Recent Comments

Last Days Christian Messenger

This Is My Other Blog. Geared Towards Helping The Unsaved Find God

Click this link HOMEPAGE for the latest articles on this blog
Click this link MENU LIST to find an entire list of ALL Articles within this blog (as at 30 Nov 2011)
Click this link Articles Carrying Most Comments as at 30 November 2011 a league table of articles carrying the most comments.

Search this blog by entering KEY WORDS In box below

Monday, 18 March 2013

Hold Onto Your Old Bibles and Preserve Them AT ALL COSTS

Edited 19th March 2013 (edited parts in purple)


NIV 1984 Has Now Been Removed From Online Bible Sites (such as "Biblegateway", "Biblos", "",""). I looked at a few others  -  in all cases the same story. All of these are now ONLY listing The Corrupt 2011 Version.

It has come to my notice that yet another evil is amongst us moving by stealth as part of the increasing apostasy.

Many of us are aware in how our churches have been infiltrated with false teaching, counterfeit Christianity and paganism in increasing measures over the last 30 or so years. Those who are fundamental Bible believers (especially watchmen and discerners) have been working overtime trying to stem the flow of apostasy by declaring what THE BIBLE says.

So what happened?  The apostates brought in false bibles like the new age version "Message" bible and twisted versions like the New Living Translation and many others, which are "politically correct" versions to satisfy the fleshly desires of sinful nature. Then newer corrupted revisions of the hitherto trusted versions were brought in, like the 2011 revision of the NIV.  To read about that, please click here 

Up until recently the NIV 1984 version and other reliable older versions (such as the NASB and KJV) were still available on bible sites.

Today, I have discovered that all the bible websites seem to have now removed the 1984 NIV version. I also noticed that other older revisions of some of the other reliable versions such as NASB and KJV also seem to have been removed.  What we now seem to have remaining is: NIV 2011, KJV 2000,  NASB 1995 as the most recent ones in stock. Even the NKJV is difficult to find on some sites.  I guess that these will also soon be removed from Christian bookshops also.

Soon, it will be impossible to buy any bibles which have not been increasingly corrupted by the money grabbing "christian" pharisees of the 21st Century. Please note my article on that subject by clicking here.

For those who are not aware, the newer versions are not JUST a reprint but include modifications. These modifications range from very subtle changes to much bigger (more noticeable) ones.  Mostly they are aimed to meet the demand for bibles that are more contemporary (i.e, more politically correct and more suitable to those with "itching ears").

Therefore, we ALL need to hold onto the REAL unadulterated TRUTH of God's Word as best as we can by RETAINING those older versions because SOON they will no longer be available. It is clear that the apostates are doing this deliberately so that the next generation can no longer recognise false teaching and therefore will be unable to oppose the false teachers - because their bibles are corrupted to suit these false teachers and allow them to flourish in even greater ways.  


chris said...

So far we were able to receive the online Bible from the Bible gateway as it covers all Bibles i personally look at the new King James version which is on their site, I hope the site continues .
But in a changing world as apostasy increases this may not be so in the future.

chris said...

At least so far we are able to use the online version of the Bible which we can get from the Bible Gateway Which covers all versions of the Bible, Even the new King James version But we shall see for how long As apostasy increases .
God bless

John Chingford said...

Hi Chris

I have always used Bible Gateway also. Yesterday I visited them. I noticed (yesterday) that they had removed the NIV 1984 version. I wondered if it was just them or whether I could find another site that STILL listed the 84 version. There are others I have visited in the past that used to have that version.

I was shocked to find that ALL of them had removed it. I also THEN noticed that these sites had removed other older versions such as the NASB. I could not find any listed Bibles of any versions which were older than 1995. This is why I wrote the article. I am shocked that "so called" believers can do something so blasphemous as to distort God's Word.

By the way, I have made some changes to the article. Please read the edited bits, which are in purple.

Truthful Conversation said...

