Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

What about the new NIV 2011?


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member


What About The “New” NIV of 2011?


The ever changing, gender neutered “new” 2011 NIV has changed about 10% of the verses from the way they read in the 1984 NIV, and they often change or add to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts they previously followed. You can see for yourself the changes they have now made at this site here -

http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/#summary

At this site you will see that the new 2011 NIV has changed the wording of 40% of the verses from the way they were written in the 1984 NIV. They have removed 32,863 words and added 34,469 different words. They often change or add to the Hebrew text that they previously used and they have changed the underying Greek text numerous times in their New Testament.

Article about the soon to be released 2011 NIV from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY - The scholars and publishers behind the world's leading English language evangelical Bible announced Tuesday that they would publish a updated translation in 2011.
"And we'll make sure we get it right this time," says Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society.

Well, let’s see if they did indeed “Get it right this time”


Mark 1:41 “Jesus moved with compassion” or “Jesus was indignant”?

In Mark 1:40 - 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, the Greek Lectionaries, the Old Latin Italic aur, c, e, f, l and q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is even the reading found in the UBS IV critical Greek text.

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Douay, Darby, Young’s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the RSV, NRSV, 1989, ESV 2001, NASB 1963 - 1995, Holman Standard 2003 and the ISV to name but a few.

The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

And even the Spanish version of the NIV reads the same. Marcos 1:41 (Nueva Versión Internacional) “Movido a compasión, Jesús extendió la mano y tocó al hombre, diciéndole: — Sí quiero. ¡Queda limpio! “

Well, the 2011 NIV finally did it!

Here it is - Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)

41. "Jesus WAS INDIGNANT.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

Footnotes: Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.

Well, this totally bogus reading comes basically from one very corrupt manuscript called manuscript D, which scholars have known about for centuries and rejected. But now the “late$t, greate$t and be$t $cholarly re$earch” has once again changed their minds and so we have this absurd reading in the latest NIV 2011.


The NIV is basically a Catholic bible with an “interconfessional” New Testament text that nobody believes or defends as being the complete and infallible words of God.

See Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new “Catholic” bible versions -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

See also The Lord’s Prayer - Is your bible a Catholic bible?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/matthew613.htm

One of the significant changes the new NIV 2011 has made is that it has eliminated the word “saints” from its pages. The word “saints” refers to every believing Christian, whether man, woman or child. God calls us “saints”. But of course the Catholic church does not use the word saints in this way. For the Catholic church, a “saint” is a very special type of super Catholic who may have performed miracles and to whom the devout pray and give reverence.

The word “saints” is found in the King James Bible and in most other Bible translations still out there some 106 times; 61 of these in the New Testament. The usual Greek word for saints is hagiois. The “old” NIV of 1984 contained the word “saints” 68 times with 45 of these in the N.T. But even the old NIV translated the word “hagiois” as “God’s people” some ten times in the N.T. (See the 1984 NIV Romans 12:13; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 9:12; Eph. 2:19; 3:8; 4:12; 5:3; Heb. 13:24; and Rev. 20:9; 22:21)

But now in 2011 the new NIV has completely eliminated the word “saints” from both their Old and New Testaments. Why might this be? I believe it is so their new NIV will be more widely accepted among professing Catholics. The recent Catholic bible versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible and even more so the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 translate the word “saints” (hagiois) just like the NIV does.

Here are just a few examples of the old NIV 1984 compared to the new NIV of 2011 and how the Catholic New Jerusalem translates this same Greek word.

Romans 1:7 “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” 2011 NIV “his holy people” = Jerusalem bible “his holy people”

Romans 8:27 “And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.” 2011 NIV “God’s people” = Jerusalem bible “God’s holy people”

Romans 15:25 “Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there.” 2011 NIV “the Lord’s people” = Jerusalem bible “holy people of God”

Romans 15:26 “For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.” 2011 NIV “the Lord’s people” = Jerusalem bible “God’s holy people”

Romans 15:31 “Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there” 2011 NIV “the Lord’s people” = Jerusalem bible “God’s holy people”

Romans 16:2 “I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.”
2011 NIV “his people” = Jerusalem bible “God’s holy people”

Romans 16:15 “Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.” 2011 NIV “the Lord’s people” = Jerusalem bible “God’s holy people”

The NIV 2011 keeps on changing its underlying Greek texts - more examples.

