Which Version Is The Bible?

Moreover, the Hebrew equivalent of "proskuneo" is "shachah" (Hebrew = Shiyn-Cheyth-He = hjv). Shachah occurs 174 times in the Old Testament, and it too is normally translated by some form of the word "worship" - being so rendered 99 times. Furthermore, shachah is the same word that is used with reference to the worship of God, idols, images, demons, etc. throughout the entire Old Testament.

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJB)

"Jesus said unto him, Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." (NAS; NIV is similar)

Comment: The rich young ruler had asked the Master what good thing might he do to have eternal life. Jesus' reply was one of the greatest statements in the New Testament on the depravity of man and the deity of Christ. The question was about eternal life! The issue was Jesus! The young man was not asking "what is good", but "what good thing shall I do"?

Jesus' answer paraphrased would be "Young man, you just called me good! Do you realize what you are saying, for the Scripture teaches that there is only one good and that is God. Now do you still want to call me good?" If he now acknowledges that Jesus is "good" it would be tantamount to a confession that Jesus was God come in the flesh. Jesus was confronting the rich young ruler concerning His person. In so saying, Jesus is making a positive claim to Deity!

Jesus' answer must have deeply stung the pride of Origen (A.D. 185-254 - See Ch. V, p. 1) who is the source of this adulteration in the Holy Writ. As a gnostic Alexandrian Greek scholar and philosopher who had already castrated himself and gone around barefoot for years in order to earn "heavenly merits", Origen could not accept such as an authentic reading. He changed it to appear that the rich young ruler had asked Jesus to answer the great question of Greek philosophy - what is the "Summum Bonum" (highest good)? The reading as it appears in the NAS, NIV etc. is thus exposed as a gnostic depravity!

As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (KJB)

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (NAS; NIV is similar.)

Comment: Verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3, but Verse 2 is not found in the Book of Isaiah. It is from Mal.3:1 - "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ...". Thus the King James is correct in saying "prophets". Why is this distinction so important? Because Malachi gives the Hebrew rendition which is the precise original quote. If we know to look for the Mark text in more than one O.T. prophet, the reader may learn the great truth that lies couched in these verses.

When we read the last part of Malachi 3:1 and compare this to verse 6, we find that the "my" and "me" of verse one is Jehovah (LORD in all caps). When the New Testament quotes the Old, the word for Jehovah is not in all capital letters but in the Old Testament the word "LORD" is the English rendering of the Hebrew YHWH which we call "Jehovah".

Jehovah is speaking, hence Malachi is saying that the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah Himself, is coming - in the flesh! There is only one God and His principal name is "Jehovah". He manifested Himself in three persons, one in the flesh in order to die for man's sins. As Mark 1:1-3 applies to Jesus, we see that this becomes a declaration as to the person of Jesus - that He is Jehovah come to earth. This identification cannot be pieced together from Isaiah alone. Origen did not believe that Jesus was Jehovah come in the flesh so he altered the verse to fit his gnostic beliefs, obliterating the connection to Malachi. Modern translators are using Origen's private interpretation from which to translate. The King James makes it clear that Jehovah was coming in the flesh whereas the NAS and NIV do not. This is a major doctrinal point for the person and deity of Christ Jesus are at issue.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.(KJB)

RSV and NIV both omit verse 44. By so doing, man is not warned; he does not have to be concerned about eternal fire.

Comment: To learn what Jesus says about hell, read Chapter 9 beginning with verse 42. Jesus taught more about hell and its realities in the Gospels than is found in the rest of the Bible put together. Jesus repeats verse 44 again in verse 46. A church or person not believing in hell fire prefers the deletion of verse 44, but the original perverter of the Mark Scripture overlooked that it was a quote from Isaiah 66:24 and omitted to alter the teaching there. Man may try to eliminate hell in the New Testament, but the truth of the terrible consequence of man's sin if left unatoned by not receiving Jesus as one's personal Savior is preserved for us in the Old Testament. It does not alter the truth or fact of hell if one says he does not believe in hell. One may declare that he does not believe in gravity, but if he walks off a twenty story building he will find that mind over matter does not work. Cults teach "mind over matter", as do some Christian circles regarding the subject of faith, but it is not a Scriptural concept - not when context is considered. The fact of hell as a literal place is Scriptural (Luk.16:19-31 etc.).