Hi John,

Regarding the NIV, I sent an email to Bible Gateway and this was their reply:

Bible Gateway Customer Care, Mar 28 12:37 (EDT):

Dear Madam,

Greetings from Bible Gateway! Thank you for contacting us.

Our publishing partner, Biblica, who generously provides the NIV text to Bible Gateway, has requested the removal of the older NIV (1984 edition) and the TNIV resources.

During the transition to the most recent edition of the NIV (first published in 2010), the older 1984 edition and the TNIV were made available for more than two years on Bible Gateway to make it easy for people to compare the upgrades in the text as they transitioned to the current edition. Now that this transition period is over, the NIV’s worldwide publisher, Biblica, has requested that we remove the older 1984 and TNIV editions from Bible Gateway.

Bible Gateway is a distributor of Biblical content and does not have control over the sale nor free distribution of Bible texts. We will abide by legal licensing restrictions and are complying with Biblica’s request.

Older editions of the NIV will no longer be available on Bible Gateway or any website. We’ve provided further information on the transition of the NIV through:

Again, thank you so much for contacting us. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you online.


Bible Gateway Customer Care

John Chingford said...

Thanks TC for doing that.

Very interesting. I took a look at the site address listed in their email. This is what it says to the following question "Is there anywhere I can access older editions of the NIV?":

"Yes. Older editions of the NIV are no longer available on Bible Gateway or any website, but the Committee on Bible Translation (who is solely responsible for the translation of the NIV) and Biblica (the worldwide NIV publisher and copyright holder) have designated the Wheaton College Archives & Special Collections as the official repository of historical documents related to the NIV.

At present the historical text is not available online, however, discussions are underway to determine if it will be possible to access previous editions of the NIV online for research purposes. When available, access will be in accordance with the Wheaton College Archives & Special Collections access guidelines.

In the absence of the 1984 NIV and TNIV, we hope you’ll give the most current edition of the NIV a chance, as many Bible Gateway users and believers around the world have done."

Therefore, I call upon everybody to write into Bible Gateway (inundating them) with requests to make the NIV 1984 version (as well as other older versions they are in the process of removing) available from Wheaton.

We need to tell Bible Gateway that the newer versions are not accurate translations being too "politically correct" to fit in with what general public opinion think rather than in what GOD SAYS.

John Chingford said...

This is how Bible Gateway tackled the question "Why did you remove the 1984 NIV and TNIV from Bible Gateway?":

"The NIV remains the most popular English contemporary translation, with more than 450 million copies distributed since it was first published in 1978.

During the transition to the most recent edition of the NIV (first published in 2010), the older 1984 edition and the TNIV were made available for more than two years on Bible Gateway to make it easy for people to compare the upgrades in the text as they transitioned to the current edition.

This transition period mirrors the earlier two-year transition from the 1978 version to the 1984 version. Now that this transition period is over, the NIV’s worldwide publisher, Biblica, has requested that we remove the older 1984 and TNIV editions from Bible Gateway, and we are complying with their wishes.

Since the latest edition of the NIV was published in December 2010, over 11 million copies have been distributed and it has been adopted by thousands of churches, ministries, authors and other publishers around the globe. We understand your disappointment that the 1984 edition of the NIV is no longer available, but we hope you’ll grow to appreciate the updated NIV, as many other Bible Gateway visitors have done."

THEY SIMPLY DO NOT 'GET IT'! It is not about how many copies are being sold and that we will "grow to love it". IT IS A FALSE TRANSLATION PERIOD!!! There will be NO "growing to love it, but actually a despising of it because it is a CORRUPTION.

Watching and Waiting said...

Personally, I stopped considering the NIV a reliable Bible long ago, and that would include the 1984 edition - if memory serves correctly, it is dynamic equivalancy and not a true translation.

Bible Gateway does not make judgments as to the accuracy of Bibles. They simply offer as a service a "gateway" to any and all versions. They offer The Message which cannot even be considered a Bible. It is one of those "trendy" things that caught on, probably because Billy Graham pushed it.