In Matthew 15:6 the KJB reads: “And honour not his father OR HIS MOTHER, he shall be free...” This is the Majority reading and that of C, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words “or his mother” and so did the 1973 NIV and the 1984 NIV. But now in 2011 the new New International Version has now changed their Greek text once again and have now put these words back into their latest New version.

Matthew 15:6 NIV 1984 - “HE is not to ‘honor HIS father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

Matthew 15:6 NIV 2011 - “THEY are not to ‘honor THEIR father OR MOTHER’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

Omitting the words “or his mother” are the ASV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV and the Holman Standard. Modern versions that include the words “or his mother” are the NASB, NET, NIV 2011 and the NKJV. So, why has the “new” NIV now changed their underlying Greek texts and decided to put the words “or his mother” back into their version? Maybe its due to the fact that the other Catholic bibles like the Douay, the St. Joseph New American bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible also contain these words omitted by the Vatican manuscript.

As an additional note, the rest of the verse reads: “Thus have ye made THE COMMANDMENT of God of none effect by your tradition.” The word “commandment” is entoleen in the Greek and is found in the Majority of all texts, but Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ from both the Majority and from each other. The 2011 NIV reads “Thus you nullify THE WORD of God for the sake of your tradition.” following the Vatican mss. Vaticanus reads “the word’ (ho logos) while Sinaiticus original read “the LAW of God” (ho nomon), then it was changed to “word” and then someone changed it once again to read “the law” of God.

So, what do the other modern Catholic versions do? You got it. The older Douay version read “commandment of God” like the KJB and majority of texts have it, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem read just like the NIV with “the WORD of God”, thus here following the Vatican mss. to read “the word” but not following the Vatican mss. in the same verse by including “or his mother”, which the Vatican manuscript omits. And they call this a “science”!

Matthew 18:15 - “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass AGAINST THEE (eis se - Greek), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”

The reading of “trespass AGAINST THEE” makes a big difference in the meaning and application of the passage. I go to the brother who has sinned against me; not against any one who may happened to have sinned against someone else. The reading of “against thee” is once again that found in the Majority of all Greek texts and ancient versions. Even the earlier NIVs of 1973, 1978 and 1984 included the words “brother sins AGAINST YOU” but with a footnote telling us “Some manuscripts do not have ‘against you’” The manuscripts that omit these words are the usual suspects - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Matthew 18:15 NIV 1984 - “If your brother sins AGAINST YOU, go and show HIM HIS fault, just between the two of you. If HE listens to you, you have won YOUR BROTHER over.”

Matthew 18:15 NIV 2011 - “If your brother OR SISTER sins, go and point out THEIR fault, just between the two of you. If THEY listen to you, you have won THEM over.

Those Bible translations that still include the words “against thee” are the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman and NKJV. The NASB omits them and the latest UBS critical text puts them in brackets, indicating doubt.

So why does the new NIV now omit these words that were in the previous three editions of the NIVs? Well, the older Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay and even the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 had them in their text - “if thy brother sin against thee” (Douay version 1950) - , but now the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem bible omits these two Greek words and so does the late$t NIV of 2011. This is not at all a case of “new findings” or “advanced textual evidence” but is simply another case of just changing their minds once again and being tossed to and fro by every wind that happens to pass by at the moment.

Matthew 19:29 “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE (he gunaika -Greek) or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD [hekaton - Greek = Majority, Sinaiticus, C while Vatican mss. has MANY fold = polla - Greek - NASB “manyfold”], and shall inherit everlasting life.”