Jesus looked at him and loved him. "one thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (NIV; NAS is similar.)

Comment: The words "take up the cross" have been left out. That doctrine admittedly makes Christianity sound more appealing, but Jesus says there is a cross that comes with the new birth. The cross is a place of death. It is where man's will "crosses" God's will in opposition, rather than agreeing and lining up with the will of the Lord. It is the place where "self" dies to its own will, desires, goals, ambitions etc., and bows its head in humble submission to its Lord and says "not my will Lord but thine".

⁹Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. ¹⁰And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. B¹¹And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. ¹²After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. ¹³And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. ¹⁴Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. ¹⁵And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. ¹⁶He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. ¹⁷And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; ¹⁸They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. ¹⁹So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. ²⁰And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (KJB)

Comment: Most versions have a footnote to the effect that "these verses are not in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts." In laymen's terms this means that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the two 4th century Greek manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph which were derived from Origen's (185-254) edited New Testament (a 12th century minuscule also omits the verses). Satan has always wanted to strip the church of its power, authority, and commission. These verses are the Great Commission spoken by Jesus as recorded by Mark. It is an apostolic commission delegating great power to the body of Christ that it may continue the ministry of the Lord Jesus.

Of the approximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. extant today, none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lost from many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9-20 are present in all but the 3 cited above.¹ The footnote is thus unveiled and laid bare as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating that these verses are not the Word of God.

The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.99%) - around 8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over 2,000 known Greek Lectionaries contain the verses.² They were cited by Church "Fathers" who lived 150 years or more before B or Aleph were written i.e.: Papias (c.100), Justin Martyr (c.150), Tatian (c.175), Irenaeus (c.180), and Hippolytus (c.200). Further, the Vatican MSS has a blank space exactly the size required to include the 12 verses at the end of the 16th chapter. The scribe who prepared B obviously knew of the existence of the verses and their precise content. Indeed, as Tischendorf observed, Sinaiticus exhibits a different handwriting and ink on this page, and there is a change in spacing and size of the individual letters in an attempt to fill up the void left by the removal of the verses. These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.

Do we really believe that God would have the greatest story ever told end at verse 8: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." Would God allow the good news of the Gospel to end with his disciples cringing in fear? Would Mark conclude his Gospel without any reference to the appearance of the risen Christ to His disciples? I think not! The reader should feel a deep sense of righteous anger upon learning of the unscrupulous manner in which these verses have been presented by various publishers.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (KJB)

Then Mary said to the angel, How shall this be since I have no husband? (RSV)

Comment: These verses are not declaring the same thing. Do not women have children without having husbands? God was declaring that Mary was a virgin. This verse also corroborates that Isaiah 7:14 should read "virgin". Again, Jesus did not inherit Adam's sin nature - He (with regard to His humanity, not His eternal deity) inherited the sinless nature of His Father God as a result of the miraculous conception of Mary! The Scriptures teach that one receives his "nature" (we are not referring to character traits) from one's father, not the mother.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (KJB)

Glory to God in the highest (heaven), and on earth peace among men with whom he is well pleased. (AMP; NAS & NIV read similarly except say "peace among men of good will."

Comment: The Scriptures teach that there are no men of good will, that the heart is desperately wicked and that none are righteous - no, not one - that all are sinners. The humanist trite offered as Scripture in the NAS, NIV, and AMP above is not the message which God brought the night the Messiah was born. The message delivered by the angels to the shepherds near Bethlehem was that God was presenting a gift of His good will toward all men, not merely to men of good will.

The reading contained in the newer translations reflects the view of the ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Having a "good will" to them was the major factor in approaching life; some even considered it to be the "summum bonum" (supreme good). This "stale crumb" of Greek Philosophy³ was introduced into the N.T. when Origen altered "eudokia" ("good will" - nominative case) to "eudokias" ("of good will" - genitive case) thus producing the result he desired (though he admitted in his critical apparatus that he was divided in his mind over the correct reading).

