One Can Happen

January 10, 2011

What is HORRIBLY WRONG with Modern Bible Translations like the NIV? Most modern versions slavishly depend on the Egyptian and Vatican corruptions of the New Testament!

From:, What are the ERRORS in the King James Version Bible?

What is WRONG with Modern Bible Translations?

The Old Testament has been faithfully preserved by the Jews in what is known as the Masoretic Text. There are few translation problems with the Old Testament.

However, most modern translations, from the Revised Standard Version Bible (RSV) to the New International Version Bible (NIV), use as their source for the New Testament a Greek Text based upon the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century. This text, publicized by Westcott and Hort, is also known as the Alexandrian Text. It originated in Egypt and has been massaged by “higher critics” down through the ages. These manuscripts, used in the RSV, represent less than 5% of known Greek Biblical manuscripts, but are supposedly more authentic because they are “old.”

The bulk of New Testament manuscripts were copied century after century from earlier ones as they wore out. Older copies did not survive because these texts were used until worn out. This text, the so-called “Received Text” [Textus Receptus – editor] or “Byzantine Text” (also termed “Syrian”, “Antioch”, or Koine text) was used in the King James Version. Nearly 4,000 manuscripts of this Byzantine or Official Text agree almost perfectly with each other, and are a far better standard to go by than corrupt copies – no matter how early they were made. Located primarily at Mt. Athos in Greece, copies of the official Greek Text give us a very reliable record of the New Testament scriptures.

Is there PROOF the Received Text is Correct?

Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, states in his preface:

“The market-place is being glutted with new books which are being represented as VERSIONS of the Bible. Each one claims to be the very word of God, yet there are literally thousands of differences between them . . . . they all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully satisfying atonement.

“This is due to their decision to depend upon an Alexandrian [Egyptian] textbase, instead of that body of God’s words which has been universally received and believed in for nineteen centuries, known to us as the Received Text.

“These new versions [such as the New International Version Bible, New Jerusalem Bible and others] are not only marked by additions, but also by subtractions, since some four whole pages of words, phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions. And these are words attested to as God’s words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek manuscripts . . . .

“The Bible states:

“For I say to you, Until the heavens and the earth pass away, in no way shall pass away one iota or one point from the Law, until all things come to pass. ” (Matthew 5:18, Green’s paraphrased).

“What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their versions? Mainly, they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, but also admittedly carelessly executed. The first manuscript, called SINAITICUS, was so poorly executed that seven different hands of ‘textual critics’ can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on the Bible . . . it was discarded, found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. The second manuscript, called VATICANUS, laid on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it . . . . they have systematically removed Luke’s witness to the ascension of Christ — and of course they have done away entirely with Mark’s witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus . . . .

” . . . Origen, an early textual critic . . . said, that ‘the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written’† . . . . given the opportunity, many like Origen will actually alter the manuscripts to make them say what they understand them to mean…. Justin Martyr, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Tatian, and a horde of others practiced their ‘textual science’ by operating on manuscripts, or by writing their own ‘versions’ . . . .

” . . . Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% of them witness to the Received Text readings [contained in Green’s Interlinear and the King James Version]. Partly due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian textbase manuscripts were preserved by the dry conditions of Egypt, some have sought to discredit the Received Text because they say it is not ancient. But now that manuscript portions from the second century are being unearthed, it is found that many of the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as ‘late readings’ by nearly unanimous consent of the ‘textual scientists’ are appearing in these [newly found] manuscripts. Readings which were before called late and spurious have been found in these early-date manuscripts . . . . Yet strangely, in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug, not reported to the class.”

The fact that modern versions slavishly depend on the Egyptian and Vatican corruptions of the New Testament should make us avoid them as our main Bible for Bible study.

† Did Origen say “The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written”?

Entire Article Here


Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge! Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages? Do you read the NIV?

NIV alterations that greatly affect Christian doctrine — including my pet peeves. The NIV is destroying the church! Here’s proof.

Is Murdoch’s NIV the ‘N’ew ‘I’lluminati ‘V’ersion? Has the Word of God Been Corrupted to Bring US Into the New World Order?

Look what the NIV did to Romans 8:1 — They changed the entire meaning of the verse and leave no requirement or prerequisite to being free from condemnation!

Who-Goes-To-Heaven Scriptures — Narrow is the Way | Who are the Children of God? — “There is therefore now *no condemnation* to those who are IN CHRIST Jesus, who don’t WALK according to the flesh, but ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT.”



  1. (No arguments here.) Just declaring that the NIV issue is Jeff’s ax to grind. Truthfully, the bigger fish to fry is the TNIV.


    Comment by PhileoTruth — February 10, 2011 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  2. is this not a counterfiet or a reverse of gen 11 ;7 if the niv &the other 399 new english transulations are not confounding the true word of GOD, tell me what is it doing?


    Comment by william price — December 27, 2011 @ 9:24 am | Reply

  3. Alexandrian textbase___Is this the Alexander that was spreading false doctrine that Paul spoke about in 1 and 2 Timothy?


    Comment by connie murphy — August 13, 2012 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  4. Oh kittens yes. This is the only reason I was born.

    To find you, my long lost blogging soul-mate.


    Comment by Ahir Vora — August 25, 2012 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

  5. FYI: I was just reading the weekly newsletter & saw their photo re a new DVD by Chris Pinto (“Tares Among the Wheat”) re the Codex Sinaiticus. The description says in part:

    “In the 19th century, a revolution in biblical scholarship was prompted by the publication of a never-before-seen manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus. The work was allegedly discovered by a German scholar named Constantine von Tischendorf, who declared this to be the oldest Bible ever found. Tischendorf said he found the work in a rubbish basket at a Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt. While many in the academic world did not fully believe his story, they were willing to accept his claims about the antiquity of the codex.

    “Yet shortly after his discovery was published, a renowned Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that the manuscript was no ancient text at all, but had been created by him in 1840. The controversy surrounding these events is, perhaps, the most incredible untold chapter in Bible history. It involves Jesuits, the Pope, a high-minded German, a committee of Anglo Romanists, and a mysterious Greek patriot. It is a story that (while quite true and well documented) a vast majority of modern academics know nothing about. Yet the subject matter dramatically impacts the world of biblical scholarship, even to this present hour. Most of what todays scholars believe about manuscript evidence is based on the events of this era, and the footnotes in your Bible are the proof of it.”



    Comment by KJV User — September 14, 2012 @ 10:58 am | Reply

  6. When England produced the King James Bible, she became THE world power of her time. The sun never set on the British empire. She abandoned the KJV in 1886, and has since become a third world country. The United States was built on the KJV. In 1901 We abandoned the KJV diluting the truth with the ASV 1901, followed by over 200 “translations”. We are not far behind England. ALL the new versions were produced in main from Aleph and Siniaticus. The KJV came out of Antioch of Syrian and has over 5000 mss that attest to its holy readings. You have been deceived if you are reading and believing anything but a KJV.


    Comment by skyborn78 — November 4, 2013 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

    • The translations that have removed thousands of words from the Bible, many apparently being key texts that liberal Egyptian scribes didn’t want to hear, really have deceived many, who then no longer are salt and light. So entire societies are collapsing. Well said.

      Regarding your last sentence, there are no perfect, totally-without-errors, translations; though, the KJV’s errors are few and mostly minor.

      The main thing is to use translations based upon the Textus Receptus text, which the NKJV and WEB (World English Bible) are good examples. They aren’t quite as reliable as the KJV, but they’re close, and written in modern English. The WEB is also royalty free, so the love of money wasn’t a factor in its production.

      I always check everything I post with the KJV, to make sure.

      The NIV also has known reverse-Christians on their translation committee. They have not only deleted words, sentences and paragraphs. They paraphrase and change the entire meaning of some passages, making Paul appear to be a scoundrel in one, for example.


      Comment by Jeff Fenske — November 4, 2013 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  7. So tell me please. .. what version matches up the closest to what God and Jesus actually said. What two are best? Or closest? I have teenagers and adults in my home. Your recommendations are so needed. Thank you


    Comment by Dawn — December 4, 2015 @ 9:05 am | Reply

    • Good question. The King James Bible (KJV) is extremely accurate, almost perfect. But the archaic language can cause confusion, and is much harder to read for most.

      Online, I use the World English Bible (WEB). The New Testament is based on the same, solid, Greek text based on Syrian manuscripts, not Egyptian, explained somewhat here. It’s also royalty free, so we can use the text in our writings without copyright problems, like the KJV. I’ve been using it for many years, and have seen no major problems with the translation.

      The complete WEB Bible looks like it’s only available in hard copy in paperback, but a hardcover is available for NT with Psalms and Proverbs. I don’t see a lot of options, sadly. Globalist, Rupert Murdoch owns Zondervan, and he will only push the gutted “Bibles” like the NIV.

      I haven’t until now looked for hardcopy WEBs, because the hardcopy Bibles I’ve been using are New King James (NKJV), and there are many different ones available, including in leather. It’s also Textus Receptus based, but they’ve taken some liberties to change things based on the unreliable Egyptian manuscripts. I don’t like their footnote for Romans 8:1, because the gutted, Romans 8:1a is the once-saved-always-saved preachers’ greatest hit; even though, Paul’s true meaning can be found in verses 4 and beyond, even in the NIV. The NKJV not royalty free, like the NIV. Overall, it’s a pretty good Bible for reading that I’d recommend.

      There are others, but I haven’t looked into them enough to make a recommendation.

      Almost all of the text I’ve posted online is from the WEB, and if the text is crucial, I’ll often check it against the KJV, and sometimes the Greek interlinear. This is probably even more important if one uses the NKJV, but for the most part, these translations are pretty good.

      Some will say “pretty good” isn’t good enough, but the KJV isn’t perfect either, despite many claiming it is. And the KJV’s wording is often so awkward that it often presents understanding errors. For the few who actually like reading old English, it’s really good, royalty free, and there are numerous hard cover styles to choose from.

      By the way, these translations are so good that it’s not very important for even pastors to be fluid in reading Greek; though, those who do know Greek sometimes use that to act like they understand the Bible better, when arguing for the false doctrine of once-saved-always-saved, for example. But that’s a snowjob, because there are dozens of verses that clearly disprove OSAS. They just don’t want to know the truth.

      The Greek verb tenses aren’t fully reflected in the English translations, though, which I’d like to see improved. Some of the verbs like “believe” or words like “obey” are often in the continuous tense, which further shows we have to continue to live in the Son to be real Christians.

      The Discovery Bible shows these verb tenses, but it’s out of print, and based upon the erroneous, Egyptian based Greek text.

      So I’d recommend either the WEB or NKJV for hard copy and the WEB for use online, to be checked on occasion against the KJV, as being the most reliable standard.



      Comment by Jeff Fenske — December 4, 2015 @ 4:12 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: