|
King James Version or New International Version: Who
Really Cares?
Did You
Know:
THE BLOOD OF THE LORD JESUS IS OMITTED 15 TIMES IN THE NIV:
See
Matthew 27:4,24,25; Acts 5:28, 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9;
Ephesians 1:7, 2:13; Colossians 1:14, 20; Hebrews 10:19; I
Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:5, 5:9.
ANY
CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL MEANING MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A
DEMONIC ATTACK ON THE WORD OF GOD.
Let's
look at some others! Let's start at some very basic
scripture that everyone should be able to answer.
Remember to keep in mind that MANY people have never owned
or read a King James version of the bible and they have NO
PRIOR REFERENCE and would be taking their teaching
directly from the NIV.
What is
so bad about that? If it's correct, there isn't a
problem, but what would an incorrect or a corrupt version
of the bible do to them? Let's begin.
Who was the FATHER of JESUS?
Everyone would naturally answer that GOD was, but if you
have an NIV, there is doubt!
Examine
Luke 2:33:
The
King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother
marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
Now
read the NIV: "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at
what was said about him."
What
was that? The "Child's Father"? Who was the Father of
Jesus? If you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ,
then you CANNOT call Joseph, "the Child's Father". This is
what the Pharisees did!
You
will find as we study this further, that the NIV directly
attacks and calls into question the virgin birth of Christ
on multiple occasions throughout its pages.
You may
be saying "come on now, THAT is no big deal, and besides,
everyone knows what is meant". But to you I would ask
REALLY? Do you mean to tell me that just ONE lie in a
book presented as the Word of God is no big deal? Do you
believe that someone would read the phrase: "CHILD'S
FATHER was with Mary" and that person would naturally
assume that GOD was the Father? I don't think so,
especially not if the only thing you've ever read was an
NIV.
Your
natural conclusion from reading this verse would then be
that JOSEPH was his father. How serious is this one
corrupted verse? If you believe the verse, then you
believe that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, that
God was NOT his father and that Jesus was born of
fornication between Mary and Joseph. Do you personally
believe that?
The NIV
is FULL of subtle (and some not so subtle) changes and
PERVERSIONS such as this. As we continue further, you'll
soon see that all references to the deity of Jesus Christ
are removed AND references to the saving power of the
Blood of Jesus Christ are removed.
Look at
John 3:16: This is often the first verse that many people
commit to memory regardless of denomination, church
history or other religious affiliation.
"For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN
son, that whosever believeth in him SHOULD (don't read
that word as SHALL, it is not "Shall", the word is SHOULD)
not perish, but have everlasting life." (KING JAMES
VERSION).
The NIV
reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE
AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life"
Jesus
was the ONE AND ONLY SON? Is that a true statement? Was
Jesus the ONLY Son of God?
Read
Luke 3:38, Job 1:6, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:2 for
starters.
The NIV
has purposely removed the word "Begotten" as if to lead us
into believing that Jesus has not come "in the flesh".
Remember 1 John 4:3? No? Perhaps you need to read that
verse for yourself.
To
further reinforce the thought that removal of the word
"begotten" denies that Jesus has come in the flesh, look
at 1 John 3:2. NOTE that the phrase "in the flesh" is
removed from this verse!
Jesus
was NOT the "one and only son" but was in fact the ONLY
BEGOTTEN Son. He was the ONLY one "procreated" or
"fathered" by GOD. The only one BORN OF FLESH by God. Yet,
the NIV, as we will see in a continuance of the study, is
full of these types of changes.
Α Ω
|