The truth of the matter is assured by the context (context often ignored or missed by many so-called Greek and Hebrew scholars in their determined penchant for altering the King James and its Greek foundation - the Textus Receptus), for verse 10 precedes with "and the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." The angels were bringing the good news to all people, not just to men of good will - for as there are no such creatures, such would not be "good tidings". Moreover, the "new" reading spoils the three-fold meter of the verse by doing away with the last of the three subjects (glory, peace, good will), and "men of good will" is grammatically left without any qualifying genitive.⁴

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. (KJB)

And His father and His mother were amazed at things which were being said about Him. (NAS; NIV)

Comment: God is meticulously affirming that Joseph was not the father of Jesus by the King James wording "Joseph and Jesus' mother". The NAS and NIV reduce Jesus to a mere human, born with a sin nature inherited from Adam. The alteration is another assault upon Jesus' deity.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (KJB)

Jesus answered and said, Man shall not live by bread alone. (NAS)

Comment: Omitting "but by every word of God" is a major doctrinal point of contention. The King James reading protects the believer from over dispensationalism which tends to negate the importance of the Old Testament. Jesus corrects that error as the O.T. was also given by the Word of God. The whole point of the verse has been left out! Yet the Church is constantly being taught and persuaded that the NAS and NIV are the best translations available.

The setting of the story here is that Jesus and his disciples are enroute to Jerusalem through Samaria and the Samaritans will not welcome them to their cities.

⁵⁴And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? ⁵⁵But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. ⁵⁶For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (KJB)

⁵⁴And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, Do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? ⁵⁵But He turned and rebuked them. ⁵⁶And they went to another village. (NAS; NIV is similar)

Comment: None of the underlined KJ verses appears in the NAS or the NIV. Some of the other versions relegate them to a footnote. Had the Roman Catholic Church read and believed verse 56 there would never have been the inquisition where between 50 to 60 million people were murdered! By omitting these portions of Scripture, one could justify killing those disagreeing with his doctrine!

And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? (KJB)

They blindfolded him and demanded, Prophesy! Who hit you? (NIV, NAS)

Comment: "They struck Him on the face" was omitted. Not only is it important to know the fact that the Lord Jesus suffered such indignity and cruelty, this is prophecy being fulfilled which points to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. Micah 5:1 records: "... they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek."

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (KJB)

There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the Jews. (NIV; NAS is similar)

Comment: The words "of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew" were omitted!

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (KJB)

Jesus answered and said, Man shall not live by bread alone. (NAS)

Comment: Omitting "but by every word of God" is a major doctrinal point of contention. The King James reading protects the believer from over dispensationalism which tends to negate the importance of the Old Testament. Jesus corrects that error as the O.T. was also given by the Word of God. The whole point of the verse has been left out! Yet the Church is constantly being taught and persuaded that the NAS and NIV are the best translations available.

The setting of the story here is that Jesus and his disciples are enroute to Jerusalem through Samaria and the Samaritans will not welcome them to their cities.

⁵⁴And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? ⁵⁵But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. ⁵⁶For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (KJB)

⁵⁴And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, Do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? ⁵⁵But He turned and rebuked them. ⁵⁶And they went to another village. (NAS; NIV is similar)

Comment: None of the underlined KJ verses appears in the NAS or the NIV. Some of the other versions relegate them to a footnote. Had the Roman Catholic Church read and believed verse 56 there would never have been the inquisition where between 50 to 60 million people were murdered! By omitting these portions of Scripture, one could justify killing those disagreeing with his doctrine!

And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? (KJB)

They blindfolded him and demanded, Prophesy! Who hit you? (NIV, NAS)

Comment: "They struck Him on the face" was omitted. Not only is it important to know the fact that the Lord Jesus suffered such indignity and cruelty, this is prophecy being fulfilled which points to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. Micah 5:1 records: "... they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek."

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (KJB)

There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the Jews. (NIV; NAS is similar)

Comment: The words "of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew" were omitted!

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (KJB)

The word "Lord" is omitted. (NIV, NAS)

Comment: Not one Greek manuscript omits this word! Calling Jesus "Lord" indicates that the thief was converted before his death which establishes several important points. First, that God will receive a wicked man even at the last moments of his life; that it is never too late to become reconciled to God while there is life. This serves to reveal the nature and heart of God - that it is toward man and that He desires that none should perish doomed. Secondly, it demonstrates that God will receive a man apart from any religious rituals such as water baptism or extreme unction. There is absolutely no Greek authority for this omission; it is a private interpretation of those responsible for the newer Greek New Testaments which alter the Greek text upon which the King James is based.

Remember how He told you while He was still in Galilee. (RSV)

Comment: The most important part of the verse (see the underlined portion) - the entire resurrection - is omitted!

