in the Greek text, and this reads like the NASB.  

 

The Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 reads like the NIV and ESV. It says: "After all, who is Apollos?  And who is Paul? Simply ministers through whom you became believers, EACH OF THEM DOING ONLY WHAT the Lord ASSIGNED HIM."

 

 This is the type of thing that is referred to in another letter to the Corinthians by the Holy Ghost when Paul said "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God".

 

Some Commentators

 

John Gill - "but ministers by whom ye believed: they were servants to Christ and to his churches, and not lords; they did not assume any dominion over men, or pretend to lord it over God's heritage; there is but one Lord and master, and that is Christ, whom they served, and taught others to obey; they were only instrumental in the hand of God, by whom souls were directed, encouraged, and brought to believe in Christ; as for faith itself, that is the gift of God, the operation of his power, and of which Christ is the author and finisher; they laid no claim to this as their work, or imagined they had any dominion over it; that they could either implant it, or increase it of themselves; but thought it honour enough done them, that it came by their ministry.”

 

even as the Lord gave to every man; gifts to minister with, and success to his ministry; making him useful to this and the other man, to bring him to the faith of Christ; all which is owing to the free grace and sovereign good will and pleasure of God.”

 

Charles Spurgeon 1 Corinthians 3:5-6Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.  Let God, then, have all the glory. Be grateful for the planter, and grateful for the waterer, ay, and grateful to them as well; but, still, let the stress of your gratitude be given to him without whom watering and planting would be in vain."


 

 

I Corinthians 4:7 KJB "FOR WHO MAKETH THEE TO DIFFER FROM ANOTHER? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

 

     I personally just love this verse. It gives all the glory to God, and none to man. If I am different in any way, or have any good, or see any truth,  it is solely because of the good pleasure of Almighty God. Most versions teach the same thing here, even the NKJV and NIV. 

 

     But when we look at the NASB, something is just a little bit out of place. The NASB asks: "FOR WHO REGARDS YOU AS SUPERIOR" instead of "FOR WHO MAKETH THEE TO DIFFER FROM ANOTHER?"

 

What does the NASB even mean? and how would you answer the question? 

 

The ESV is equally confusing.  It says: "FOR WHO SEES ANYTHING DIFFERENT IN YOU?"  If we answer - GOD, then is there something different in us by nature that is better than what is found in others?

 

The New Jerusalem bible says: "WHO MADE YOU SO IMPORTANT?" Again, if we say God, then is there something different in us who have come to believe in Christ that is not found in the others?  Are we smarter, or better, or more spiritual by natural inclination? 

 

My Bible says God makes of the same lump one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. Romans 9:21.   How about yours?

 

    The obvious answer to the question in the KJB, NKJV and even the NIV is "God, of course". Now if you answer "God" to the NASB or the ESV, does God regard me as superior? Or does God see something different in me that is not in others?  I thought He said He chose the foolish, weak, and despised to confound the wise, mighty and exalted, that no flesh should glory in His presence.

 

 

1 Corinthians 6:20 KJB - “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, AND IN YOUR SPIRIT, WHICH ARE GOD’S.”


ESV (NIV, NASB, Holman, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic Versions) - “for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”


The words “AND IN YOUR SPIRIT, WHICH ARE GOD’S.” are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as C and D corrections, K, L, P, Psi. They are found in the Syraic Peshitta and Harclean, The Armenian and Slavonic ancient versions.


The words are omitted mainly in the Egyptian manuscripts of P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.  The Latin Vulgate also omits these additional words.


Bibles that read like the King James Bible are the Reformation Bibles in all languages.  The Vatican Versions omit them.


The words “AND IN YOUR SPIRIT, WHICH ARE GOD’S.” are found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young’s 1898, The translations from the Syriac Peshitta by Etheridge, Murdock and Lamsa 1933, J. B. Phillips N.T. in Modern English 1972, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green’s literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scriputures 2010 - “and in your spirit, which are Elohim (אלהים)’s.”, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015.


Foreign Language Bibles 



Foreign Language Bibles that include the words “AND IN YOUR SPIRIT, WHICH ARE GOD’S.” in 1 Corinthians 6:20 are Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “und in eurem Geist, die Gott gehören!”, the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the Louis Segond 1910 and 2007 editions - “et dans votre esprit qui appartiennent à Dieu”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, and the Reina Valera 2011 - “y en su espíritu, los cuales son de Dios.” and the Spanish La Biblia de las Américas 1997, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - “e nel vostro spirito, che appartengono a Dio”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible, The Czech BKR, the Russian Synodal bible, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998, the Afrikaans bible 1953, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “e no vosso espírito, os quais pertencem a Deus.” and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.


It is also the reading found in the Modern Greek Bible - Διοτι ηγορασθητε δια τιμης· δοξασατε λοιπον τον Θεον δια του σωματος σας και δια του πνευματος σας, τα οποια ειναι του Θεου.


And the Modern Hebrew Bible - כי במחיר נקניתם על כן כבדו את האלהים בגופכם וברוחכם אשר לאלהים המה׃


This is the traditional reading in all Reformation Bibles, and in many modern ones as well,  in a multitude of languages.


Or you can  go with the traditional Catholic and the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman.  


But God did not both inspire these words and not inspire them in the same verse.  


I along with many thousands of other Bible believers choose the only Bible seriously believed to be the inerrant words of God - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


 

 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "WE KNOW THAT AN IDOL IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD". - οιδαμεν οτι ουδεν ειδωλον εν κοσμω



 

So read Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible - "we know that an idol IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD", Webster's 1833, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Holman 2009 and even the  NIV 2011 - "an idol IS NOTHING AT ALL IN THE WORLD".

 

Even the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 read like the KJB - "we know that AN IDOL IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD, and that there is no God but one." 

 

The word "nothing" - ουδεν - in this context simply means that it has no value, significance or real meaning. It does NOT mean that it doesn't exist, because they obviously DO exist.  The word "nothing" is used this way in several Scriptures.

 

For example, in John 8:54 the Lord Jesus says: "If I honour myself, my honour is NOTHING (ουδεν): it is my Father that honoureth me"  

 

And in Acts 21:24 "...and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are NOTHING: but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."  

