Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!

[WithinReason]

Ok, NIV, and multiple versions, once again, here we go:

Galatians 5:12 KJB - I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Galatians 5:12 GNT TR - οφελον και αποκοψονται οι αναστατουντες υμας​

Sounds clear, right? Paul desired to have those meddlesome persons separated from the flock ('churched'). Spiritual.

Let's see the filthy carnal minds of the more modern translators...

Galatians 5:12 NIV - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 ASV - I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.

Galatians 5:12 CEV [E-Sword] - I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more!

Galatians 5:12 ESV - I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 CEB - I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 GNT - I wish that the people who are upsetting you would go all the way; let them go on and castrate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 ISV - I wish that those who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!

Galatians 5:12 HCSB - I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves castrated!

Galatians 5:12 NASB - I wish that those who are troubling you would even [a]mutilate themselves.

Galatians 5:12 NLT - I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.​

Wow, those 'renderings' are really 'spirit' filled, just not of the Holy Spirit. Filled with retaliation, and mutilation, and castration.

Paul, what should "cut off" mean?

​

Romans 11:22 KJB - Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.​

Moses, what should "cut off" mean?

Exodus 12:19 KJB - Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

Leviticus 7:21 KJB - Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Leviticus 7:25 KJB - For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.

Leviticus 22:3 KJB - Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.​

Joshua, what does "cut off" mean?

Joshua 3:16 KJB - That the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.​

Chronicler, what does "cut off" mean?

1 Kings 9:7 KJB - Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:

2 Chronicles 32:21 KJB - And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.​

Zechariah, what does "cut off" mean?

Zechariah 11:16 KJB - For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.​

The text themselves explain the word and what it means. To 'cut off' is indeed to separate, to amputate. No issue. The problem is the carnal mind versus the spiritual mind.

Do any really think Paul meant a retaliation, to cut off the male reproductive, rather than to simply be 'amputated', 'separated from', 'cut off' from the body of Christ? [Matthew 5:29,30; Mark 9:43,45; Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15, 12:12,18,20 KJB]? If so, I pity such, really.

However, let's read it 'their' way, anyway, from an OT perspective which deals with the Physical:

Deuteronomy 23:1 KJB - He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.​

Ought not we think that the NT is the Spiritual, and that Paul understood this?

1 Corinthians 15:46 KJB - Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.​

John Gill [Baptist]:

​

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... I would they were even cut off which trouble you. These words are a solemn wish of the apostle's with respect to the false teachers, or an imprecation of the judgment of God upon them; that they might be cut off out of the land of the living by the immediate hand of God, that they might do no more mischief to the churches of Christ: this he said not out of hatred to their persons, but from a concern for the glory of God, and the good of his people. The word here used answers to the Hebrew word קפח, and which is often made use of by the Jews in solemn imprecations; we read (o) of a righteous man, מקפח את בניו, "that cut off his children": the gloss upon it is, ..."​

Adam Clarke [Methodist]:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... As the persons who were breeding all this confusion in the Churches of Galatia were members of that Church, the apostle appears to me to be simply expressing his desire that they might be cut off or excommunicated from the Church. Kypke has given an abundance of examples where the word is used to signify amputating; cutting off from society, office, etc.; excluding. ..."​

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge CROSS-references:

"... cut: Gal_5:10, Gal_1:8-9; Gen_17:14; Exo_12:15, Exo_30:33; Lev_22:3; Jos_7:12, Jos_7:25; Joh_9:34; Act_5:5, Act_5:9; 1Co_5:13; Tit_3:10 ..."​

B. W. Johnson:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "... I would they were even cut off. These men are seeking to make the mark of bondage by cutting your flesh. I would that they would cut themselves off (see Revision). I take it that he means "Cut themselves off from the church so as to have nothing more to do with it." ..."​

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

Galatians 5:12 Notations - "...were even cut off — even as they desire your foreskin to be cut off and cast away by circumcision, so would that they were even cut off from your communion, being worthless as a castaway foreskin (Gal_1:7, Gal_1:8; compare Php_3:2). The fathers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom, explain it, “Would that they would even cut themselves off,” that is, cut off not merely the foreskin, but the whole member: if circumcision be not enough for them, then let them have excision also; an outburst hardly suitable to the gravity of an apostle. But Gal_5:9, Gal_5:10 plainly point to excommunication as the judgment threatened against the troublers: and danger of the bad “leaven” spreading, as the reason for it. ..."​

 

[Dan_473]

If God allows corrupt Bibles to be published, how would a person in different times in history know which Bible was the uncorrupted one?

 

[John146]

​

. . and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, ​

whether things on earth or things in heaven, ​

by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross. ​

(Colossians 1:20 NIV)​

You see, you miss that connection with verse 14 by removing the blood. The blood of Jesus brings redemption, making peace with God. How can you compare Scripture to Scripture when words are missing?

 

[posthuman]

You see, you miss that connection with verse 14 by removing the blood.

i guess if verse 14 was the only part of the Bible you read, and don't have any clue that Christ came to redeem us by offering His life on the cross. but 'redemption' and 'forgiveness of sin' and 'rescuing from darkness' are all in verse 14 and directly correlate with 'reconciling' and 'making peace' through His blood on the cross in verse 20.

just to say, 'blood-blood' isn't the only linguistic connection, and there is the thematic connection regardless of the vocabulary: if you know the gospel, every time you read 'redemption' or 'forgiveness of sin' you think 'His blood' and 'the cross' -- and Colossians is written to people who do know and have believed this gospel.

 

[posthuman]

i guess if verse 14 was the only part of the Bible you read, and don't have any clue that Christ came to redeem us by offering His life on the cross. but 'redemption' and 'forgiveness of sin' and 'rescuing from darkness' are all in verse 14 and directly correlate with 'reconciling' and 'making peace' through His blood on the cross in verse 20.

just to say, 'blood-blood' isn't the only linguistic connection, and there is the thematic connection regardless of the vocabulary: if you know the gospel, every time you read 'redemption' or 'forgiveness of sin' you think 'His blood' and 'the cross' -- and Colossians is written to people who do know and have believed this gospel.

anyway if the NIV translating committee was really out to corrupt the scripture and make sure no one would know that we have redemption & forgiveness of sin through His blood shed on the cross, they really dropped the ball by failing to delete verse 20.

so personally i'm skeptical of the accusations of nefarious intent.

 

[Dino246]

Of course the phrase in the KJV best represents the Hebrew concept of God. To the Hebrew God is not at all fussy, murky or complicated. To the Jew God is black or white, there is no middle ground.

You dodged the question, again. I think you're either unwilling or not able to answer.

Biblica

, formerly International Bible Society, was founded in 1809 and is the worldwide copyright holder of the New International Version of the Bible (NIV), licensing commercial rights to Zondervan in the United States and to Hodder & Stoughton in the United Kingdom. Biblica is also a member of the Forum of Bible Agencies International and Every Tribe Every Nation.
Biblica is a corrupted organization and or responsible for the production, publishing and marketing of the NIV in 1978 and more recently a Gender Neutral NIV version of the bible. If God wanted there to be a Gender Neutral version of His Word He would have seen fit to make that a gender neutral version of Hs Word would have been written by the authors of the 66 books we have in the original manuscripts. By creating a Gender Neutral Bible, Biblica rebelled against the natural order of thing which God has put in place for a reason and a purpose. This means that not only is the organization of Biblica corrupted by the corrupted way of thinking of the world but it also means that any bible version they have created or have been a part of crteating are equally corrupted and should all be burned to ashes.

This discussion is not about the Gender Neutral version.

 

[John146]

If God allows corrupt Bibles to be published, how would a person in different times in history know which Bible was the uncorrupted one?

Since the beginning in the garden, God’s word was being corrupted.

 

[Dino246]

"Yea, hath God said ..."

Yawn.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

"Yea, hath God said ..."

I guess that question could be pointed back to you. Prove via scripture or mandate from God that the KJV isn't the errant text.

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Should we examine the fruit of King James, and his minions? Setting himself as head of the church. Against the old testament mandate that the King can't perform priestly duties, that what got ole Saul in trouble with God. Persecution of Puritans, taking away their Bibles and foisting upon every one his version. Chaining his version to the pulpits of the churches. Executions of dissenters. Yep real Godly bunch, surely what they produced has to be from God.

 

[John146]

anyway if the NIV translating committee was really out to corrupt the scripture and make sure no one would know that we have redemption & forgiveness of sin through His blood shed on the cross, they really dropped the ball by failing to delete verse 20.

so personally i'm skeptical of the accusations of nefarious intent.

Is this an important omission? Or no big deal?

KJV Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

NIV Mark 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!”

 

[John146]

Should we examine the fruit of King James,

Let’s do. The greatest world revival took place using the KJV. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on.

What fruit do the new versions have? They are responsible for the Laodicean church of today.

 

[posthuman]

Is this an important omission? Or no big deal?

it's only 'omission' if it really is in Mark's original letter.

here's the NET Bible notes:

tc Most mss (A C D Θ f1, 13 28 565 2427 𝔐 lat sy) have here “for those who trust in riches” (τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ [τοῖς] χρήμασιν, tous pepoithotas epi [tois] chrēmasin); W has πλούσιον (plousion) later in the verse, producing the same general modification on the dominical saying (“how hard it is for the rich to enter …”). But such qualifications on the Lord’s otherwise harsh and absolute statements are natural scribal expansions, intended to soften the dictum. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, along with a few others (א B Δ Ψ sa), lack any such qualifications. That W lacks the longer expansion and only has πλούσιον suggests that its archetype agreed with א B here; its voice should be heard with theirs. Thus, both on external and internal grounds, the shorter reading is preferred.
​

i do not agree that all translations made after 1611 are made with evil intent.
i do not agree with translations like 'NLT' etc that set aside accuracy for interpretive readability. what's important to me is accuracy. i do not have the years of educational background and scholarship it takes to really make reasoned judgements about textual criticism, and i do not trust at all the 'KJV-only' resources that @WithinReason is spamming this thread with -- these have clear and obvious bias.

i'd just like to put that, the NIV, ESV, NASB, HCB etc were not made with nefarious intent. they were made with the intent of integrating the advances in scholarship and the many additional manuscript evidences that have become available in the 400 years since the KJV was made, and with the intent of bringing the translation into line with the natural changes in the vocabulary & usage of the common English language. both of these are things which the KJV translating body encouraged ((and themselves did in their own time)) in the 1611 preface.

 

[posthuman]

Let’s do. The greatest world revival took place using the KJV. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on.

Jesus didn't use the KJV. the apostles didn't use the KJV.

let's learn Greek & Hebrew.

 

[John146]

it's only 'omission' if it really is in Mark's original letter.

here's the NET Bible notes:

tc Most mss (A C D Θ f1, 13 28 565 2427 𝔐 lat sy) have here “for those who trust in riches” (τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ [τοῖς] χρήμασιν, tous pepoithotas epi [tois] chrēmasin); W has πλούσιον (plousion) later in the verse, producing the same general modification on the dominical saying (“how hard it is for the rich to enter …”). But such qualifications on the Lord’s otherwise harsh and absolute statements are natural scribal expansions, intended to soften the dictum. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, along with a few others (א B Δ Ψ sa), lack any such qualifications. That W lacks the longer expansion and only has πλούσιον suggests that its archetype agreed with א B here; its voice should be heard with theirs. Thus, both on external and internal grounds, the shorter reading is preferred. ​

​

i do not agree that all translations made after 1611 are made with evil intent.
i do not agree with translations like 'NLT' etc that set aside accuracy for interpretive readability. what's important to me is accuracy. i do not have the years of educational background and scholarship it takes to really make reasoned judgements about textual criticism, and i do not trust at all the 'KJV-only' resources that @WithinReason is spamming this thread with -- these have clear and obvious bias.

i'd just like to put that, the NIV, ESV, NASB, HCB etc were not made with nefarious intent. they were made with the intent of integrating the advances in scholarship and the many additional manuscript evidences that have become available in the 400 years since the KJV was made, and with the intent of bringing the translation into line with the natural changes in the vocabulary & usage of the common English language. both of these are things which the KJV translating body encouraged ((and themselves did in their own time)) in the 1611 preface.

The translators may not be evil people, but they have opened themselves up to the adversary to carry out his work by casting doub on the word of God. See John 8.

 

[John146]

Jesus didn't use the KJV. the apostles didn't use the KJV.

let's learn Greek & Hebrew.

Well, that would be useless since we don’t have the originals. Besides, that would make me the authority on what God has said. No thank you.

 

[posthuman]

The translators may not be evil people, but they have opened themselves up to the adversary to carry out his work by casting doub on the word of God. See John 8.

well that's the same thing the KJV translators did, then.

so.

let's learn Latin?

 

[massorite]

You dodged the question, again. I think you're either unwilling or not able to answer.


This discussion is not about the Gender Neutral version.

No it is about the corruption of the NIV and because the Gender Neutral NIV was created by the Biblica/International Bible Society that makes every bible they have created corrupted. If they were willing to destroy the Word Of God by creating a gender neutral bible then everything they are involved with is ANTICHRIST and that means the both the NIV and the Gender Neutral NIV should be burned to ashes. Your just trying to separate one of their corrupted creations apart from the other because you use an NIV which is just as corrupted as a gender neutral NIV. But God didn't have any part in corrupting Biblica nor did He have anything to do with helping them to corrupt His Word which is why we can't separate the NIV from the gender neutral NIV. The NIV, the gender neutral NIV and Biblica all came from the same source, which is who???? Satan!

Now could you please re-ask me that question you claim I am dodging? Because I never dodge any questions. If I don't have an answer for a question I will never fake an answer. I will tell you "I don't have an answer".

 

[Dan_473]

Since the beginning in the garden, God’s word was being corrupted.

Are you saying all versions of the Bible are corrupted? None of them are completely reliable?

 

[John146]

well that's the same thing the KJV translators did, then.

so.

let's learn Latin?

Let’s just learn the English language. Seems that’s too difficult for some.

 

[John146]

Are you saying all versions of the Bible are corrupted? None of them are completely reliable?

Only the KJV can be trusted, every word. If there is one false word, it is corrupt. Or, don’t call it the word of God.