And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (KJB)

They gave him a piece of broiled fish. (NIV, NAS)

Comment: The words "and of an honeycomb" were omitted. The point that is being made is that when the reader uses the other versions, how is he to know what has been edited or deleted -whether it be concerning a major detail or not as in the above cited case? From now forward, the reader will always wonder, "has anything been omitted"?

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJB)

Nestle's Greek Text gives the following literal reading (NAS, AMP, NIV are similar): God, no man has seen never - the only begotten God, the One, being in the bosom of the Father, that One declared Him.

Comment: Instead of "only begotten Son" we find "only begotten god". That means that Jesus is a created god - a lessor god - a god with a little "g" and thus not eternal. This Scripture is dealing with the dual nature of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus versus His deity. Some Scripture reveals one and some the other. Not always realizing that He is l00% both, many people become confused. Sonship, in connection with Christ Jesus, always refers to His humanity - never to deity. As a man, He was begotten, had a beginning - became a son (cp. Luk.1:35; Act.13:33; Psa.2:7; Heb.1:5-6; Mat.1:18-25 etc.), but as God - He had no beginning! Micah 5:2, in speaking of the Messiah, declares "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

That Jesus is merely a created being, a lesser god, is the original Arian heresy! Arius (died 336) was an early "Church Father" who put forth this heresy. Emperor Constantine I and Eusebius promoted the teaching.

The Holy Scripture teaches that there is ONE God who has revealed Himself in three different Persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God, who is a spirit, became a Son for the purpose of dying to redeem fallen man. When this occurred, God also remained in heaven becoming a Father as He had "begotten" (imparted life) a son.

The most important single issue regarding Jesus is - Who is He - not what He did! Even though what He accomplished in His finished work of redeeming fallen man through His blood atonement for man's sin and sins was of major and majestic significance, it is secondary when compared to His person. What we are saying is, that the Church has proclaimed that men should give their hearts and lives to Christ - that we should faithfully follow adore and worship Him - because He gave His life for our sins. Wrong! We should do all of these - first and foremost because of WHO HE IS, God Almighty - the Creator! Because He is God we should worship Him and Him only should we serve, not because He did something for us. He is worthy of worship for Himself! For His own personal worth He deserves man's total being and allegiance. Then, secondarily, out of gratitude for His voluntarily humbling Himself in taking on the nature of flesh and for sacrificing Himself on our behalf - we should give Him all our loyalty, all our love and obedience.

Whenever the Scripture speaks of Jesus as the Son, it is always referring to the 33 years which He spent on the earth as a genuine human, although He never ceased being God. Thus God begat a Son! In other words, before the incarnation, before the virgin Mary's egg was supernaturally fertilized without intercourse (Luk.1:35) when He became "the Son of God", "the only begotten Son of the Father" - before all of this and from eternity past - who was Jesus? He was God in His own right. He was always God. "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God" (Joh 1:1).

God is a Spirit (Joh.4:24 KJ). The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same eternal Spirit from eternity past. Jesus, the Messiah, is thus the Creator of heaven and earth - the God of the Old Testament whose principal name is Jehovah - come in the flesh.

ISA 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Christianity is monotheistic - we do not believe in three Gods. There is ONE God (Isa.43:10-11; 44:6, 8b; 45:5, 21-22; Mk.12:29-33; Rom.3:30; I Cor.8:6; Eph.4:5-6; I Tim.2:5; and Jas.2:19) who, for the sake of redeeming fallen man (and that plan via foreknowledge was from before the foundation of the world), has revealed Himself in three distinct persons.

We do not argue or debate the above concerning the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. We proclaim it - though much of Christendom be ignorant of these basic Bible tenets. The Greek text that most of the Bible Colleges and Seminaries use today which has replaced the Greek text underlying the King James translation denies all of this by its reading - as does the NAS, NIV, AMP etc. which follow it. This is of preeminent importance. This is not error or mistranslation - it is heresy! It attacks the person of the Lord Jesus the Christ at the very foundation. O' Church, awake! The Philistines are upon us!

2 Only one Latin mss, one Syriac and one Coptic version omit Mark 9-20. Much of the material in this paragraph has been gleaned from Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering's taped interview before the Majority Text Society in Dallas, Texas (Summer of 1995). 3 Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed., (Des Moines, IO: Christian Research Press, 1984), p. 144.

4 Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1st ed., (Des Moines, IO: Christian Research Press, 1956), p. 73. The page of this reference has changed in Dr. Hills' later editions and to date I have not been able to locate it in his 1984 publication. All other references to this work of Hills within this publication except that on page 88 is to his 1984 4th edition.

Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (RSV 1971 NCC)

Comment: Perceive the difference! The King James declares that God's church was purchased by God's blood - therefore Christ is God. It was Jesus 'Christ whose blood was shed. The RSV separates Christ from God when it changes "his own blood" to "the blood of his own Son".

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (KJB)

Comment: All modern versions omit the underlined portion of the verse. This is because they have as their foundation the Greek uncials Aleph and Vaticanus (see p. 1) whereas the King James was based upon a different Greek text which reflects the reading of over 95% of all the known Greek manuscripts (see p. 1). These two uncials are supported by a few others (C,D,F & G) as well as a few cursives and versions. However, the vast mass of Greek cursives testify to the inclusion of these words. Even the much vaunted uncial "A" (see p. 1) contains "who walk not after the flesh". The critics pretend that this portion was inserted from the end of verse 4 in the course of transcription and that this mis-copied mss had its novel reading copied more than all the others. Strangely, such men claim for themselves insight and wisdom far greater than the whole of England (see p. 1 ff.). Such critics tell us what God ought to say rather than what God has said. Most Calvinists favor its omission fearing the doctrinal implications toward Arminianism if the portion is included. However such concern is of no force when one realizes that the ending is not a qualifying remark but rather serves to define what is meant by being "in Christ Jesus". Verses 8, 9, 13, 7:25 and 9:8 clearly define the terms "after the flesh" and "after the Spirit". Verse 4b is a refrain for emphasis. Scripture is rife with similar redundancies for the same reason - accentuation of important themes.

... for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God ... So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. (NAS)

Comment: The logic as preserved by the King James Bible is irrefutable! When we stand before the judgment seat of Christ - we are giving account to GOD. Therefore - Christ Jesus is God! Observe the subtle difference in the NAS! Just one small word is changed, yet there is no proof left that Jesus is God in these verses!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJB)

Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind. (NEB)

The NAS footnote reads: "or, every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable ..."

Comment: These renderings imply that there are Scriptures not given by inspiration of God. There is a problem if some are whereas others are not! A Pope or pastor would accordingly 2be necessary to determine which verses were inspired (job security for the clergy)!

Who [God's son, cp. v.1-2] being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: (KJB)

... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand ... (NIV; NAS similar).

Comment: "By himself" has been removed. By removing these words, perhaps Mary or some saint helped Jesus remove our sins! It is clear from the KJ that no one helped Jesus redeem. He is God come in the flesh and does not need any help. This is a major doctrinal point!

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are Sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,(KJB)

For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin.

That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren. (RSV)

Comment: The RSV adds "origin". By saying that Christ had the same origin as man, they are teaching that Christ is not God! Christ did not have an origin, as the Scriptures clearly proclaim, i.e.: PSA 90:2 ... even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (KJB)

MIC 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (KJB)

"All of one" is clearly defined in the context of the last part of the verse, namely the context of "family" via the new birth. Hence "all of one Father" is the sense of the matter, not "origin"!

For indeed He does not give aid to angels but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. (NKJ; NAS, NIV, AMP & RSV similar)

Comment: First, we remind the reader that here both of the above translations are being made from the exact Greek words as contained in the Textus Receptus (the original Greek reading of the New Testament). This is one of the many cases where the translation is facilitated by the context. The immediate context of verse 16 is unmistakably revealed in the verse that follows:

HEB 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Although the Greek is admittedly difficult if verse 16 alone is considered, the translators had their job clarified by the Holy Spirit. That which follows in verse 17 has nothing to do whatever with "giving aid" to angels. Furthermore, verse 14 both confirms and precedes the "problem" verse with the correct context:

HEB 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Clearly the subject being presented is that of the human nature of the Messiah, and as the letter is addressed to the "Hebrews" it is of special relevance to those who proceeded from the loins of Abraham. Moreover, verse 16 amplifies verse 5:

HEB 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

The writer of the Book of Hebrews is being led by the Holy Spirit to demonstrate, beginning with the "remote" context concerning familiar Old Testament fundamentals, why the Messiah had to be a man and could not be an angel.