 

Three other times in this same epistle we read: "Circumcision is NOTHING, and uncircumcision is NOTHING" (1 Corinthians 7:19),

 

"...and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am NOTHING." (1 Corinthians 13:2)

 

 

"An idol is nothing in the world" =  An idol is just a piece of wood or stone; it has no real value, meaning or spiritual power.

 

However, the vaunted NASB 1963-1995 comes out with another gem in 1 Corinthians 8:4. It actually says: "We know that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IDOL IN THE WORLD."  

 

No such thing as an idol?!?

 

I'm sure the Catholic church is delighted with this verse. This is clearly a stupid statement put out by the type of men God refers to when He says that He will destroy the wisdom of the wise.

 

The ESV totally paraphrases the verse, and says: "WE KNOW THAT AN IDOL HAS NO REAL EXISTENCE."

 

Besides not translating (omitting) the words found in all texts "in the world - εν κοσμω" it also teaches a falsehood  with its silly paraphrase. The Greek word "nothing - ουδεν" in the ESV becomes "HAS NO REAL EXISTENCE".  Idols DO exist and everybody knows it.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

As I mentioned before, the previous Douay-Rheims of 1582 actually got it right. It reads "we know THAT AN IDOL IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD".

 

 

BUT the Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 reads similar to the ESV, saying: "WE KNOW THAT IDOLS DO NOT REALLY EXIST IN THE WORLD".  Here they at least actually translated the words "in the world", which the ESV flat out omitted.  

 

So, if you go into a Catholic church and you see all those statues and images that people kneel down before and pray to, they "obviously" must not be IDOLS, because "idols do not really exist", right?

 

The Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 says: "we are well aware that none of THE FALSE GODS EXISTS in reality".  The word is "idols" eidolon - ειδωλον, not "false gods". This Catholic rendering shifts the focus away from their idols...er, statues and images, to the  "false gods".

 

 

 

If “there is no such thing as an idol” (NASB) and “idols have no real existence” (ESV) then why in the Old the New Testaments are we constantly warned against making, worshipping or following after idols? 

 


Not only are most modern versions based on the same UBS/Nestle-Aland/Catholic Critical Greek New Testament, which was edited by the Jesuit cardinal Carlo Martini, but there are also several other readings that go hand in glove with official Catholic doctrine.

 

One of the main differences in the traditional Lord's Prayer has been the ending used by Protestants as opposed to that used by the Catholic church. When Jesus starts to teach His disciples to pray He first states: "But when ye pray, USE NOT VAIN REPETITIONS, as the heathen do." Matthew 6:7 

 

Protestants have for centuries applied this phrase of "vain repetitions" to the use of the Rosary, where the same words "Hail Mary, full of grace, pray for us sinners...." is repeated over and over. These are vain repetitions. VAIN REPITITIONS is the reading of the KJV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, TMB, KJV 21, Young's, Darby's, World English Bible, Webster's, and the Spanish Reina Valera's "vanas repeticiones".

 

However to accomodate the Catholics use of the Rosary and not to condemn it, the NASB now reads: "Do not use meaningless repetition" while the NIV says: "Do not keep on babbling". The Catholic New Jerusalem reads like the NIV with "do not babble like the gentiles do". The Catholics can easily say their Rosary is not meaningless nor is it babbling, but it is certainly "vain repetition".

 

The traditional Protestant reading of the Lord's Prayer is "Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."

 

 

This last part is found in the Greek manuscripts at a 100 to 1 ratio. It is in the ancient versions of the Syriac, Coptic, Old Latin, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopian versions. It is in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati and in Luther's German translation.

 

However this last phrase is omitted in the RSV, NRSV, ESV, the Jehovah Witness bible, the NIV and in all Catholic versions. The NASB puts the phrase {in brackets}. Now today's modern Christians can repeat alongside their Catholic friends the Lord's prayer without that embarrassing addition of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, for ever. Amen."

 

 

See the article on what is called the Lord's prayer as found in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew613.htm

 

More subtle changes in wording are such as are found in the NASB. In Luke 21:5 "gifts" becomes "votive gifts"; in Luke 11:38 "washed" becomes "ceremoniously washed"; In I Corinthians 9:27 "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection" becomes "I buffet my body and make it my slave" (NASB) and "I beat my body and make it my slave" (NIV). This ties in with the Catholic idea of self flagellation.

 

Instead ot those who ARE SAVED - "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God." - the NKJV, ESV, NIV and NASB now read "to us who ARE BEING SAVED". See I Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15. This fits in with the Catholic doctrines. No Catholic would say he is saved, but he is in the process of being saved. The Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 says: "for those of us WHO ARE ON THE ROAD TO SALVATION it is the power of God."

 

The doorway has now been opened in many new version to promote the Catholic doctrine that we can pray for the souls who have already died to be forgiven their sins.

 

In Psalms 79:8, 9 we read: "O remember not against US FORMER INIQUITIES: let thy tender mercies speedily prevent us: for we are brought very low. Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake."

 

Remember not against us FORMER iniquites ties in nicely with Psalm 25:7 "Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions." FORMER iniquities would be sins we ourselves have committed in the past and is the reading of the KJV, NKJV, KJV 21, Geneva Bible, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's, Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, the New Century Version and the 2001 English Standard Version. Even a modern paraphrase like the New Living Translation says: "Do not hold us guilty for our former sins."

 

However when we get to the NASB we now read: "Remember not the iniquity of OUR FOREFATHERS". From the NASB reading we can get the idea that we can ask God to forgive and not remember the sins of those who have died and gone on before us. The NASB concordance shows they have translated this Hebrew word as 'former' 25 times and as 'forefathers' only once. The NIV 1984 edition says: "Do not hold against us the sins of the fathers." and the "new" 2011 NIV has now changed this to: "Do not hold against us the sins of past generations." The New Jerusalem bible has: "Do not count against us the guilt of former generations."

 

All roads lead to Rome, as the saying goes. All the new versions are recommended by the Catholic church today except one. Guess which one the Catholic church hates with a passion. That's right; only the King James Bible. Take a wild guess as to why that might be.

