Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2008, 04:02 PM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default 'Every Man for Himself Bible Versions'

Every Man for Himself Bible Versions - the HCSB, NET, ESV, TNIV, NKJV

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

For those who have ears to hear and can see through the Double-Speak, inconsistency and logical fallacies of modern version scholars, the 2001 Holman Christian Standard Bible provides us with several quotes that exemplify the typical, pious sounding BALONEY promoted by those who do not believe IN FACT that any Bible is now the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

In the Introduction to the HCSB, the translators describe themselves as "a team of 100 scholars, editors, stylists, and proofreaders, ALL OF WHOM WERE COMMITTED TO BIBLICAL INERRANCY". They tell us: "The Bible IS God's inspired Word, inerrant IN THE ORIGINALS." They then tell us their goal is "to affirm the authority of Scripture as God's Word and to champion ITS ABSOLUTE TRUTH against social or cultural agendas that would compromise its accuracy", and that the HCSB "will be a standard in Bible translations FOR YEARS TO COME."

Then they tell us: "Each generation NEEDS a fresh translation of the Bible in its own language" and that "each new generation must be introduced to God's Word in its own language...Translations made as recently as 10 or 20 years ago do not reflect many of these advances in biblical research."

They inform us that their textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, and the Unitied Bible Societies' 4th corrected edition, but then they say: "At times, however, the translators have followed an alternative manuscript tradition, DISAGREEING with the editors of these texts ABOUT THE ORIGINAL READING."

They go on to tell us: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".

These "few places in the N.T." include at least 39 entire verses that, by their own admission, "were not part of the original text"!!! Among these are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17; John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 24:6-7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24. Would you characterize 39 entire verses in the New Testament as "a few places"?

First of all, it should be obvious that if only the originals were inspired and inerrant, and they no longer exist, and have never been seen by any of the HCSB translators, then how can they logically say The Bible IS inspired? Don't they really mean "Once upon a time, and far, far away, the Bible WAS inspired"?

Secondly, if they are so committed to inerrancy and are "champions for absolute truth against any compromise with inaccuracy", then why do they include in their new version at least 39 entire verses that they don't think were "part of the original text"? These Scriptures are either inspired of God and belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all.

Thirdly, they reveal their "Every man for himself" X Files Bible mentality (the truth is out there somewhere) by telling us that they themselves disagree about the original reading with the scholars who put together the ever-changing UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts. Those UBS scholars think certain readings are original, but the HSCB guys think that others are. And you can bet the next bible version to come down the pike will promote yet different readings as original; in fact, it is already happening in the TNIV and ISV.

Fourthly, if the Holman Christian Standard Bible is "a standard for YEARS TO COME", then why do they also claim that EACH GENERATION NEEDS a new translation, or even one every 10 or 20 years "to reflect biblical research"? The shelf life of the modern bible versions isn't very long, is it? If the "scholars committed to inerrancy" finally produced an inerrant Bible, then they wouldn't need to keep churning out one new version after another, and they would be out of a job, wouldn't they?

For further documented information about the Holman Standard, please see my article here:

This same mentality of "every man for himself Bible Versions" is seen in Daniel Wallace's NET bible, the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version), the TNIV (Today's NIV) and in the New KJV as well.

Luke 22:43-44 and Daniel Wallace's comments. "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

The hypocrisy of the modern versions is shown by how they deal with these two verses. They are found in the Majority of all texts including D, the Old Latin copies, Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, Palestinian, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. Vaticanus omits all these words. Sinaiticus original contained all these words; then a scribe omitted them, and then another scribe put them back in again!

Even though Vaticanus omits all these words, and the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV omit thousands of words from the New Testament primarily because of the Vaticanus readings, yet the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV,ISV and Holman (in brackets) include these two verses in their versions.

Daniel Wallace's NET version also includes them, but in brackets, like the Holman Standard. He then reveals the mindset of many scholars today in his footnote. Mr. Wallace tells us: "Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus' humanity and an angel's help. But even if the verses are NOT LITERALLY AUTHENTIC, they are PROBABLY HISTORICALLY AUTHENTIC... Nevertheless, because of the SERIOUS DOUBTS as to these verses' authenticity, they have been put in brackets."

So, in other words, even though God may not have inspired them, and they were later added by mere human hands, it may be OK to keep them in our bibles, but we should continue to call them into question!!!

The 2001 ESV

This revision of the revision of the Revised Standard Version refers in its Preface some 12 times to "the original text" as though it were something they actually had before them when making their new translation. They go on to tell us of "the currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text". You see, the ESV has not rejected the Hebrew Scriptures QUITE AS MUCH as the older RSV and NRSV, BUT they still reject it dozens upon dozens of times, and not always in the same places as do the NASB and NIV.

The ESV translators further tell us: "In exceptional, difficult cases (not true at all) the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases (again, not true at all) in the New Testament, the ESV has followed A GREEK TEXT DIFFERENT FROM the text given by preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition."

Actually, the ESV omits even more whole verses than the 17 the NIV omits, while the NASB omits fewer than the NIV, and none of these modern versions always follows the same Greek texts as the others all the way through any single book in the New Testament. Then the ESV editors conclude by telling us: "We know that NO Bible translation is perfect or final."

For further documented information on the ESV, please see my article here:

For clear and numerous examples of how the NASB continues to change its Hebrew, Greek, and English texts from one edition to the next, please see my article The Ever-Changing 'literal' NASB here:

The TNIV - an NIV revision

The 2005 Today's NIV has now come on the scene and it differs both in texts and translation from the "old" NIV in many places. The TNIV editors tell us: "Today's New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the NIV... There is a sense in which the work of translating the Bible is never finished... The chief goal of this review has always been to bring the text of the NIV ABREAST OF CONTEMPORARY BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP." So, I guess the old NIV is no longer "abreast of contemporary scholarship", right?

The TNIV editors further inform us: "Already in 1978 and again in 1984 various CORRECTIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE NIV TEXT WERE MADE. In the TNIV the Committee offers to the reading public THE LATEST FRUITS of its review." Then the TNIV guys go through the now familiar spiel about "occasionally following the Dead Sea Scrolls, scribal traditions (whatever that means), emending (changing) the Hebrew text where it appears to have been corrupted" yada, yada, yada.

The TNIV does not always follow even the same Greek or Hebrew texts used in the old NIV, but as they tell us: "The translators HAVE MADE THEIR CHOICES AMONG THE VARIANT READINGS." Some of their choices differ not only from the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical texts, but also from the previous NIVs in both the Old and New Testaments.

The New KJV "Every man for himself" mentality

Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 - 5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.

In contrast to the divergent, ever-changing, "Let's include verses even we don't think are authentic", every man for himself mindset of ALL modern versionists, the King James Bible believer actually believes God has providentially kept His promises to preserve His inerrant, complete and 100% true words in the BOOK OF THE LORD.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

Will Kinney
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
Old 02-02-2008, 04:13 PM
Posts: n/a

Welcome Will. I just joined this forum yesterday (I think), though I have been a part of the Swordsearcher boards for a while (Brandon, you should have a link to them from here too - I might have missed it if it is here).

I think your articles would fit in with the intent and purpose of these boards. God bless.
Old 02-06-2008, 11:21 AM
Posts: n/a

There is no way people will accept the truth about the KJV short of being persuaded by the Holy Spirit.
Could it be most of the users of the new 'perversions' just need to get saved?
Old 02-06-2008, 12:10 PM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641

Originally Posted by dixiemama View Post
There is no way people will accept the truth about the KJV short of being persuaded by the Holy Spirit.
Could it be most of the users of the new 'perversions' just need to get saved?
I can't speak for "most," but I know I was saved before I understood the facts behind Bible versions. I was saved after hearing the Gospel preached to me.

However, there is very much lost with the modern abundance of "versions" of God's word with no authority. So many people don't even understand the Gospel who claim to be Christians...
Old 02-08-2008, 02:36 AM
Posts: n/a

dixiemama....I have been using KJV for about four months. I was saved when I used NKJV and then NASB.

I believe that those who use new versions (Pastors included) have assumed that because they call themselves "Bible" they are just that. They trust that what they are reading has been taken from the texts and some even think originals.

It is a lack of education. I was shocked at what I learned about NIV in one instant when I believe God opened my eyes.

When one speaks to new age bible users, they don't want to know because it reflects on them personally. To criticise one's bible is like criticising the person.

I think we need to be tolerant toward brothers & sisters in Christ who have been deceived. Satan's deception is not easy break.

IMO Grace
Old 02-08-2008, 06:09 AM
Posts: n/a

One question I have is how come not hardly anyone is questioning the need for so many translations? Or, seemingly most obvious to me, how come all the new translations compare themselves to the KJV?

Even me, how come I didn't question anything? Although at one pint, I questioned a pastor how come Joshua is used in one spot (forgot the verse) instead of Jesus as was in the KJV... he explained that they're thesame name variation or something like that... I wondered how come if they're the same name variation, why chance a confusion with the Joshua ofthe Book of Joshua?

I guess it takes a discerning mind and the guidance of the Holy Spirit... But it really took someone in the know taking me aside and giving me the information concerning the new "Bibles" amd sharing a tract with me with all the verses that I should check out for myself.
Old 02-08-2008, 09:27 AM
John Hinton
Posts: n/a
Default Joshua or Jesus

Jesus/Joshua was not a unique name at the time of his birth in Bethlehem. The KJV uses Greek versions of Hebrew names in the NT. The Greek name for Joshua is Iesus or Jesus in English. Joshua is also called Jeshua (from Yeshua) in the OT, and he is called Jeshua son of Nun in at least one passage, which makes it clear that it is the same name. The Septuagint uses Iesus in all cases. I'm about halfway done with an article on the topic in which I will discuss the significance of translating it as Jesus. I'll post it soon.

John Hinton
Bible Restoration Ministry
Old 02-08-2008, 11:29 AM
Posts: n/a

I am so looking forward to reading that article! Thank you so much for your work!!
Old 02-08-2008, 11:45 AM
Posts: n/a

Looking at Acts 7 and Hebrews 4 (plus their contexts), comparing these passages to the OT passages in view - and it is obvious that these two NT passages are referring to Jesus - Joshua just does not fit what is in view.

I would have to restudy out Acts 7, because I cannot remember offhand how it fits Jesus and not Joshua. However, Hebrews 4 states this:

Hebrews 4:6-8 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

This is a quotation from Psalm 95, which was written by David, which we know was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus as the NT refers to in a few places. The "he" in verse 8 refers back to the speaker - either Jesus or Joshua. Joshua didn't speak through David - but Jesus did.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

Contact Us AV1611.Com