Thursday, January 26, 2012

What Version of the Bible Should I Read? ~ Haylie Gregory

Have you ever wondered what is the difference is between the KJV (King James Version), NIV (New International Version) and NASB (New Age Standard Bible) versions of the Bible? Many people like to read NIV or NASB because it is easier to understand instead of the KJV. I did some research to see if there was a difference between them. There is a major difference which has caused me to be a strong believer in the KJV only.

Matthew 18:11 in the King James Version says, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” NIV has omitted this verse from the Bible. When I read this, I could not believe that they would completely omit a verse, so I found a NIV Bible and looked it up. They were right. It went from verse 10 to 12, no verse 11 was found. By omitting this verse, you are saying that the Son of man did not come to save the lost! Is that not why Jesus came?


 Matthew 19:17a in the King James Version says, “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good?...” The NIV and NASB says, “Why do you ask me about what is good?” I ask you, how could you get this out of what the KJV said? They did not ask what was good. They called Him, the Son of God, good. They tangled their words around.

Luke 4:4 in the King James Version says, “Ma shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” The NIV and NASB say, “Man does not live on bread alone.” The omitted the ‘but by every word of God.’ So, what do men live on then if not bread? By taking this part of scripture out, you are saying that we are not to live by the Word. What are we to live by then?

Every verse changed had made me very upset, but this one got me fired up. Acts 8:37 in the King James Version says, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” NIV omitted this verse. This verse explains that all we have to do is believe in Christ and we are saved! We don’t have to get baptized (we should, but it’s not what saves us). We don’t have to say a special prayer. All we have to do is believe on the Son. By taking this verse out, they are taking the simplicity of the gift of salvation out of the Bible. How horrible!

Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort noted that, “The modern critical text that forms the basis for nearly all modern versions omits the equivalent of the entire books of 1st and 2nd Peter.” Almost two whole books from the Bible are omitted! Mark 16: 9-20 are omitted from a certain version of the Bible. How is the Word supposed to be complete if parts are missing? I think what hurt me the most was finding out that they take the word ‘blood’ out of these versions. How are we saved but by blood?

Revelation 22:19 in the King James Version says, “And if any man shall take away from the prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”  Note that it says ‘from the prophecy’. The NIV says, “And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy...” Note that this version says ‘from this book of prophecy.’ Now read what the NASB says. “And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy...” Just like the NIV, the NASB says ‘this prophecy’.

 There is only one prophecy and that is the one from God which is written in the King James Version. All the other versions go against this verse by changing what the Bible says. How are we to believe anything if they are changing it? How are we to know God if we don’t know what He said? The King James Version gives us the direct translation of the Bible from its original written languages, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. This is the version of the Bible we should read because it is the complete Bible.



King James Version Bible

New International Version Bible

New Age Standard Bible

Did you know that Haylie loves horror movies?!
Did you know that Lauren loves vintage clothing?!

Photographs property of Lilies Among Thorns Magazine. Photograph taken by Lauren Jaji.


  1. See, I don't agree with you on this one. I DON'T believe that we should read ONLY the KJV. My version of choice is ESV, because 1. it's actually easy to understand and I don't have to dredge through the old English and 2. Many of the words used in the KJV mean very different things today, as well as when many people read it nowadays, they have to translate it to modern English in their heads, taking away from being able to focus on what they are reading.
    Ok, I hope you don't think I'm trying to be argumentive! :)

  2. The KJV omits whole books and adds in words where there were none!

  3. Whoa Haylie - I can see you hit a nerve - great job. :) I've always agreed with you on that. I see so many dumb changes in many versions of the Bible - but I've found KJV to be very trust-worthy.
    And as for the KJV taking out books....I guess if you read a Catholic might end up thinking that. But it's not true - I'll read any info you have proving this Una - thanks for your input! :)

    Love ya'll in Jesus!

  4. I'd like to make a rebuttal ;) hehe. Of course it's a timid one because I don't know Greek and I don't have all of the Greek manuscripts at my disposal to study what REALLY is going on here.

    But the NIV and NASB did not take out these portions of Scripture because they were being malicious, but because some verses of the Bible are not in all the manuscripts. If you open an NIV to Mark 16, it says, "The earliest manuscripts do not have the following passage." Obviously since they first published the KJV, people have made some more discoveries of Biblical manuscripts! That that last passage in Mark 16 isn't in the earliest manuscripts of Luke that we have is a big red flag about its authenticity. If you look at the footnotes of a lot of the other verses you cited, there are disclaimers like, "SOME manuscripts say [the verse that was omitted]."