 

See the Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB are today's "new" Catholic bible versions -

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

 

 

I Corinthians 9-11

 

9:1 "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus CHRIST our Lord?"

 

The majority of Greek texts read just as the KJB, but the Alexandrian texts reverse the word order here and the NASB, NIV, ESV read: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle?"; and so does the Catholic New Jerusalem bible. The Alexandrian texts, as we shall see in this short section, constantly disagree with each other as well as the traditional text.

 

Likewise the Alexandrian texts omit the word CHRIST, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and so does the Catholic New Jerusalem bible. Jesus CHRIST our Lord is the majority reading as well as the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic, Gothic and Armenian ancient versions.

 

9:18 "I may make the gospel OF CHRIST without charge" is the majority reading, the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet the NASB, NIV, ESV omit the words of Christ because not in the Alexandrian texts, and so does the New Jerusalem bible.

 

 

1 Corinthians 9:27 KJB - "BUT I KEEP UNDER my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."


  

 

NIV 1984 edition - "No, I BEAT MY BODY and make it my slave"

 

NIV 2011 edition - “No, I STRIKE A BLOW TO MY BODY and make it my slave”

 

Jehovah Witness New World Translation - "I PUMMEL my body and lead it as MY SLAVE"

 

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - “I PUNISH MY BODY and bring it under control.”  

 

Just as the apostle Paul is not literally talking about running a foot race nor literally fighting in the ring when he says: "I therefore so RUN, not as uncertainly; so FIGHT I, NOT AS ONE THAT BEATETH THE AIR" (1 Corinthians 9:26) neither is he literally speaking of beating his own body under the eyes till he is black and blue.

 

 

The phrase translated as "I KEEP UNDER my body" is αλλ υπωπιαζω μου το σωμα.  

 

There are many different ways various Bible versions have translated this Greek word. Some take it in a more literal sense of "to beat under the eyes, or to make black and blue" and others take it in a more figurative manner.  

 

As the King James Bible translates it - "I KEEP UNDER my body" the phrase basically means "I DISCIPLINE my body" and several modern versions have taken this approach as well.  

 

However some versions end up making no sense at all by having Paul beat himself black and blue. That is no way to get ready for an athletic contest.  

 

The metaphor here in 1 Corinthians 9 is that of an athlete who is in training. No athlete "buffets" or "beats down" or "strikes a blow to" his body in order to get ready for a race or a fight with another. To translate it in such a way is to end up with an absurdity and to promote the false religious practice of self flagellation or self beating.  

 

Julia Smith Translation 1855 - "But I GIVE MY BODY A BLOW UNDER THE EYES, and reduce to bondage"

 

Common English bible 2011 - "I'm LANDING PUNCHES ON MY OWN BODY and subduing like a slave."

 

Let's look at how various versions have translated this phrase.


Agreeing with the KJB “I KEEP UNDER MY BODY” are The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley’s translation 1755, Webster's Translation 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012 - "I KEEP UNDER MY BODY and bring it into subjection." and The Modern English Version 2014 - "I KEEP and BRING MY BODY UNDER SUBJECTION, lest when preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."


 

Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Great Bible 1540,  Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “But I TAME my body, and bryng it into subjection”

 

Murdock's translation of Syriac 1852 - "But I SUBDUE my body

 

KJV 21st Century Version 1994 - "But I KEEP CONTROL OF MY BODY and bring it under subjection"

 

Contemporary English Version 1995 - "I KEEP MY BODY UNDER CONTROL and make it my slave"


Geneva bible - “But I BEATE DOWNE my body, & bring it into subiection” 


NIV 1984 edition - "No, I BEAT MY BODY and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

 

Jehovah Witness New World Translation - "I PUMMEL my body and lead it as MY SLAVE"


NIV 2011 edition - “No, I STRIKE A BLOW TO MY BODY and make it my slave”


ASV 1901, Darby - “but I BUFFET my body, and bring it into subjection"


NASB 1995, The New European Version 2010 - “but I DISCIPLINE my body and make it my slave"


ESV 2011, Pickering N.T. 2005, Mebust Bible 2007- But I DISCIPLINE my body and keep it under control"

 

NET 2006 - "I SUBDUE my body and make it my slave."

 

World Wide English N.T. 1998 - " But I CONTROL my own body really well."  

 

New International Readers Version 1998, Conservative bible 2010 - "No, I TRAIN my body and bring it under control"

 

Goodspeed N.T. 1923 - "But I BEAT AND BRUISE my body and make it my slave."  

 

 

Common English Bible 2011 - "I'M LANDING PUNCHES ON MY OWN BODY and subduing it like a slave."

 


Holman Standard 2009, New Living Translation 2007 - “I DISCIPLINE my body and bring it under strict control”

 

Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582, Young's  - “But I CHASTISE my body and bring it into subjection”

 

Names of God Bible 2011 - "Rather, I TOUGHEN MY BODY WITH PUNCHES and make it my slave"


St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - “I DISCIPLINE my own body and master it" 


Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - “I PUNISH MY BODY and bring it under control.”

 

Good News Bible 1992 - "I HARDEN MY BODY WITH BLOWS"

 

Lexham English Bible 2012 - " But I DISCIPLINE my body and subjugate it"

 

RSV 1952 - "But I POMMEL MY BODY and SUBDUE IT"

 

Living Bible 1971 - " Like an athlete I PUNISH MY BODY, TREATING IT ROUGHLY"

 

NRSV  1989 - "I PUNISH MY BODY AND ENSLAVE IT"

 

A Conservative Version 2005 - " But I GIVE MY BODY A BLACK EYE and subdue it"  

 

Bible Commentators

 

Bible commentators, like bible versions, often differ radically from each other about the meaning of a passage, but several have noted the FIGURATIVE and METAPHORICAL nature of the imagery used here in this passage.


Coffman’s Commentary on the Bible - “Buffet my body ... IS METAPHORICAL AND DOES NOT REFER TO ANY TYPE OF FLAGELLATION such as was practiced by ascetics as a means of religious discipline. It indicates that every Christian, as Paul did, should exercise the sternest self-control over the body, its desires and appetites being a powerful source of temptation in all people.”