The previous NIVs of 1973, 1978 and 1984 omitted the words “or WIFE” because not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus (even though these same two “oldest and best mss.” differ from each other in the same verse with Sinaiticus reading “an hundredfold” while Vaticanus reads “manyfold”. Yet now in 2011 the new NIV has now “added” the words they once omitted - “or father or mother OR WIFE or children”...will receive A HUNDRED TIMES as much...”
Matthew 19:29 NIV 1984 - “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.”

Matthew 19:29 NIV 2011 - “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother OR WIFE or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.”

Versions that still omit the words “or wife” are the NASB, ESV, RSV, NRSV and Holman Standard, however all these versions contain the reading of “a hundred fold” taken from Sinaiticus while the NASB virtually all by itself follows Vaticanus by omitting both “or wife” and by reading “MANY fold”. The Catholic versions like Douay-Rheims included “or wife”, the Jerusalem bible of 1968 omitted it, but the St. Joseph NAB now goes back to including the words once again.

The “scholarly” NASB has two completely bogus and misleading footnotes regarding both readings. The NASB footnotes tell us “One early mss. adds ‘or wife’, and “one early mss. reads ‘hundredfold’”, whereas the truth of the matter is that both “or wife” and “hundredfold” are the readings found in the vast majority of all Greek texts and ancient versions. The Nestle-Aland ever changing Greek critical texts used to read “manyfold” (polla) but now read “a hundred fold” (ekaton). Such are the twisted ways of the “science” of textual criticism.

In Matthew 23:4 the NIV 2011 has again changed their Greek texts. In the KJB we read: “For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men’s shoulders...”

The words “grievous to be borne” are found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus and D and was is also found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV. However Sinaiticus omits these words and so do the NASB, Revised English Bible 1989 and the previous 1984 NIV. The UBS text puts these words in brackets. But now the new 2011 NIV has come out and it adds this text to their new version.

Matthew 23:4 NIV 1984 - “They tie up heavy loads and put them on MEN’S shoulders”

Matthew 23:4 NIV 2011 - “They tie up heavy CUMBERSOME loads and put them on OTHER PEOPLE’S shoulders.”

It also looks like the word “men” was too masculine a word, so they gender neutered it to “other people”.

The Catholic versions are the usual conflicting mess. The reading “grievous to be borne” is found in the Douay, removed in the 1968 Jerusalem bible, added again in the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible, and then taken out once again in the New Jerusalem of 1985 and now put back in their 2009 Catholic Public Domain Bible.

Philosophy of the modern versionists = No reading is sure; all are subject to change at any moment. Buy the late$t Ver$ion so you will be “in the know” and “up to date”.

Luke 10:41-42 - KJB “And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: BUT ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Luke 10:42 NIV 1973, 1978, 1984 editions - “BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Luke 10:42 NIV 2011 - “BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

This is one of the goofiest textual changes found in the new NIV. The Majority of all remaining Greek texts read as does the KJB and the 1984 NIV edition. However the Vatican mss. and Sinaiticus (though with different wording) say “but few things are needful OR ONE (n henos = Greek added by the Vatican mss.).

The NASBs of 1963, 1972, 1977 used to read this way too. The NASB used to read: “but only a few things are necessary, REALLY ONLY ONE.” BUT in 1995 the NASB once again changed its text and it now reads: “but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part...”


The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and Douay and even the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 read like the KJB “only one thing is needful” (Douay-Rheims version) but the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem bible version reads: “fret about so many things, and yet few are needed, INDEED ONLY ONE.”

The older Nestle-Aland critical text USED to include this silly reading from the Vatican mss. but the latest ones have now gone back to read as the KJB and Majority of Greek texts have had it all along. But for some strange reason the 2011 NIV has decided to go back to a reading that is not even in the more recent UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts, nor in the NASB. Not even the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard nor Daniel Wallace’s NET version read the way the new NIV 2011 does. The ESV reads as does the KJB but has this footnote - “Some manuscripts “few things are necessary, or only one” and it is this goofy reading that the NIV and the New Jerusalem bible have now followed.