The 1611 King James translators recognized the importance of bringing this +"remote" context (or distant context) to bear upon this verse, the literal Greek itself being cryptic and obscure. As all linguists well know, some interpretation is necessary when engaged in translating from one language to another, sentence structure, word order, etc. often being different. The object is to be faithful to the original wording and meaning such as to do as little interpretation as possible. Thus, guided by the Spirit of God, the King James translators correctly rendered verse 16 with regard to the remote context as well as with regard to the immediate context of the verses surrounding it. They signified that they had done this by placing "him the nature of" and "him" in italics. This clearly distinguishes between the words of man and of God. All other translations contain similar word insertions, but unlike the King James translation (many more than found in the KJ), they do not let the reader know this by so indicating.

Moreover, the verse as rendered in the KJ shows Jesus as the true fulfillment of mankind's only hope as revealed in the Old Testament prophecies - that He is the promised "seed of the woman" (Gen.3:15). This prophetic application of the verse is completely missed in the other translations.

Further, He is pictured by the KJ translators as especially being the fulfillment of the continuation of the Genesis 3:15 promise as given to Abraham. And in thy (Abraham) seed (singular! Greek = spermati {spermati}, LXX - cp. Gal. 3:16) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen. 22:18, KJB) But we are not left at the mercy of some mere man or modern Greek or Hebrew authority to divulge that the word "seed" in the above verse is not speaking of the Jewish nation but is in the singular and as such is a unmistakable reference to Messiah. The Holy Spirit reveals this truth to him in English elsewhere in Scripture. Now to Abraham and his seed (spermati = spermati - singular in Greek) were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds (spermasin = spermasin - plural as does the root sperma, = sperma; see the LXX), as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed (spermati - singular), which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16, KJB) All of the rich setting and overview that has preceeded is completely lost in the modern reading of Hebrews 2:16.

Equally alarming, the reading as found in the NKJV et al. introduces a conspicuous error into the Word of God - namely, that God does not give aid to angels.

This contradicts Daniel 10 wherein the prophet for whom the Book is named was told by an angel that he had been dispatched from the throne of Heaven to come to strengthen him. Nevertheless, the heavenly messenger had been withstood for a period of 21 days by the demon prince who oversaw the kingdom of Persia. It was not until God dispatched the archangel Michael to come to the aid of the angelic messenger that he was able to successfully battle through and reach Daniel.

Thus, the internal evidence of other Scripture lays bare this inaccurate rendering of the Word of God and shows all translations which so follow as being erroneous and inferior. The Monarch of Books, the true English rendering of the Holy Writ as preserved in the 1611 King James Bible, is thereby demonstrated to be conspicuously superior and preeminent.

Therefore since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose (NAS; NIV is similiar). Comment: Why did Christ Jesus suffer? For us! Note its complete removal from the text. Is not this "doctrinal"?

"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." (KJB)

"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (NIV; NAS etc., is similar) Comment: Surely by now the reader has seen enough that any elucidation on our part is superfluous. We therefore with some reluctance mention that without the above underlined words, one cannot be certain if Saul were converted. If these words are allowed to stand as faithfully recorded in the King James Bible, Saul - fully aware of the identity of the person with whom he is speaking - acknowledges Jesus as his Lord. That the verse likewise teaches the fear of the risen glorified Christ, as well as His boundless grace, is also manifestly evident.

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. (KJB) HEB 2:6-7

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour ... (KJB)

The NAS reading in the 8th Psalm is not merely wrong, it fails to comprehend the immeasurable chasm existing between the Creator and the creature. It is humanistic, insulting to GOD and as such represents a blasphemous heretical translation having ignored God's New Testament Greek shelter and defense mechanism.

But how can they read so dramatically different in the relatively few yet numerically significant places that they diverge? After all, when the translators translate, it is understandable how one group may select different adjectives, conjunctions, synonyms etc., but our reader wonders - how can an entire word, indeed - a phrase, clause, sentence, verse and even a prolonged series of verses, be missing from one version to another? This is especially true when the King James (and all the many English versions prior to the KJB) is compared to all the newer versions. What is the basis for the many words which are present in the 1611 Authorized Version that are not to be found in these modern versions? Surely the 1611 translators did not just make them up out of thin air.

Chapter 3

For a more complete Table Of Contents, click HERE