John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes - “But I keep under my body - By all kinds of self denial. And bring it into subjection - To my spirit and to God. THE WORDS ARE STRONGLY FIGURATIVE, and signify the mortification of the body of sin, "by an allusion to the natural bodies of those who were bruised or subdued in combat.”

Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible - “The term is a pugilistic one; literally, to black-eye one. Paul REFERS NOT, AS THE ROMANISTS PERVERT THE WORD, TO ANY BODILY FLAGELLATION, any more than beateth the air refers to a muscular blow. Nor, as Mr. Alford well says, does it refer even to “fasting and prayer,” but to the self-subduing and self-denial, as we have specified in note to 1 Corinthians 9:25. 

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “27. keep under--literally, "bruise the face under the eyes," so as to render it black and blue; so, to chastise in the most sensitive part. Compare "mortify the deeds of the body,”Romans 8:13; also 1 Peter 2:11. IT IS NOT ASCETIC FASTS OR MACERATIONS OF THE BODY WHICH ARE HERE RECOMMENDED, BUT KEEPING UNDER our natural self-seeking, so as, like Paul, to lay ourselves out entirely for the great work.” 

 



KJB - “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”

Agreeing with the KJB “I KEEP UNDER MY BODY” is Wesley’s translation 1755, 

NIV 1984 edition - No, I BEAT MY BODY  and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

NIV 2011 edition - “No, I STRIKE A BLOW TO MY BODY and make it my slave”

ASV 1901 - “but I buffet my body, and bri5ng it into bondage:

NASB - “but I DISCIPLINE my  body and make it my slave,

ESV - But I DISCIPLINE my body and [1] keep it under control

Holman Standard - “I discipline my body and bring it under strict control”

Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible - “But I tame my body, and bryng it into subiection”

Geneva bible - “But I beate downe my body, & bring it into subiection”

Darby - “But I buffet my body, and lead it captive”

Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 - “But I chastise my body and bring it into subjection”

St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - “I discipline my own body and master it.”

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - “I PUNISH MY BODY and bring it under control.”


KJB more probable methphor

 

1 Corinthians 10:9 "Neither let us tempt CHRIST, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of the destroyer."

 

This verse strongly attests to the full deity of Christ. It tells us that the children of Israel, who in the Old Testament tempted God, were actually tempting Christ. Christ is God.

 

CHRIST is the reading of the majority of all Greek manuscripts, P46 which is the oldest, dating to 200 A.D., D, F, G, K, L, Psi, the Old Latin ar, b, d, den, e, f, g, o, z, z, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Georgian and is so quoted by Epiphanius, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Ambrosiaster, Ephraem, Ambrose and Chrysostom. Agreeing with the KJB reading of "let us not tempt CHRIST, as some of them also tempted" are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998,  NRSV 1989, ESV 2001-2011, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Common English Bible 2011, Third Millennium Bible 1998 and Jubilee Bible 2000.  

 

Foreign language Bibles that have always read "let us not tempt CHRIST" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909 (but not 1960, 1995) and 2011 - "Ni tentemos al CRISTO, como también algunos de ellos lo tentaron",  Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Lasset uns aber auch CHRISTUM niche versuchen", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Riveduta 2006 - "E non tentiamo CRISTO", the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996, and Louis Segond 2007 - "Et ne tentons point le CHRIST", Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Se a KRISTZTUST ne kísértsük", Russian Synodal Bible - "Не станем искушать Христа", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "Huwag din nating subukin si Cristo",  the Modern Greek Bible - "Μηδε ας πειραζωμεν τον Χριστον", and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ולא ננסה את המשיח כאשר נסוהו מקצתם ויאבדום הנחשים׃ = "the Messiah".


However Siniaticus and Vaticanus read THE LORD, which could refer to God the Father and not the Son, and so the NASB 1963-1995 editions and the NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions say: "we should not test the LORDas some of them did".

 

Westcott and Hort went with "THE LORD" and so read the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestles 21st edition 1975. I have hard copies of both. Also reading "let us not tempt THE LORD" are the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1912, Rotherham 1902, Revised Standard Versions 1946-1971, Living Bible 1971, World English Bible, Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice 2012 and so does the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985. 


One of the other Alexandrian texts called A (codex Alexandrinus) says "let us not tempt GOD, as some of them did" and following this reading was J.P. Phillips N.T. 1962.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The earlier Douay Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay both read: "Let us not tempt CHRIST".  But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all changed this to "Let us not tempt THE LORD". BUT now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has once again gone back to "And let us not tempt CHRIST, as some of them tempted, and so they perished by serpents." 

 

AND now the latest United Bible Society and Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts have changed their text and gone back to the KJB reading of CHRIST. The NEW NIV 2011 has also changed their underlying Greek texts here and now reads "should not test CHRIST". 

 

So now the NASB 1995, NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions, Names of God Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012 are all out of date with the ever changing views of todays scholars.  

 

Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick to it. It is God's complete and inerrant words of truth and grace.

 

10:20 "But I say, that the things which THE GENTILES sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God."

 

Vaticanus omits "the Gentiles" but it is found in Sinaiticus and this time the NASB leaves it in; so do the ESV and NIV but they translate the word as "the pagans" as does the Catholic New Jerusalem.  But in verse 11 where it says: "Now ALL these things happened unto them for ensamples", there the word ALL (panta) is in Sinaiticus but not in Vaticanus and now the NASB, NIV, ESV did the opposite and followed Vaticanus and omitted the word.

 

However the New Jerusalem bible keeps the word "all". Go figure. They do this sort of thing constantly where these two false witnesses disagree, one time following the one and the next the other - so as not to show any favoritism, I suppose.

 

10:28 "But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND THE FULNESS THEREOF".

 

This last part is omitted in the NASB, NIV, ESV and the New Jerusalem bible because not in the Alexandrian texts, though it is found in the majority of  all Greek texts and in Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Great Bible 1545, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 bibles, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1995, the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and Bíblia Sagrada bibles - "porque a terra é do Senhor, e toda a sua plenitude."  and the Modern Greek N.T. as seen on The Unbound Bible site to name but a few.

 

11:24 Regarding the celebration of the Lord's supper. " That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said: TAKE, EAT; this is my body, which IS BROKEN for you: this do in remembrance of me."

 

Here the words TAKE, EAT are found in the majority of texts including many uncial copies (capital letters), the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. Church fathers quote it such as Ambrosiaster, Basil, Euthalius, Chrysostom, Theodoret and John Damascus.

 

However the Alexandrian texts omit these words and so the NASB, ESV, NIV merely read: "he broke it and said, This is my body which is for you." Notice too the NASB, ESV, NIV all leave out that important word BROKEN for you. The Catholic bibles read the same as the ESV, NIV, NASBs.

 

The word IS BROKEN, refers not to Christ's bones, but rather to the lacerations and open wounds on his body caused by the thorns, the beating with a scourge, the nails in His hands and feet and the spear in His side.

 

"My body, which is BROKEN for you" is the reading of the majority, but also the correction of Sinaiticus and C, and in codex D as well as many other uncial copies, and almost all ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic and Armenian. But today's NASB, NIV, ESV, J.W. bible and RSV omit all these words "TAKE, EAT, BROKEN", as do the Catholic bibles.

 

11:27 'Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily (here Sinaiticus adds an additional OF THE LORD, but it is not in Vaticanus) shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 

11:29 "For he that eateth and drinketh UNWORTHILY, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the LORD'S body."

 

In this verse Vaticanus omits UNWORTHILY, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 though it is found in the majority of all Greek texts and in the correction of Sinaiticus and in D and many other uncials as well as ancient versions. The word "Lord's"in "not discerning the LORD'S body" is omitted by the NASB, ESV and Catholic New Jerusalem because not in Vaticanus, but it is found in the NIV 1984 edition because in the majority, Sinaiticus correction, D and many ancient versions. However now that the "New" New International Version has come out in 2011, they have once again changed their text to read: "without discerning the body OF CHRIST".  The 2011 NIV now adds "of Christ" yet these words are NOT found in any Greek text at all.

 

The previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible read exactly like the King James Bible with: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 

 

Thus we can see that most of the 5000 word changes made in the KJB by the NASB, NIV, ESV and other modern versions are because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet these two manuscripts are constantly differing from one another. 

 

1 Corinthians 13 

 

13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not CHARITY, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

 

Many modern bible proponents criticize the King James Bible for using the word charity. If they would only consult a dictionary they would find that one of the principal meanings of the word charity is Christian brotherly love. Even the word Love can have many meanings. What love might mean to Hugh Hefner is not the same as it would mean to a godly Christian.

 

The word charity expresses Christian love for other Christians. The word charity is never used in the King James Bible to express  the love relationship between God and man, a husband and wife, between parents and their children, or between the believer and the nonbeliever. It is always used in referrence to the love Christians should have for other Christians.

 

Not only does the King James Bible use the word Charity, but so also do the Geneva Bible 1599, Coverdale 1535 - Romans 14:15 "walkest thou not after charite"; Jude 12 "feasts of charite", Bishop's Bible 1568, the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible - "and have not charity",  Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755 "salute ye one another with a kiss of charity" 1 Peter 5:14, Webster's 1833 translation, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, the KJV 21st Century,  Green's Modern KJV 1998, and the Third Millenium Bible. It is not an archaic word and it is properly used in these various versions both old and new.

 

As noted many times, the so called oldest and best Alexandrian texts are responsible for the thousands of words omitted from the modern New Testament. Yet right here the original Sinaiticus manuscript omits all the following words from verses one and two. "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity".

 

This whole portion is missing from Sinaiticus but it is found in Vaticanus. They constantly differ from each other.

 

13:3 "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body TO BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

 

It is of interest to note that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have the spurious reading of: "And though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST" instead of "to be burned". This false reading is still in the UBS 4th edition as was adopted by Westcott and Hort. Yet the NASB, NIV, ESV and Catholic New Jerusalem thought better to go back to the majority text and read along with the KJB "to be burned", though all four versions give footnotes saying "some early manuscripts read "that I may boast."

 

In fact versions that have adopted this reading of THAT I MAY BOAST include the NRSV, and the New Living Translation called The Book, which is being promoted by Pat Robertson. It is interesting that the old Living Bible read just as the KJB, but now the new one changes it. The RSV read as the KJB, then the NRSV says "that I may boast", but now the new 2001 ESV revision has gone back to "to be burned". See where modern scholarship has taken the Christian community. They change their texts from one revision to the next, yet they tell us the message is the same, when it clearly isn't the same. 

 

The NASB, NIV, ESV have tossed out literally thousands of words based on both or only one of these false manuscripts, yet they didn't follow them here. Where is the consistency? 

 

13:5 Charity "SEEKETH NOT HER OWN, is not easily provoked, THINKETH NO EVIL."

 

Only Vaticanus reads: "does not seek THAT WHICH IS NOT HER OWN", which is the opposite in meaning. No one that I know of followed Vaticanus here. 

 

The greek is the same in all text for THINKETH NO EVIL, and this is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the previous Douay-Rheims "thinketh no evil", and several others. However the NASB says: "does not take into account a wrong suffered." All bibles do not mean the same thing. There is a difference between thinking no evil and not taking into account a wrong suffered. They are not the same. 

 

The NIV has: "keeps no record of wrongs", which again does not mean the same as "thinketh no evil", while the ESV has "is not resentful". The Catholic New Jerusalem bible says: "does not store up grievances". All of these are paraphrases that miss the point.

 

13:7 "BEARETH ALL THINGS". Here again, the texts are the same, but the NIV changes the meaning. "Beareth all things" is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV and others, but the NIV says "IT ALWAYS PROTECTS". That is not the same meaning as beareth all things.

 

1 Corinthians 14:38

 

It is a marvel to behold the twisted lies of modern scholarship. A case in point is verse 38. To get the context we will quote 37 as well.

 

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of God. But if any man be ignorant, LET HIM BE IGNORANT."

 

We have God's pure words today in the King James Bible. Through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost we have these words of truth. All of them. Yet if any man is ignorant of these things, let him be ignorant.