Personally I use the New King James because it is an actual translation. This is not a discussion about Bible versions, but I have found it to be accurate and I like it better than the King James in many ways such as it capitalizes the pronouns of Deity while the King James does not. It has its critics, primarily from the KJV only crowd.

It would stand to reason that God's Word would be high on Satan's target list. And he has been quite successful in "dumbing down" the Word of God. But what is amazing is that the verses dealing with salvation still pack the power necessary to convert.

The New Living Transatio has become quite popular, but I do not trust it and do not use it.

My recommendation is to totally abandon the NIV which I did many years ago.

Thanks for the heads up on this.

John Chingford said...

Hi W & W

This article (and subsequent comments) is NOT JUST ABOUT the NIV. I used that as an illustration to what is happening generally to ALL Bibles.

Even the NASB older versions have now been removed. The oldest one still shown is only as old as 1995.

The NIV 2011 version edited "brothers" with "brothers and sisters" even where the context was clearly talking to men. Same with thje NLT.

This was the first thing I noticed. That in itself was sufficient to tell me it was a corrupted version. The NIV 1984 was still not yet affected by "political correctness".

Now all the bibles versions are one by one being changed. The KJV is a 2000 revision now and probably the NKJV has been updated too.

This is why I STRONGLY encourage everybody to stick with what they have got because you don't know what your replaced version is likely to be like.

John Chingford said...


It is not just about the NIV 1984 being removed. It is the principal of the matter. This stands as the thin edge of the wedge of ALL reliable translations being removed and replaced with inferior, corrupted,watered down,contemporary versions.

We need to make our voices heard opposing this trend, so that the next generation (if there is one before the rapture) have the TRUE Bible and not an apostate version.

Wayne Jack said...

I’m all fired up about this too. I have been to several Christian stores in San Diego, CA and the managers say the same as stated on your blog. That the publishers have recalled/pulled them ALL off the shelves and do to legal reasons the stores must remove them.

The managers tell me to contact the publishers directly. Which I have done and yet to receive a response. So I contacted them again this morning 3/30/2013

Who else publishes the NIV 1984?

God Bless,

Watching and Waiting said...

John,I get the principle in the matter and you are right, we have to be careful about all revisions and the heads up is greatly appreciated.

However, my contention is that even the 1984 NIV is not trustworthy.

Not to sound defeatist, but I do believe that any protests to Bible Gateway,Thomas Nelson or any publisher will fall on deaf ears. The apostasy has gone too far which is evident in all aspects of Christiandom.

As believers we just have to come to terms with the reality of the apostasy and that it is what it is. That does not mean that we do not continue to sound the alarm, but there are some things where there is a possiblity our voice will be heard and there are places where it just will not. That being with companies that are big business and so heavily influenced by those who have agendas to corrupt the Word.

So-called Christian bookstores are not a safe source anymore. They are about the bottom line, catering to an apostasized Church that wants pablum instead of meat.

Biblegateway is constrained by legalities. That is the real world. I will be careful that what I get from there from the NKJV matches my Bible. The changes can be very subtle.

But God is faithful to preserve the portion of His Word that speaks to salvation.

The Word has been distorted, misquoted, twisted and this is even with the best of the translations.

I think where we can do the most good is to spread the word amongst our circle of influence rather than mount a campaign against the big boy corporations and Biblegateway. Just sayin'......

Again, appreciate the heads up!!!

TruthfulConversation said...

Actually, I have abandoned all other versions other than the KJV. I had quite a few bibles that were misplaced in an overseas move, and since then I have only had a KJV to read. If you check versions out, there are discrepancies in all versions. Even now, some newly printed KJV's are being tampered with, and I have had to check that my recently purchased versions are correct to the original Authorised. Thankfully they are both fine.

I know that being KJV only is not very popular, but it is now my stance, before now, I went to and fro with my feelings on versions. I do not understand the problems people say they have with the old English.

I was looking at something someone sent me, it is a paragraph written in words that are all mixed up. The test is to see if you can read the words as if they were normally written. I had no problem at all, so to me, that shows how our brain can recognise words. Thus I do not see the problem with a few thees and thous! The other positive with the KJV is that because there are so many 'protectors' of it, you can be assured of being able to find the Authorised text online. If/when you cannot purchase the proper KJV online in bookstores, you could download and print it out from the KJV sites.

John Chingford said...

W & W

I much appreciate your comments.

I hear what you are saying. However, if enough people contact Wheaton, online sites etc about their concern it will have SOME effect because this godless world STILL operates on "supply and demand". If there is sufficient demand/concern for the older versions of our "trusted" versions, then MAYBE they will make them available.

Bible Gateway DID say:

" discussions are underway to determine if it will be possible to access previous editions of the NIV online for research purposes. When available, access will be in accordance with the Wheaton College Archives & Special Collections access guidelines.

So, I assume they will do this IF enough of us make that demand. We can use this situation to point out our GENERAL concerns about ALL the Bible versions, KJV, NKJV, NASB etc that the older versions of ALL of these be made available also.

I agree that the NIV 1984 is not perfect, but is is perfectly okay to use comparatively with the NASB and KJV or with NKJV and KJV.

The advantage of the NIV is that it is in modern English. When I compared the NIV with those other versions I found little fault with it AS LONG AS I always referred back to the KJV and NASB on the more difficult passages.

With the 2011 version there are SOOOOOO many issues that it is no longer possible to study with it anymore.

Pastor David Hall said...

Zondervan is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation who publish many 'trash' newspapers. He is also involved with Rick Warren and his heresies that are leading to One World Religion.

The NIV is contaminated and uses the tainted Westcott & Hort manuscripts as do other cultish 'Bibles' Blessings Pastor David Hall

chris said...

Sifting through the sites I came across this one on how to choose a bible this could be of interest to new Christians, at least whilst the Bible is still available to buy and I thought it might be of some interest
God bless.

Anonymous said...

Really enjoy reading your blog. Very informative. I've been doing my own study of the Emergent Church. I wanted to tell you about a book that investigated the committee members of the NIV and NKJV the authors behind the NASB, RSV, CEV. Ms. Gail Riplinger did an exhaustive study and wrote this book in the '90's NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS. I highly recommend this book and now that I've seen the devious changes they've made to the KJV, I won't use any bible other than the KJV. Keep up the good work.

Lover of Truth said...

I never cease to be amazed at people who go to extremes on this issue and idolize the KJV. By the way, which KJV is "Anonymous" referring to? The KJV has gone through a series of changes.

I don’t think the following information is well-known across the board. Would the one who posted please read this and comment?

If one goes back to the original 1611 KJV one will find the following:

The REAL 1611 KJV had a calendar for each month of the year. The calendar for the month of October contains such things as
- a list of designated saints days' (Oct. 18, Luke the Evangelist; Oct. 28, Simon and Jude);
- a list of designated fast days (Oct. 27 and 31);
- a notation about which sign of the zodiac the sun is in that month (Oct. 12, "Sol in Scorpio");
- a schedule of Scripture readings for morning and evening prayer which includes passages from the Apocrypha (Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18)
* Significance: saints' days and fast days are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are listed in the 1611 KJV
* Significance: many KJV-Only supporters consider astrology "New Age" and "of the devil," yet there it is in the 1611 KJV
* Significance: the 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the Apocrypha is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture.
The REAL 1611 KJV had verses that are worded differently from today's KJVs
- Ruth 3:15 - "...and he went into the city." Today's KJVs read "...and she went into the city."
- Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that seek God."
- Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty...."
* Significance: KJV-Only advocates believe that the KJV is the "inerrant, pure, perfect, preserved Word of God." Which KJV are they referring to... the 1611 KJV or the KJV used today?