    For a few parts of the Word, we do not know if they were from the original God breathed version or were inserted by man. If there's something as dangerous as taking away God's word, it's adding to it and saying He said something He did not.

    That's just my take though, like I said, I don't personally have all the Biblical original manuscripts in front of me :) I personally use the NASB and I really like it because it's word-for-word translation.

  5. Dear Haylie:

    Greetings in Christ. I have conducted extensive research about Mark 16:9-20, and from time to time I search for blog-entries about Mark 16:9-20. Thus I arrived here.

    In order to be brief, I am going to use generalizations; bear in mind that everything I’m about to say should be qualified in one way or another.

    The differences you pointed out between the KJV and the NIV, NASB and some other modern Bible versions reflect differences in the Greek base-texts upon which these versions are based. The KJV New Testament and the NKJV New Testament are based mainly on a Greek text that was compiled in the 1500’s, and the manuscripts that contained that Greek text were representatives of a large group of manuscripts that support the Byzantine Text. At any given point, the Byzantine Text is supported by over 85% of the existing manuscripts. Even though the manuscripts that were used in the 1500’s were relatively late, almost all of their readings can be traced to much more ancient times (the 400’s or earlier).

    The NIV, NASB, ESV, and most other modern-day translations are based mainly on a Greek text that was compiled in the late 1800’s by two scholars named Westcott and Hort; in 1881 they published a Greek New Testament which was based primarily on two manuscripts from the 300’s: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The text of these two manuscripts (both produced in the 300’s) tends to echo a form of the New Testament text that was used in Egypt. (This can be shown by noticing the similarities between their text, and the text of the early Sahidic (i.e., Egyptian) version.)

    During the 1900’s, the discoveries of ancient papyrus copies of New Testament books has provided some support for the theory that the Alexandrian Text is very ancient. But those papyri also showed that some distinctly Byzantine readings are also very ancient – which undermines part of Hort’s whole approach, because Hort thought that such readings did not come into existence until the late 200’s or so.

    So, in very general terms: in the New Testament, the NIV is translated mainly from the Alexandrian base-text, while the KJV and NKJV were translated from the Byzantine base-text.

    What this means is that when the NIV fails to include Matthew 18:11, it is not because the translators wanted to “remove” it. Because they have presumed that the Alexandrian Text accurately preserves the original text, they have adopted the reading that is found in the oldest manuscripts that contain the Alexandrian Text – and, in those manuscripts, the verse that we know as Matthew 18:11 is not there. (Luke 19:10 is in the NIV, though, because Luke 19:10 is in the Alexandrian manuscripts.)

    Likewise in Matthew 19:17, the NIV says something different from the KJV and NKJV because the NIV’s manuscript-base says something different. It’s not as if the translators just had a sudden whim to make it say something else.

    (To be continued . . .]

  6. [Continued]

    The same thing is true of Luke 4:4. Those who support the Alexandrian Text would say that this is a case of harmonization – that is, that early copyists who were familiar with the parallel-passage in Matthew 4:4 recollected the phrase from Matthew and inserted it. Whereas those who support the Byzantine Text would say, to the contrary, that the Alexandrian Text displays a careless omission (possibly caused when one copyist put a mark alongside this passage intending to signify that it is a quotation from the Old Testament, and then another copyist misunderstood the mark as if it meant “skip this”).

    In Acts 8:37 the situation is different. The Alexandrian Text does not have this verse, and most of the Byzantine manuscripts of Acts do not have it, either. But it has very ancient support: a writer named Irenaeus (around the year 184) and another writer named Cyprian (in the mid-200’s) both utilized this verse. The copies that Irenaeus and Cyprian used have not survived, but we can see from the statements by Irenaeus and Cyprian that this verse was in their copies of Acts – and thus the support for Acts 8:37, though numerically small, is over 100 years more ancient that the most ancient existing copy of Acts chapter 8.

    Regarding Revelation 22:19, it appears that you have misread the passage. The KJV includes the whole phrase, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy.”

    Now, perhaps I have raised more questions that I have answered. I’ve provided a more detailed presentation about the New Testament text, and the competing early text-types, at the Curtisville Christian Church website. (Just look for “The Development of the New Testament Text” in the page about Resources for New Testament Textual Criticism; see the link on the homepage at .) At the same website, you can find information about the early support for Mark 16:9-20 -- significantly earlier and more widespread than the evidence for non-inclusion of those 12 verses. (The NIV's heading-note is rather misleading!)

    I hope that it is clear already that while some differences between the NIV and KJV are due to different translation-styles, the differences you mentioned have arisen because the NIV and the KJV are based on different Greek base-texts.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.
    Minister, Curtisville Christian Church