 

It reminds me of the words of our Lord and Saviour when he said in Matthew 15: 13,14: "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. LET THEM ALONE: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

 

The reading here of "let him be ignorant" is found in the majority of all Greek texts, the Textus Receptus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus correction and Sinaticus correction. It is found in P 46 which dates to about 150 years earlier than both Vaticanus and Sinaticus. It is the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Armenian and Ethiopic versions.

 

Even when Westcott - Hort changed the Greek text, still the Revised Version and the American Standard Version keep this reading of "Let him be ignorant"!

 

The NASB, NIV however have a very different reading. The NASB says: "but if anyone does not recognize this, HE IS NOT RECOGNIZED"; the ESV has: "if anyone does not recognize this, HE IS NOT RECOGNIZED while the NIV 1984 edition has: "If he ignores this, HE HIMSELF WILL BE IGNORED." However the 2011 "new" NIV now reads: "But if anyone ignores this, THEY WILL THEMSELVES BE IGNORED." The NKJV gives its usual footnote of doubt when it says the Nestles, United Bible Society text reads "he is not recognized". This subtle difference is only two letters in the Greek, but what a difference. Let him be ignorant is agnoeitW, while he is not recognized is agnoeitAI.

 

The Catholic New Jerusalem bible follows this spurious reading too (big Surprise;-) and it reads: "If anyone does not recognize this, it is because that person is not recognized himself."

 

This spurious reading is based on Sinaticus original and A original, yet both of these were later corrected by other scribes to agree with the traditional reading. Even Vaticanus and P46 read like the KJB. So the scholars follow the oldest and best, huh?

 

The difference in meaning is the KJB says one who does not know that we have God's commandments is to be left in the state of ignorance. He is not truly spiritual and is no true prophet.

 

The meaning of the NASB, NIV, ESV and Catholic bible is that this person is not recognized by others. There are multitudes of modern scholars and Bible correctors who are widely recognized, applauded, respected and listened to every day. They are hardly ignored; YET THEY ARE IGNORANT, and so are those who follow them in their folly.

 

1 Corinthians 15 "Your faith is not in vain"

 

15:2 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wheren ye stand; By which also ye are saved, IF YE KEEP IN MEMORY what I preached unto you, UNLESS ye have believed in vain."

 

Many Christians misunderstand the phrase "unless ye have believed in vain". The Holy Ghost through Paul is expounding upon the central importance of the resurrection of Christ. If there is no resurrection, there is no true Christianity and the faith we profess is in vain. It is worthless because not based on reality.

 

Compare verses 13,14, 17 and 58. "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching VAIN, and your faith is also VAIN." "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is VAIN; ye are yet in your sins." Then he continues to show the reality of the resurrection and ends the chapter with: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is NOT IN VAIN in the Lord."

 

What we believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ is not in vain because it is the truth. Verse 15:2 is not teaching that if we hold on tight then we will be saved. We can hold on very tightly, but if the doctrine of the resurrection is not true, then it is all in vain.

 

The NIV has completely missed the meaning of the verse. The NIV say in 15:2: "By this gospel (not in any text) you are saved, IF YOU HOLD FIRMLY TO THE WORD I preached to you. OTHERWISE, you have believed in vain." This is basically the same as the New Jerusalem bible which says: "you are saved by it, if you keep to the message I preached to you, OTHERWISE your coming to believe was in vain."

 

The NIV and Catholic bible are teaching the erroneous view that unless we hang on tightly we have believed in vain. This is mainly accomplished by the change of a single word. They change UNLESS to OTHERWISE and the whole meaning is altered. We are not holding on to God but He is holding on to us. We are secure in Christ Jesus our Lord and our faith is not in vain, because the resurrection of Christ really happened.

 

The King James Bible is right, as always, and the statement by scholarly experts such as James White, who works for the NASB committee, that we need to compare all versions to get an accurate sense of the meaning, is utter nonsense and confusion.   Stick with the old King James Bible and you will not go wrong. 

 

I Cor. 15:33 "Be not deceived: EVIL COMMUNICATIONS CORRUPT GOOD MANNERS."

 

NKJV 1982 - "Do not be deceived. EVIL COMPANY corrupts good HABITS."  NIV, ESV, RSV, NASB, NET, Holman etc.

 

The Voice 2012 - "But don’t be so naïve—there’s another saying you know well—Bad company corrupts good habits."

 

  Paul has been talking about the doctrine of the resurrection, and how our whole faith is made vain if this fact is not true. He has mentioned in verse 12 "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

 

    Imagine that, some "Christians" were saying and telling others that there is no such thing as the resurrection. This is the context of Paul's statement in verse 33 - evil communications. It is talking about what people were SAYING, and thereby teaching false doctrine; not "bad company".

 

    The word is homiliai ('ομιλιαι) - plural, not singular, and it comes from the verb to speak, to talk, to commune.  It pertains to what is being said; thus communications. We get the word homily from this Greek word.

 

The verb is homilew and is found four times in the New Testament.  In Luke 24:14 it is translated as "talked" - "and they TALKED together of all these things which had happened."  In Luke 24:15 "while they COMMUNED", Acts 20:11 "and TALKED a long while, even till break of day", and in Acts 24:26 "wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and COMMUNED with him."

 

 

 The Wycliffe bible 1395 says "evil speeches destroy good conduct".  Tyndale renders 1 Cor. 15:33 as "malicious speakings corrupt good manners". The Great Bible of 1540 says: "1Co. 15:33 Be not ye deceaued: euell wordes corrupte good maners."  Matthew's Bible of 1549 has: "1Co. 15:33 Be not deceiued: malicious speakinges corrupte good maners." While the Geneva Bible and Beza's New Testament 1599 both say: "evil speakings corrupt good manners."  The Bishop's Bible 1568 has: "evil words corrupt good manners."

 

"EVIL COMMUNICATIONS CORRUPT GOOD MANNERS"

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible "evil communications corrupt good manners" are Coverdale 1535, the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 - "Evil communications corrupt good manners.", the Bill Bible 1671, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795 - "evil conversations corrupt good manners.", The Revised Translation 1815, Webster's Bible 1833, The Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Longman Version 1841, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised New Testament 1862, Anderson N.T. 1866, The Noyes N.T. 1869, The Alford N.T. 1870 - "Evil communications corrupt good manners.", The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Douay Version 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "evil communications corrupt good manners.", The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2011 (Mebust) 

 

There are some different translations that still maintain the correct idea that it is words or what is spoken (false teachings) that corrupt the way we live. Here are a few of them -

 

 

Mace N.T. 1745 - “vicious conversation corrupts good morals."