The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha
- Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
- Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, "Ecclus. 7:16," a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha
- Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, "Wisd. 2:15,16," a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha
- Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, "4 Esd. 1:30," a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra in the Apocrypha
- Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, "Tob. 4:7," a cross-reference to a book of Tobit in the Apocrypha
- John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, "1 Macc. 4:59," a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
- Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 7:7," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha
*Significance: why have a cross-reference to an "uninspired," "unauthoritative," "unscriptural" book?

The REAL 1611 KJV had a list of Holy Days to be observed throughout the year, including
- Christmas ("The Nativitie of Our Lord") and Easter
- The Purification of the Blessed Virgin
- The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin
- All Saints' Day
- other saints' days
* Significance: saints' days and days honouring Mary are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV.

I hate to see this be a point of division amongst believers. Yes, we should be cautious about the "modern" versions and there are some that are corrupt. But it is not helpful to go to extremes.

John Chingford said...

Hi LoT

I think Anonymous made a typo. The sentence says ".... and now that I've seen the devious changes they've made to the KJV, I won't use any bible other than ....".

I think it should have said "other than the NKJV", otherwise it would not have made sense.

Anonymous said...

LoT and John, thank you for the informative comments. Sorry, I guess I don't know enough about the 1611 KJV-wow all those Catholic doctrines! Obviously, I need to do alot more research. I still think the book is a good reccommendation especially the expose about Wescott and Hort and their 1881 New Greek version.

Lover of Truth said...

I see how you could think that John, but I don't think it was a typo.

now that I've seen the devious changes they've made to the KJV, I won't use any bible other than the KJV. Keep up the good work.

If I understood correctly he/she was saying that devious changes had been made to the KJV and that he/she would only use the KJV since that had not been tampered with. I think they meant that they only use the KJV to the exclusion of all others. Maybe our friend will be so kind to clear this up.

chris said...

It appears that all of our Bibles have marginal
errors but the latest versions is more so, so we come to the question which one do we trust? The think I will stick with the new King James version online and check it out with the King James version, I have noted the Romanish comments written in the earlier version but I still believe that it is the closest in relation to the word of god.

Anonymous said...

Hi John and Lover of Truth,

I have heard of that argument against the 1611 AKJV. but it is not entirely true.

The KJV Translators Did Not Accept the Apocrypha as Scripture

The critics say that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture.

Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

Lover of Truth said...

Last Anon,

What I posted about the 1611 KJV IS absolutely true! I have one in my possession and have confirmed the statements made.

You don't need to point out the fallacies of the Apocrapha (sp)- that is the point! Did you miss the fact that the devotional in the 1611 REFERS to the Apocrapha?

The 1611 venerates the Virgin Mary and the Roman Catholic observances!

With all due respect, did you actually read the content of what I posted? How can you say it is not true? Have you examined the 1611 KJV?

Anonymous said...

Chris, we have to remember that the Holy Spirit is our teacher and will help us to discern the truth.

It is also amazing that with the exception of the totally corrupted versions that the verses that speak to salvation are correct.

I have been told that in Spanish-speaking countries the Reina-valera is often the preferred translation. The Kings English does not translate well into other languages.

It seems to me that if one sincerely studies the Word with good tools in hand with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that one can't go too far wrong. Not that we should be lax about it, but this should not cause division.

John Chingford said...

Thanks Guys for this discussion. I let it run a bit because I was learning from you. Even though I am from the UK I know very little behind the background of old bibles such as 1611 versions (or earlier).

LoT are you saying that the earlier versions of the 1611 KJV were corrupt whereas reprints AFTER 1611 corrected some of those earlier corruptions?

Anyway, as I spell out in my introduction rules (read the top of the comments box) I would like this blog to be different from other blogs, by encouraging pleasant conversation. This discussion (presently) is okay, but I sense that it could overboil into a heated pro or anti KJV debate.

Please continue on, but please try to be as respectful as possible to everybody.


Anonymous said...