Luke 17:3 KJB - “Take heed to yourselves; if thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”

The words “against thee” (Greek - eis se) are found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as D, the Old Latin, the Clementine Vulgate (but not in most Catholic bibles like the Douay, St. Joseph New American Bible and New Jerusalem though it was in the older Douay-Rheims version) the Coptic, Ethiopian and Georgian ancient versions.

The words “if any brother trespass AGAINST THEE” are found in Wycliffe 1395 - “Take ye hede you silf; if thi brothir hath synned ayens thee, blame hym”, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 - “Yf thy brother trespasse agaynst the, rebuke hym, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB, NKJV 1982.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus unite in omitting these two Greek words and change the meaning of the text. Versions that omitted these words “trespass AGAINST THEE” and not the way more general “if any brother trespass” are the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, ISV, the Jehovah Witness version and the NIV 1984 edition.

However now once again the NIV translators have changed their underlying Greek and English text.

Luke 17:3 NIV 1984 - “If your brother sins, rebuke HIM, and if HE repents, forgive HIM.”

Luke 17:3 NIV 2011 - “If your brother OR SISTER sins AGAINST YOU, rebuke THEM; and if THEY repent, forgive THEM.”

So, the “new” NIV has correctly re-instated the Greek words “against you” but have also added words to their new English translation not found in ANY Greek text - “sister”, “them”, “they” and “them” again. Looks like the words “he” and “him” were too politically incorrect, huh?

Luke 24:47 “And that repentance AND (kai) remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

There is a minor but very definite textual difference in this verse with the word “and” (kai) or “for” (eis). The majority of all Greek manuscripts along with A, C, D, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff, l, q, r, the Syriac Sahidic, Harkelian and Palestinian, the Armenian, Ethiopian and Georgian ancient versions reading “repentance AND forgiveness of sins”, while the Vatican and Sinaitic mss. along with P75 read “repentance FOR forgiveness of sins.”

Agreeing with the KJB reading of “repentance AND forgiveness” are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1325, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1549, Matthew’s Bible 1549 - “and that repentaunce and remissyon of synnes shoulde be preached in his name amonge all nacions. And must begynne at Ierusalem.”, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, the RSV, NRSV, the 2001 ESV and the up and coming ISV (International Standard Version).

Even the NIVs of 1973, 1977, and 1984 all read “repentance AND forgiveness of sins”, as well as the 1999 NIV Spanish edition. However now in 2011 the NIV editors have once again arbitrarily changed their minds (it has NOTHING to do with alleged “recent discoveries in the science of textual criticism”) and now have adopted the other textual reading of “repentance FOR (eis) forgiveness of sins” agreeing with the NASB, NET and Holman Standard.

Luke 24:47 NIV 1984 - “and repentance AND forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

Luke 24:47 NIV 2011 - “and repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

So what we see by this one example are two basic principles operating in today’s never ending assembly line of the Bible Babble Buffet versions coming down the pike. They have no settled text and they don’t even agree among themselves.

The older Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay read like the KJB and the majority of all Greek texts and Reformation Bibles. However the “new” Catholics and Evangelicals United Bible Society reads “repentance FOR (eis) forgiveness of sins” and so too do the Catholic St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1885.

The NIV continues to omit the words “of Jerusalem” from verse 49, “and carried up into heaven” from verse 51 and the final word “Amen” in verse 53 as well.

John 1:14 NIV 1984 - “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

John 1:14 NIV 2011 - “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” [There is no known text on this earth that reads this way]

John 1:18 NIV 1984 - “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

John 1:18 NIV 2011 - “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father has made him known.” [Again, there is no Greek text on this earth that reads this way.]

John 1:34 - KJB - “And I saw, and bare record that this is the SON OF GOD.”

John 1:34 NIV 1984 - “I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”

John 1:34 NIV 2011 - “I have seen and I testify that this is GODS’S CHOSEN ONE.”

This is another textual change. The majority of all Greek mss. read “the Son of God” (ho uios tou theou) including P66, P75, Vaticanus, A, C, K,L, P, and Sinaiticus third correction. So also read the UBS Greek texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, NIVs of 1973, 1978 and 1984, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman Standard.

However Sinaiticus original read “the elect” (ho eklektos). There is no known Greek manuscript that reads like the 2011 NIV’s “God’s Chosen One”. Sinaiticus original did not contain the word “God” in it. So why does the new NIV 2011 decide after 35 some years to change their underlying Greek text? Well, it might have something to do with the newer Catholic versions. The older Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Douay of 1950 read “this is the SON OF GOD”, but the newer Catholic bible versions like the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 both read like the new NIV does - “the Chosen One of God”. By the way, Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version does too.


John 4:1-3 and the ever changing NIVs and UBS Greek texts -

A rather peculiar case of senseless and arbitrary textual changes is found in John 4:1-3. In the King James Bible, as well as the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, P66, P75, A and C we read: 1. “When therefore THE LORD (ho kurios) knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3. He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.”


The reading of “the Lord” was even in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and in the earlier critical text Nestle-Aland editions. I have a 4th edition Nestle text from 1934 and it reads “the Lord”. However Sinaiticus and D read “Jesus” instead of “the LORD” and later on the Nestle-Aland, USB critical texts changed their reading to “JESUS knew how the Pharisees had heard...” That is how the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition now read.

This is an example of modern scholarship rejecting even their “oldest” manuscripts and following instead a very minority reading. But wait. There is much more going on here when we compare the various NIV editions to come down the pike lately and how the Catholic bible versions are exerting their influence by producing an “interconfessional” New Testament text through the United Bible Society.


Those Bible translations that read “the LORD knew...” are Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, the RSV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible and the NIV editions of 1973, 1977 and 1984, although quite curiously they put this whole reading in verse 3 instead of verse 1.

The NIVs from 1973, 77 and 84 read: 1. “The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2. although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3. WHEN THE LORD LEARNED OF THIS [all taken from verse 1 in ALL Greek manuscripts; not one of them reads like the NIV has it] he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.”

However the “new” NIV of 2011 now has changed their underlying Greek text once again. Instead of having the words “When the LORD learned of this” in verse 3 as all previous NIVs read, they have now put these words back into verse one and changed “the LORD” to “JESUS”. It now reads: 1. “Now JESUS learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John -”

Those versions that read “JESUS knew that...” (instead of “the LORD knew that...”) are the NRSV, ESV, NET, NIV 2011 and the Catholic versions like the Douay, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.

Once again we see the fickle and ever changing nature of the so called “science” of textual criticism at work and these Bible Babble Buffet versions don’t even agree among themselves.

John 21:1 NIV 1984 - “Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of TIBERIAS. ”

John 21:1 NIV 2011 - “Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of GALILEE.”

[Note: There is not a Greek text in all the world that reads “Galilee” here. They all read Tiberias.]

Romans 8:2 KJB - “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that made ME free from the law of sin and death.”

Romans 8:2 NIV 1984 - “because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set ME free from the law of sin and death.”

Romans 8:2 NIV 2011 - “because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of who gives life has set YOU free from the law of sin and death.”

This again is a textual change. Even the NIV footnotes here: “The Greek is singular; some manuscripts ME”. The Majority, including A, C and D have ME while the Vatican mss. and Sinaiticus read YOU. Reading ME, like the KJB, are the Revised Version, ASV, Douay, the former NIVs, the RSV and the brand new ISV. Those that read YOU are the NRSV, ESV, NASB, Holman, NET and the new NIV.

Among the Catholic versions, the former Douay-Rheims and Douay of 1950 read ME, but the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 read YOU, just like the new NIV does.


1 Corinthians 10:9

10:9 "Neither let us tempt CHRIST, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of the destroyer."