 

The Worsley Version 1770 - “bad conversations corrupt good morals.”

 

The Thomson Bible 1808 - “good morals are debauched by talk profane.”

 

The Smith Bible 1876 - “Evil intercourses corrupt good habits.”

 

God’s First Truth 1999 - “malicious speakings corrupt good manners.”

 

Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - “Evil conversations are corrupting kind characters.”

 

 

The Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez all agree with the Greek and the KJB reading: - "las malas conversaciones corrompen las buenas costumbres." = "Evil conversations corrupt good manners" and the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and the recent Bíblia Sagrada - "as más conversações corrompem os bons costumes." 

 

However the NKJV, NASB, and NIV, as well as many other modern versions like the RSV, ESV, ISV and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible have messed up what this verse actually says, and have replaced it with a popular proverb: "Bad company corrupts good morals."

 

The New Jerusalem says: "Bad company corrupts good ways."

 

Well, this may be true, but it is not what God has inspired to be written here in this verse.

 

The ESV and New Jerusalem bible and now the NIV 2011 (not the previous 1984 NIV) all unite in giving us a footnote that tell us that the apostle Paul was probably quoting a popular proverb from the literary comedy called Menander's Thais!!! I would say "bad bibles corrupt good minds." 

 

 

Matthew Henry - “Be not deceived, says he; evil communications corrupt good manners, v. 33. Possibly, some of those who said that there was no resurrection of the dead were men of loose lives, and endeavoured to countenance their vicious practices by so corrupt a principle; and had that speech often in their mouths Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Now, the apostle grants that their talk was to the purpose if there was no future state. But, having confuted their principle, he now warns the Corinthians how dangerous such men's conversation must prove. He tells them that they would probably be corrupted by them, and fall in with their course of life, if they gave into their evil principles.”

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - “Evil communications" refer to intercourse with those who deny the resurrection. Their notion seems to have been that the resurrection is merely spiritual, that sin has its seat solely in the body, and will be left behind when the soul leaves it, if, indeed, the soul survive death at all. “

 

John Gill - “evil communications corrupt good manners. By such as deny the doctrine of the resurrection, and by their reasonings about it; or by such libertines who go into the denial of it, and argue from thence in favour of their licentious course of life.”

 

John Calvin - “Evil communications corrupt good manners As nothing is easier than to glide into profane speculation, under the pretext of inquiring,  he meets this danger, by warning them that evil communications have more effect than we might suppose, in polluting our minds and corrupting our morals… Here, therefore, Paul warns us that we must guard against evil communications, as we would against the most deadly poison, because, insinuating themselves secretly into our minds, they straightway corrupt our whole life. Let us, then, take notice, that nothing is more pestilential than corrupt doctrine and profane disputations, which draw us off, even in the smallest degree, from a right and simple faith; for it is not without good reason that Paul exhorts us not to be deceived.”

 

John Trapp Complete Commentary - “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.  Evil words are not wind, as most imagine, but the devil’s drivel, that leaves a foul stain upon the speaker, and often sets the like upon the hearer.”

 

Matthew Poole’s Annotations - “Do not suffer yourselves to be abused with evil and corrupt discourses of those philosophers amongst whom you converse, who argue from innate principles of reason against articles of faith; though you may judge that they talk but for discourse sake, yet their communication or discourse is naught, and will influence men as to things of practice, and debauch men in their morals.”

 

The Bible Study New Testament - “Do not let the false logic of the wicked fool you, especially about the raising from death. Your good character can be ruined by the unbelief that is hidden in what they say."


 

John Wesley - "Be not deceived - By such pernicious counsels as this... Evil communications - Discourse contrary to faith, hope, or love, naturally tends to destroy all holiness."

 

Barnes Notes on the New Testament - "Be not deceived - By your false teachers, and by their smooth and plausible arguments. This is an exhortation. He had thus far been engaged in an argument on the subject. He now entreats them to beware lest they be deceived - a danger to which they were very liable from their circumstances. There was, doubtless, much that was plausible in the objections to the doctrine of the resurrection; there was much subtilty and art in their teachers, who denied this doctrine." 

 

Burton Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments: "Paul's use of it here was to warn the Corinthians against any toleration of the evil teachers who were denying the resurrection; for the toleration of them was certain to have corrupted some of the church."

 

 

 

KJB - "And so it is written, The first man Adam WAS MADE a living soul." (1 Corinthians 15:45 KJB)

 

NIV - "So it is written: “The first man Adam BECAME a living being.” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV)

 

In 1996, Pope John Paul II announced that evolution is compatible with Christian beliefs. While evolution is compatible with Catholicism, evolution is not compatible with Christianity; evolution is irreconcilable with and antagonistic to Christianity. In 1998, the pope toned down his position, by announcing that evolution alone cannot account for human existence. He, however, did not repudiate his pro-evolutionary position. God’s word describes Adam as being “made a living soul.” The NIV, however, follows the evolutionary philosophy of the world and changes God’s word to say that Adam “became a living being.” In the NIV man was not created, but instead just “became.” This evolutionary slant fits in nicely with the Roman Catholic teachings.  

 

Let's look more closely at this Scripture -

 

KJB - "And so it is written, The first man Adam WAS MADE a living SOUL; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45 KJB)

 

NIV - "So it is written: “The first man Adam BECAME a living BEING; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV)  

 

ESV, NKJV, Holman - "Thus it is written, “The first man Adam BECAME  a living BEING”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 

 

NASB - "So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, BECAME a living SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

 

According to the King James Bible the first man Adam WAS MADE or created by God a living SOUL.  The word for soul here is ψυχὴν (psyche) and means "soul". The NIV and ESV have translated it here as merely "being". Plants and animals are living "beings" too, but they are not living SOULS.  The NIV has translated this same word as "soul" 19 times but only once as "being", and that is here.  

