King James vs. N.I.V.

[placebofactor]

There has been a great deal of conversation concerning the King James and New World Translation, but now, let’s discuss the two best selling Bibles on the market today, the K.J.B. and the N.I.V. The K.J.B. uses the Received Text, and the N.I.V. uses the A. and B. produced by Westcott and Hort. In the following, you will see that verses have been changed or left out from the N.I.V., as in the N.W.T., -- N.A.S.V ., -- N.W.T., -- C.E.V., -- T.N.I.V., -- Jerusalem Bible, Living Bible, and others.

We will pretend two men who never studied the Bible purchase one at a bookstore. One buys a King James, the other purchases an N.I.V. We will compare 11 verses side by side.
1. K.J.V. 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This verse supports the doctrine of the Trinity.
N.I.V. Opps, the whole verse has been removed.

2. K.J.V. Colossians 1:14, is speaking of Jesus, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
N.I.V., Opps, again, the verse has been removed, but the # 14 remains.

3. K.J.V. Acts 8:37, Philip came to a eunuch, who had great authority. The eunuch was reading the book of Isaiah, but unable to understand it. Philip then began to explain what was written. When finished,

Acts 8:36, both men see water, and the eunuch asked, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Verse 37, "Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he (the eunuch) answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

N.I.V. Opps, Philip's reply has been removed. Why is this important? The Eunuch’s question and Philip’s response complete the thoughts and heart of both men concerning salvation. But when Philip’s reply is removed, what do we have, nothing but an unanswered question.

5. An O.T. prophecy in Mark 15:28 is quoted from Isaiah 53:12.

K.J.V. Mark 15:28. "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, and he was numbered with the transgressors."
N.I.V. Again, the verse has been removed, even the # 28.

6. Isaiah 66:24, is quoted in both Mark 9:44-46, "For the worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched."
N.I.V. has removed the verse from both verses 44 and 46.

7. K.J.V. John 5:3, "In these lay a great multitude of impotent (sick) folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water."
N.I.V., has removed "Waiting for the moving of the water."

K.J.B. John 5:4, “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
N.I.V., removed the whole verse.

8. K.J.B. John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The N.I.V. changed both 14 and 18 to, “only begotten to “One and Only.” One and only what? We are all sons of God, even demons are called sons of God. So how can they call Jesus the "one and only?"

9. K.J.V. John 3:16, Jesus said, "For God (the Father) so loved the world, that he gave his only Begotten Son (Jesus)."

N.I.V. changed it to read, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.” Unlike the above in John 1:14, this time, instead of upper case One and Only, the N.I.V. went to lower case, “one and only.” Why? I don’t have a clue, but it shows their inconsistency.

10. K.J.V. 1 John 4:9, "God (the Father) sent his only begotten Son (Jesus) into the world, that we might live through Him."

N.I.V. 1 John 4:9, "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son."

11. K.J.V. Matthew 17:21, The disciples could not cure a lunatic who was demon possessed. The disciples came to Jesus asking Him why. Jesus explains,

Matthew 17:21. "This kind (demon) goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

The N.I.V. left Jesus' answer out.
I'll post more differences later.

[placebofactor]

This post was to show the differences between the two Bibles, nothing else.

This particular forum is for debating, my friend.

Well, isn't that what were doing?

If you just want to document differences between the KJV and NIV and "nothing else," then you should start these kinds of threads in Random Ramblings instead.

Yes, documenting the differences will always cause responses.

It's true that today -- in the year 2025 -- we have access to scores of copies of the book of Revelation in Greek, so we don't have to resort to extracting the text from commentaries or trying to back-translate the Greek from the Latin, as Erasmus did. The problem for you, though, is that none of the actual manuscripts of Revelation -- the biblical manuscripts themselves -- contain this phrase, "of them which are saved," and so don't support the reading in the KJV.

So, again, what do you make of that fact?

Commentaries are usually based on manuscripts that have been translated. To claim not one manuscript exists is a stretch, don't you think? If there were but one, it would have to be considered.

I'm not sure where you are going with all this.

I'm asking you what you make of the fact that the KJV rendering of Revelation 21:24 disagrees with all of the biblical manuscripts of Revelation, and appears to contain the words of Andreas of Caesarea. Did the Holy Spirit inspire the words of Andreas of Caesarea?

I don't know, you will have to ask him.

Because the book of Revelation is part of the text, I consider it a part of God's word, so I include it in my study.

I'm not asking you whether you think the book of Revelation is Scripture or not. Erasmus had his doubts about that, but I'm not asking you about that either.

since the time the first completed Bible came out, regardless of language, it included the book of Revelation.

That is demonstrably false. But, again, not what I'm asking.

After finishing, the King James was my choice, and I trust it completely.

But are you willing to admit that the KJV contains mistakes?

No!!!!!!!!!!!! Because my Bible tells me all scripture is God breathed. Your faith in God appears to be less than 100%. In my studies over the years, I have found no errors in my K.J.B., but if you have, it may be because you're using a Bible that contains errors or listening to people who may not be qualified to teach.


Because Erasmus and the Anglican translators of the KJV clearly thought that they might have made mistakes, and, if so, that their work should be open to future revisions.

I believe if Erasmus made errors, they were cleared up by others who came after him. I'm sorry, this is my position. I honestly believe and trust that the LORD has been watching over his word for these past 3000 years. And only in these last days have men begun to stir the pot of doubt, causing a great divide in the Christian community. This forum is a perfect example of that. I have been on it for 4 months, and have not seen one person admit they are wrong. Paul speaks of the last days and how there will be a falling away of the faith just before the antichrist is revealed. My study takes Paul's comments to the very near future when this prophecy will come to pass, three years at the most.

By October of 2027, 2000, years ago, Jesus was baptized.
By April 2031, 2000, years will have passed from Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

6030 years will pass from October of 4004 B.C. when Adam fell, to October 2027. God has given us 6000 years, + the 30 years of peace and goodwill Jesus brought with him. The peace ended in 27 A.D. when the devil confronted Jesus in the wilderness, and when the Temple priest arrested John and went looking for Jesus. That's why Jesus went into Galilee, the land of the Gentiles, instead of Jerusalem. And the war between light and darkness started up again.

Scriptures say Israel will have to exist and the Jews will have to be in the land, a prophecy fulfilled on May of 1948.

One generation, according to the Scripture, is 80 years. Matthew said there is a generation of Jews (1948) who will be brought back into the land of Israel, and they will witness all that Matthew prophesied in chapter 24. 77 years have passed since 1948. When 2027 ends on Yom Kippur, it will be the end of 2027.

These are the things that give me faith in my K.J.B., it's called prophecy. I have posted 4 or 5 subjects on end-time prophecy on this forum, but there appears to be a total lack of interest. It's a shame, as far as I am concerned, the infallibility of scripture can be found in the fulfillment of these prophecies.

That's my take.

[historia]

I'm asking you what you make of the fact that the KJV rendering of Revelation 21:24 disagrees with all of the biblical manuscripts of Revelation, and appears to contain the words of Andreas of Caesarea. Did the Holy Spirit inspire the words of Andreas of Caesarea?

I don't know, you will have to ask him.

So, you're okay with Erasmus adding the words of Andreas of Caesarea to the book of Revelation (cf., Rev. 22:18)?

But are you willing to admit that the KJV contains mistakes?

No!!!!!!!!!!!!

But I just showed you a mistake. Erasmus mistakenly added the words of Andreas of Caesarea to Revelation 21:24.

And that's just one of several examples where Erasmus clearly made an error in his reconstruction of the Greek text of Revelation.

Because my Bible tells me all scripture is God breathed. Your faith in God appears to be less than 100%.

That doesn't make sense. Consider, for example, that the KJV that you read today is not identical to the one that was first printed in 1611. You are most likely reading an edition based on the 1769 Blayney revision -- a revision that was necessary because earlier editions contained mistakes!

Is your faith in God less than 100% if you aren't reading a 1611 edition of the KJV? Or was God not "watching over his word" between 1611 and 1769?

Because Erasmus and the Anglican translators of the KJV clearly thought that they might have made mistakes, and, if so, that their work should be open to future revisions.

I believe if Erasmus made errors, they were cleared up by others who came after him. I'm sorry, this is my position.

Broadly speaking, that is true: textual scholars in the 19th and 20th Century discovered Erasmus' errors and corrected them.

But that's not what you meant, of course. You meant that you just assume that someone caught any mistakes Erasmus made before your favorite English translation was made. But that is demonstrably false, since we can still see Erasmus' obvious errors in the KJV to this day. Why pretend they are not there?

I honestly believe and trust that the LORD has been watching over his word for these past 3000 years. And only in these last days have men begun to stir the pot of doubt, causing a great divide in the Christian community.

The Early Church Fathers noticed and discussed differences they saw in biblical manuscripts, so there is nothing new about this.

I have posted 4 or 5 subjects on end-time prophecy on this forum, but there appears to be a total lack of interest.

To be frank, Evangelicals and Adventists have been telling us for nearly two centuries now that, based on their totally nifty calculations, we're just three years away from the Second Coming. It's hard to generate interest in "end-time prophecy" when clearly this whole way of interpreting the Bible has repeatedly produced false predictions.

[placebofactor]

This post was to show the differences between the two Bibles, nothing else.

This particular forum is for debating, my friend.

If you just want to document differences between the KJV and NIV and "nothing else," then you should start these kinds of threads in Random Ramblings instead.

It's true that today -- in the year 2025 -- we have access to scores of copies of the book of Revelation in Greek, so we don't have to resort to extracting the text from commentaries or trying to back-translate the Greek from the Latin, as Erasmus did. The problem for you, though, is that none of the actual manuscripts of Revelation -- the biblical manuscripts themselves -- contain this phrase, "of them which are saved," and so don't support the reading in the KJV.

So, again, what do you make of that fact?

I'm not sure where you are going with all this.

I'm asking you what you make of the fact that the KJV rendering of Revelation 21:24 disagrees with all of the biblical manuscripts of Revelation, and appears to contain the words of Andreas of Caesarea. Did the Holy Spirit inspire the words of Andreas of Caesarea?

Because the book of Revelation is part of the text, I consider it a part of God's word, so I include it in my study.

I'm not asking you whether you think the book of Revelation is Scripture or not. Erasmus had his doubts about that, but I'm not asking you about that either.

since the time the first completed Bible came out, regardless of language, it included the book of Revelation.

That is demonstrably false. But, again, not what I'm asking.

After finishing, the King James was my choice, and I trust it completely.

But are you willing to admit that the KJV contains mistakes? Because Erasmus and the Anglican translators of the KJV clearly thought that they might have made mistakes, and, if so, that their work should be open to future revisions.

No, not at all. How can I make that statement? Over the past 40 years, there are few subjects in the Bible that I have not studied, beginning at Genesis and ending with Revelation. There have been times I would get hung up on a subject, where I could not understand it, or it appeared to have conflicting statements. But as time passed, and I grew in my knowledge and understanding, these issues were resolved. As of this moment, there is not one subject I have studied that the King James has not clarified for me. It wasn't easy, but with intense word studies and supporting verses, it always comes together.

Concerning debating on this forum, there are many ways to debate issues and differences. I understand that there are a few Jehovah's Witnesses who respond to my threads. I know what they believe, and most of the time, I know full well they will disagree with what I post. So, the best way to present my position on a topic is to write out my full position, or belief, having little doubt that one or two of them will respond negatively. Walla, we have a debate. We don't always have to ask a question. And when people are in full agreement with you, there will not usually be a debate, but a compliment.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #13]

K.J.B. Daniel 12:11, "And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate set up, there shall be a thousand and two hundred and ninety years."

NIV. “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.”

The discussion concerns the difference between K.J.B. "daily sacrifice shall be taken away," and N.I.V. "daily sacrifice abolished?" Is there a significant difference?

I would say yes, there’s a meaningful difference between “abolished” (NIV) and “taken away” (KJB) that can shape how the verse is understood.

Word Comparison: “Abolished” vs. “Taken Away”
“Taken away” suggests a physical removal or interruption of the daily sacrifice. It implies that the sacrifice was actively stopped or removed by an external force by a hostile power. Let's see if there is any support for this thinking.

Let's turn to 2 Kings 24:13. The following events took place in 599 B.C., when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon invaded Israel.

2 kings 24:13, He "Carried out thence all the treasures of the kings house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD" There is no mention specifically of the Ark and mercy seat being taken, but they are never mentioned again. And because they were both made of gold, I see no reason why any thief would leave them behind, or destroy them and take the gold. If correct, that would have been the end of the daily sacrifice because the priest could not cleanse himself and the people once each year on Yom Kippur, therefore cancelling out any other sacrifices made by him, including the daily sacrifice.

Concerning “Abolished” in the NIV. Abolished carries a more legal or permanent tone, as if the practice was officially outlawed or nullified. It also implies a systemic or authoritative end to the sacrifice, not just its physical removal, but a broader theological or institutional shift.

Also, the King James “taken away” aligns more closely with the Hebrew verb “sur”, which means “to turn aside” or “remove.” This supports the idea of a forceful interruption. And the NIV’s “abolished” reflects a modern interpretive choice, emphasizing the finality or intentionality behind the act. It can subtly shift the tone from a historical event to a theological declaration.

Your thoughts:

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #14]

Following is a comparison of Luke 4:8 in the N.I.V. and the King James Bible):

Translation Luke 4:8
K.J.B. Luke 4:8, "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

N.I.V: Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

The K.J.B. includes the phrase “Get thee behind me, Satan”, which is absent in the N.I.V.

First difference: The N.I.V. uses more contemporary language: “Worship the Lord your God and serve him only”, while the King James uses more formal phrasing: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

What impact on Jesus' authority over Satan is removed by leaving out "get thee behind me, Satan:" Leaving out the phrase “Get thee behind me, Satan” subtly shifts the tone and perceived authority of Jesus’ response during the temptation in the wilderness. The impact on Jesus’ Authority:

Direct Rebuke Removed: The phrase is a command that asserts Jesus’ dominance over Satan. Without it, the verse becomes more of a scriptural citation than a confrontation.

Spiritual Power Diminished: Saying “Get thee behind me” implies Jesus is casting Satan away, not just resisting temptation. It’s an act of spiritual authority, not just moral resolve.

In the N.I.V., the narrative force is softened: The omission makes Jesus’ response feel more passive, as if he’s quoting Scripture to deflect rather than actively banishing the tempter.

Symbolic Victory Blurred: That phrase echoes Jesus’ later rebuke of Peter (Matthew 16:23), reinforcing his role as one who commands evil to retreat. Without it, the moment loses some of its symbolic weight in the cosmic battle between good and evil.

To conclude, the N.I.V. reflects a more critical textual tradition, and the K.J.B. preserves a theologically rich expression of Jesus’ authority.