Yes Lover of Truth, I do understand what you are saying, I put up my comment to try to clear up why the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha. No, I do not have a 1611 KJV in my possession. But I will continue to dig and research, as that is what I do, until I find the truth.

My edition was first printed in 1739.

John Chingford said...

LoT, How does the 1739 edition compare with the original 1611 version? Were the corruptions cleared out by that time?

Anonymous said...


my edition is 1769

John Chingford said...

Hi Guys

Although I am not an expert on the history behind the KJV I firmly believe that God will NEVER allow the truth of His Word to be corrupted.

God is in TOTAL ULTIMATE control. His presence fills the Universe and with our God NOTHING is too difficult.

We know that "It is not His Will that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance". Therefore, it makes sense that HE will preserve His Word so that ALL may know the truth.

This blog UPHOLDS the Bible as the true inspired Word of God - especially in the original manuscripts.

Possibly 99.9% (recurring) all the major translations (Authorised KJV, NKJV, NIV (pre 1978 to 1984), NASB are all pretty much close. If we compare all 4 I am sure the Holy Spirit will show us the accuracy of the message - we need NO OTHER versions.

I am concerned that this debate may cause my readers to draw the conclusion that there are NO reliable versions available. I want them to know that there are versions we CAN trust.

Lover of Truth said...

John, I agree that God can work despite man's failures and Satan's attempt to destroy and distort the Word of God.

In these last days of apostasy we have seen the corruption increase beyond anything we could have ever imagined with gender sensitive and watered down versions and the ridiculous book masquerading as a Bible, The Message.

But there is a remnant of God's people who persevere in presenting the true Gospel and discipling new converts despite all the efforts of the enemy.

If people prefer the King James whether it is the 1611 or the 1769, great. If people prefer the New King James, great. Same with the other versions you mentioned. There is well enough truth in all of them to convert and live the Christian life and serve the Lord.

Always listen to the Holy Spirit, the Teacher and pray for guidance and protection from error. There are so many who use even the acceptable translation/versions who are false teachers and twist the Word to make it say what they want it to say to support their false doctrine.

Be alert and be aware and seek the Lord in all things. He has promised to lead us into all truth as we walk closely with Him. If we keep our focus on that we can't go wrong.

Lover of Truth said...

John, to answer your question as to whether the 1639 KJV "corrected" the errors of the 1611, as I delved into the information, it became a science on its own. It would take a lot of time to compare and look into it and I just didn't have the heart for it or time to devote.

My point was that the original 1611 was not perfect and in fact was soft on Romanism. This could have been because all the translators were Church of England which I think is Anglican. I don't know anything about the translators on later versions.

I just felt this was a trail I could not devote the time to follow and would take away from my study of the Word - in other words a distraction. I hope that makes sense. I am not any expert on Bible translations, but I did obtain the 1611 out of curiosity and was shocked to find cross references to the Apocrypha in the main body of the Bible. It was not just a noncanonical insertion between the Old and New Testaments. Also, the other references to Roman holidays and veneration of Mary were troublesome. I can't say if these were expunged in the 1769 as I don't have this particular version.

My point is we can't put the 1611 or the 1769 or any other translation on a pedestal - they are works by fallible men. But God is sovereign and the heart of truth will be preserved. As with anything we have to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for discernment.

Some make the point that the KJV is public domain while other versions are under copyright. I just learnt that the KJV was also under copyright for quite a long time! There is nothing evil about a copyright.

But in the end, God's Word will stand and the truth will come through if we lean on the Holy Spirit to guide us with the exception of counterfeit "bibles" such as The Message and later versions that are majorly corrupted. We do have to exercise discernment.

chris said...

Thanks for clearing things up the holy spirit is a teacher to all of us as we read gods word that is in the older versians of the bible its the newer ones that are corrupt so i dont think any of us would buy one. I dont think there is division amongst us as mature christians, but there is a concern for our generation as apostacy is setting in who may buy oneso i believe we must pray for them so they are not decieved.

Anonymous said...

Hi, though I'm a baby Chritian but may I give my three cents worth here. I truly believe that we should use the KJV as I chanced upon that mentioned about the publishing company for NIV was of pagan origin if I'm not mistaken and that they use Ghost writers in their companies, that may or may not have an impact on the Bible but because of the company owner's pagan roots, the Bible has to be diligently compared with the KJV to ensure that nothing is missed out. A small difference to us is a great difference to God. What the new versions do is to try and distort , tone down and minus some of the the exact meaning of God's word to cause us to fall.If you research this, you can actually find some guides that help you check the Bible to see if it's reliable. I even had my KJV checked before I used it. Better to be safe than sorry coz we've no time to be sorry.

ali said...

Oh my goodness, I had no idea.!!.

We must Get Ready and Be Prepared by reading His Word, studying His Word and Praying. It appears the reading of His Word is being compromised by passive pastors, tolerant theology and subtle satan.

Mark said...

I have Russian Synodal Version, KJV, NIV '84 and NKJV and find them to be a huge blessing for a comparative study. One of the versions you seem to avoid is ESV. I think it is fairly accurate most of the time, but I wonder what your stance on it is.

John Chingford said...

Hi Mark

I do not use the ESV because I don't know enough about it.

Why read yet another translation if you are already comparing with 3 or 4 other translations. Which are a perfectly sufficient quantity.

I see little point in adding to my present list of NKJV, KJV, NASB and NIV 1984.

I want to get into the essence of God's Word - not get sidetracked by too much comparative work. Surely 3 or 4 is sufficient?

Blueshawk said...

Don't remember who said it, but in answer to the question of which Bible version is the best, said something to the effect that the best version is the one that you will actually follow and obey. And I think that that is spot on.

Personally, I've been reading and studying from the ESV, having come from the NASB and before that, the NIV. Moved that way because I wanted to read something literal, and word-for-word, rather than phrase-for-phrase, or a paraphrase, and the ESV was said to be the most literal word-for-word translation out there. It was a heart desire to read as much the word of God with as little of man's interpretation in between.

But you know what? The ESV is also an interpretation and there are concerns with it compared with the original Greek. They're ALL translations requiring interpretation, of necessity since the original texts were in another language written 2000 years ago. Even the KJV is a translation, and it's not even the first one into English.

I do not understand the more extreme KJV-only folks (or others) who condemn as apostate brothers and sisters who read a Bible translation that is different than theirs. To attack brothers and sisters over differing word translations reminds me of Jesus' comment about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. Unless there is some prophecy in the word itself authorizing specific translations that I've missed, why hold an exclusionary view of any translation as being the only correct one?

Hopefully, it's everyone's heart desire to read the most accurate translation possible. But what is more important than having the most accurate book available, is having the Holy Spirit present to make the words of the book be living and active. The Word is powerful, and it's not that the Bible is only read and studied, but received and known.

Even though I may prefer translations other than the NIV, how much better would we all be if what is found in the NIV is true about me and about us? If your life does not measure up to the version you complain about, how small does that complaint seem?

John Chingford said...

Hi Blueshawk

Mostly what you said sounds good. However, I would disagree with your opening statement, although I understand the sentiments.

If a believer is obeying a bad Bible version - especially if it is a paraphrase like the New age "Message" book (I refuse to call it a Bible)then the danger is that he/she will be led into deception and follow "another Jesus".

blueshawk said...

John, you are of course correct that one shouldn't follow a bad Bible version. But bad is relative and for some, bad is everything other than the favored one. There are a number of good Bibles that one can read safely and follow to great benefit. In view of the differing source texts, the need to claim any version as the best may be driven more by pride than anything objective. If brothers and sisters followed the Word with the same carefulness used in choosing it, the church and the world would be a better place.

In terms of paraphrases, the one I read sometimes is JB Philiip's New Testament paraphrase. When reading it tho, it's more like reading a good Bible study and not to be confused with reading the real thing.