 

Secondly, the King James Bible and many others as well say Adam WAS MADE a living soul.  The word is  Ἐγένετο (ginomai) and can have several meanings depending on the context.  The NIV itself has translated this word ginomai as "MADE" eleven times, "making" four times and as "makes" once and the NASB as "made" some 19 times.  So it is not that the word ginomai cannot possibly be translated as "made".  

  

 

Bible version comparison  

 

Not only does the King James Bible tell us that "the first man Adam WAS MADE a living soul" but so also do the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525 - "the fyrste man Adam was made a livinge soule", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "the fyrste man Adam was made a lyuinge soule", Matthew's Bible 1549,  the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "The first man Adam was made a liuing soule", Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755,  Living Oracles 1835, the Emphatic Diaglott N.T. 1864, Godbey N.T. 1902, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the American Bible Union N.T. 2008 and the Jubilee Bible 2000 - "The first man Adam was made a living soul." 

 

The Catholic Versions 

 

We can observe these same changes being made in the Catholic bible versions. The 1582 Douay Rheims read just like the King James Bible, with: "The first man Adam WAS MADE into a living SOUL; the last Adam into a quickening spirit."  But the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read: "The first man Adam BECAME a living soul; and the last Adam has become a life-giving spirit."

 

Notes from the Internet

 

A Christian posts: "Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a living soul."

 

To whom I responded: Hi brother. Yes, I am well aware of this verse in Genesis 2:7, but notice it says in the context that God FORMED man of the dust of the ground. He was already formed, made, created and had a physical, natural and earthly body and THEN God breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul.

 

 However in 1 Cor. 15 the context is about the two creations, the earthly and the natural in contrast to the heavenly and spiritual bodies.  I Corinthians 15 is talking about the resurrection from the dead and how we shall all be changed and this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.  That is why the King James Bible is right and the modern Vatican Versions, including the NKJV, are wrong.  

 

You CANNOT read Evolution into the King James Bible reading of 1 Corinthians 15:45 -"The first man Adam WAS MADE a living soul", but you sure can with these fake bible versions that say - "The first man Adam BECAME a living being."

 

More Notes from the Internet
 
Phil posts: How would you parse out and translate "Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος"?
 
Hi Phil. I know where you are headed with this, but you have to keep in mind that the verb used here can be translated either as "was made" or "was" or possibly as "became".  Even the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. translate the verb ginomai as "to make, or made".  So the phrase in question could be translated as "the first man was made" or "the first man was" or "the first man became"; then we would have to ask, What did he become?
 
For example, see your NASB in Acts 19:26 "gods MADE with hands are no gods", or "being MADE in the likeness of men" Phil. 2:7 or Hebrews 11:3 - "so that what is seen was not MADE out of things that are visible."or James 3:9 "with it we curse men, who HAVE BEEN MADE in the likeness of God." 

 

Get yourself the true Bible, the Authorized King James Holy Bible, the only one believed by thousands to be the complete, inerrant and 100% historically true words of the living God. 

 

Will Kinney

 

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

 

In 1996, Pope John Paul II announced that evolution is compatible with Christian beliefs. While evolution is compatible with Catholicism, evolution is not compatible with Christianity; evolution is irreconcilable with and antagonistic to Christianity. In 1998, the pope toned down his position, by announcing that evolution alone cannot account for human existence. He, however, did not repudiate his pro-evolutionary position. God’s word describes Adam as being “made a living soul.” The NIV, however, follows the evolutionary philosophy of the world and changes God’s word to say that Adam “became a living being.” In the NIV man was not created, but instead just “became.” This evolutionary slant fits in nicely with the Roman Catholic teachings.

AV
And so it is written, The first man Adam WAS MADE a living soul. (1 Corinthians 15:45 AV)

NIV

So it is written: “The first man Adam BECAME a living being.” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV)

In 1996, Pope John Paul II announced that evolution is compatible with Christian beliefs. While evolution is compatible with Catholicism, evolution is not compatible with Christianity; evolution is irreconcilable with and antagonistic to Christianity. In 1998, the pope toned down his position, by announcing that evolution alone cannot account for human existence. He, however, did not repudiate his pro-evolutionary position. God’s word describes Adam as being “made a living soul.” The NIV, however, follows the evolutionary philosophy of the world and changes God’s word to say that Adam “became a living being.” In the NIV man was not created, but instead just “became.” This evolutionary slant fits in nicely with the Roman Catholic teachings.

AV
And so it is written, The first man Adam WAS MADE a living soul. (1 Corinthians 15:45 AV)

NIV

So it is written: “The first man Adam BECAME a living being.” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV)

In 1996, Pope John Paul II announced that evolution is compatible with Christian beliefs. While evolution is compatible with Catholicism, evolution is not compatible with Christianity; evolution is irreconcilable with and antagonistic to Christianity. In 1998, the pope toned down his position, by announcing that evolution alone cannot account for human existence. He, however, did not repudiate his pro-evolutionary position. God’s word describes Adam as being “made a living soul.” The NIV, however, follows the evolutionary philosophy of the world and changes God’s word to say that Adam “became a living being.” In the NIV man was not created, but instead just “became.” This evolutionary slant fits in nicely with the Roman Catholic teachings.

AV
And so it is written, The first man Adam WAS MADE a living soul. (1 Corinthians 15:45 AV)

NIV

So it is written: “The first man Adam BECAME a living being.” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV)

In 1996, Pope John Paul II announced that evolution is compatible with Christian beliefs. While evolution is compatible with Catholicism, evolution is not compatible with Christianity; evolution is irreconcilable with and antagonistic to Christianity. In 1998, the pope toned down his position, by announcing that evolution alone cannot account for human existence. He, however, did not repudiate his pro-evolutionary position. God’s word describes Adam as being “made a living soul.” The NIV, however, follows the evolutionary philosophy of the world and changes God’s word to say that Adam “became a living being.” In the NIV man was not created, but instead just “became.” This evolutionary slant fits in nicely with the Roman Catholic teachings.

AV
And so it is written, The first man Adam WAS MADE a living soul. (1 Corinthians 15:45 AV)

NIV

So it is written: “The first man Adam BECAME a living being.” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV)