I Went From Reading the New International Version to Reading the King James Version

-
I know some of my favorite preachers and fellow brethren aren't King James Only-ists. I can still accept some non-KJV only Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. I wouldn't necessarily say that NIV readers are automatically not saved. When I was newly saved, I had a New International Version. I was happy to have a Bible but I soon started watching more programs that talked about the modern Bible translations. Nothing was more shocking than to think of the difference between the KJV (which I use now) and the NIV (which I used to use).

What made me go from the NIV to the KJV? I was told, "But the King James Bible is too hard to understand." I started doing a side by side comparison and here's the problem of the NIV vs. the KJV. So why are some preachers still teaching sound soteriology but aren't using the KJV only? While I don't support all KJV-onlyists (some end up as cult leaders or fake Baptists) but I just want to plead with brothers and sisters in Christ to shift to the KJV. 

So many missing words with the NIV

One of the many words that shocked me was the missing words in the NIV. You could take a look at these verses:
Matthew 27:35
And they crucified Him, and parted His garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.  (KJV) 
When they had crucified Him, they divided up His clothes by casting lots. (NIV)

Making references to the Old Testament is very important. Although references to Psalm 22:18 are made in John 19:24 so why is it removed from the NIV version of Matthew 27:35? I don't see any good reason to why those words should not be there. 

And another, the word "Lord" has been taken away several times. Here's one good example of why I switched from the NIV to the KJV. 
Luke 23:42 
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (KJV)
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (NIV)

So where did the word Lord or Kurios go? May I set a reminder that if your Jesus is not Lord then you're not saved to start with. If you're truly once saved, always saved then it's because Jesus is your Lord and Savior. True Christianity surrenders one's self to Christ's Lordship from salvation to sanctification and forevermore in glorification.

Here's a list of important words removed from the NIV which caused me to throw it away for good:
  • Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
  • Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
  • Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
  • Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
  • Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
  • Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
  • Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
  • Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
  • Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
  • Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
  • Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
  • Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
  • Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
  • Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
  • Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
  • John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
  • John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
  • John 3:15, "should not perish"
  • John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
  • John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
  • Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
  • Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all His works"
  • Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
  • Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
  • Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
  • Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
  • I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
  • I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
  • II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
  • Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
  • Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
  • Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
  • I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
  • Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
  • I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
  • I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
  • I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
  • I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
  • Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
  • Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
  • Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
  • Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"

What's worse is that "worship" is removed. If you are a Christian, you must worship Jesus. But the word "worship" is missing in Matthew 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20 and Mark 5:6, 15:19 in the NIV. I have no reason to even think the word "worship" should be removed.

Important terminologies not found in the NIV

While I find it stupid that some cults use the King James but deny the Trinity, let's take a look at what's been removed from the NIV:
  • Don't look for "mercy seat"... GONE!
  • Don't look for the word "Godhead" which is an older word for Trinity. It's also gone.
  • And even the name Jehovah is gone. It's a serious attack on the Lordship of Christ.

What also intrigued me is the removal of the word "Lucifer". Isaiah 14:12 replaces Lucifer with "Morning Star". The NIV also uses "Morning Star" for Jesus in Revelation 22:16. Some may say that it's a contrast between a false morning star with the Morning Star. But I prefer to have the word "Lucifer" because that was Satan's original name.

Should I mention the word "begotten" actually helps distinguish the adopted from the only begotten of the Father? Some may say that the word "begotten" is not necessary in John 3:16 since the word "son" is spelled as "Son" and that they don't deny the promise of adoption as sons. 

The word "Hell" has been completely removed from the Old Testament

This is a serious issue. How many times has Hell been removed or changed into another word not related to Hell in the Old Testament? I was shocked to find out how often the KJV warned of Hell in the Old Testament but what happened to it in the NIV? 

Did you know the word "Hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament but zero times in the NIV? Something has to be downright wrong with that. Let's take a look at how Hell got replaced in the NIV. We either get words like "world of the dead", "Hades", "underworld" or the grave. So what's with the translation error?

People by default will return to the grave whether they are saved or not. The only Christians who will not taste death are those who will be taken away during the Blessed Hope. Some may object and say that returning to the grave is a result of sin. I agree with that. My problem is that Hell is a better warning. The wicked returning to Hell is more frightening than just returning to a grave. A saved man returns to the grave and goes to Heaven. That's nothing compared to an unsaved man returning to the grave and going to Hell.

A young woman is not necessarily a virgin

What always shocked me is how often the virgin birth is somewhat subtly attacked in the NIV. Isaiah 7:14 in the KJV gets it right to call Mary a "virgin". The NIV ends up changing it into "woman". A woman is not necessarily a virgin. Any woman who is capable of child-bearing can bear a child. Now let's take a look at an even bigger subtle attack on Mary's virginity.

Luke 2:33 in the NIV and KJV differ greatly. One says that Joseph and the child's mother. But the other says Joseph is the child's father. If the word "stepfather" or "foster father" were used then it would have been acceptable. Some critics of KJV-only may want to refer to these verses:
Luke 2:48-49 
And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business? (KJV)
When His parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." "Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?"

I think the KJV makes an important distinction. Joseph is the child's adoptive father. Legally, he was Jesus' father. The problem is that it looks like the truth is slowly attacked. A distinction was made in the KJV but that distinction seems to be ignored. Joseph is not the child's biological father.

So where have all the verses gone from the NIV?

 What started to irritate me while reading the NIV was the number of missing verses. Some versions have them in the footnotes. So why are these important verses in the footnotes of all places? I simoly want to take the NIV challenge to anyone. I dare them to read the following verses from the NIV:
  • Matthew 17:21, "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
  • Matthew 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
  • Matthew 23:14, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
  • Mark 7:16, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." 
  • Mark 9:44, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 
  • Mark 9:46, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 
  • Mark 11:26, "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." 
  • Mark 15:28, "And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." 
  • Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." 
  • Luke 23:17, "(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast)" 
  • 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." 
  • Acts 8:37, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 
  • Acts 15:34, "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still." 
  • Acts 24:7, "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands," 
  • Acts 28:29, "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves." 
  • Romans 16:24, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
  • 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." 

So what's the excuse for missing verses? More "reliable" manuscripts don't have the verses? How can you have a complete book if verses are indeed... missing? I don't want incomplete reports and I don't want an incomplete Bible. The Calvinist scholars who translated the King James took extra care to make sure no verses go missing or will just be good as footnotes or marginal notes. 

These verses aren't important? I still feel the need to dare NIV readers to try reading an incomplete story without the details. While some of the verses missing from one of the first four Gospel accounts may be available in the others but it's stressful. I don't want to flip too much trying to find the verses missing in the other chapters. I still feel the need to discuss the important verses that have been gone missing or are just in the footnotes and couldn't be found anywhere. Why are these verses missing or just placed in the footnotes?

So why is Acts 8:37 removed? Philip hindered the Ethiopian to be baptized unless there was proof that the person was a believer. The Ethiopian confessed to believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Believing comes before baptism. So why is Romans 16:24 removed? There's nothing more important than the grace of our Lord Jesus be with us all. Worse, 1 John 5:7 is widely missing to continue affirming the Trinity. While the NIV still shows the Trinity but why remove 1 John 5:7 another verse to defend the Trinity? 

What I thought after using the KJV instead of the NIV

I really had a better understanding and easier time reading through the KJV. Sure, there are some archaic words and I have to find their meanings using Strong's Concordance or John Gill's commentary or use available references but it has been a better experience. The NIV managed to just let me down for those reasons above. It does seem that this is dividing the brethren. What I'm trying to do is offer correction to my Christian brethren who still think it's okay to use the NIV as another reference aside from the King James.

Besides, the KJV respected the work of Bibles before it. They added italics to emphasize that it was the translators' addition. They wanted to show they were careful in handling the Scriptures. I don't think it's the case of the NIV. I just can't read the NIV the same anymore ever since I switched the KJV. The KJV has been the most reliable translation and I just can't think of the NIV to be an equal considering all the problems it has.