This verse strongly attests to the full deity of Christ. It tells us that the children of Israel who in the Old Testament tempted God were actually tempting Christ. Christ = God.

CHRIST is the reading of the majority, Syriac, Coptic, D and P 46, which predates Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by 150 years. Yet Siniaticus and Vaticanus read THE LORD, which could refer to God the Father and not the Son, and so the NASB, NIV 1984 edition say: "we should not test the Lord, as some of them did", and so does the Catholic New Jerusalem bible. However the NIV 2011 has changed their underlying Greek texts here and now read "should not test CHRIST".

1 Corinthians 10:9 NIV 1984 - “We should not test THE LORD, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.”

1 Corinthians 10:9 NIV 2011 - “We should not test CHRSIT, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.”

1 Corinthians 11:29 KJB - "For he that eateth and drinketh UNWORTHILY, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the LORD'S body."

In this verse Vaticanus omits UNWORTHILY, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 though it is found in the majority of all Greek texts and in the correction of Sinaiticus and in D and many other uncials as well as ancient versions. The word "Lord's" in "not discerning the LORD'S body" is omitted by the NASB, ESV and Catholic New Jerusalem because not in Vaticanus, but it is found in the NIV 1984 edition because in the majority, Sinaiticus correction, D and many ancient versions. However now that the "New" New International Version has come out in 2011, they have once again changed their text to read: "without discerning the body OF CHRIST". The 2011 NIV now adds "of Christ" yet these words are NOT found in any Greek text at all.

1 Corinthians 11:29 NIV 1984 - “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of THE LORD eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

1 Corinthians 11:29 NIV 2011 - “For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of CHRIST eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

1 Corinthians 13:3 KJB - “And though I bestow all my good to feed the poor, and though I give my body TO BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

1 Corinthians 13:3 NIV 1984 - “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body TO THE FLAMES, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

1 Corinthians 13:3 NIV 2011 - “If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to HARDSHIP THAT I MAY BOAST, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

This is another textual change and the 2011 NIV basically made up their own textual reading here. The Majority of all Greek texts including C, D, F, G, L read “to be burned”. However the Vatican mss. and Sinaiticus and A read “that I may boast”. The older Nestle-Aland Greek critical text used to read just as the KJB has it - “to be burned” (kauthnnsomai - Greek), but the more recent Nestle-Aland, UBS critical text have once again changed their reading to “that I may boast” (kauxnnswmai - Greek)

Those versions that have “to be burned” are Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible (all Reformation bibles in all languages), the Revised Version, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NIVs 1973, 1978, 1984, and the NKJV.

Those that have adopted the reading of “that I may boast” are the NRSV, Daniel “If it’s weird and flaky I’m goin’ with it” Wallace’s NET version, the ISV and the new NIV of 2011. Notice that the RSV went with “to be burned”, then the NRSV had “that I may boast” and then the ESV went back to reading “to be burned”.

The 2011 NIV has once again changed their underlying Greek text and added the words “to hardship” that are not found in any manuscript at all. The ESV reads as does the KJB but footnotes: “Some manuscripts - deliver up my body [to death] that I may boast”

This time not even the Catholic versions go along with the “new” NIV 2011. The Douay-Rheims, Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible all read: “If I give my body to be burned” just as the KJB has it.

1 Thessalonians 2:7- One of the silliest readings in the New Testament is found primarily in the Vaticanus manuscript in 1 Thessalonians 2:7. This reading was even rejected by the Critical Text editors that came after Westcott and Hort until very recently, when things are now just getting goofier and goofier.

The Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and the corrections to Sinaiticus, C and D all have the apostle Paul telling the saints: "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children".

This is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley’s translation 1755, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Young’s, the Bible in Basic English 1960, the New English Bible 1979, the NASBs 1963 through 1995, the NIVs of 1973, 78 and 84, the NKJVs, the RSV, NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001, the Revised English Bible 1989, the Message of 2002 and the Holman Standard of 2003, the Modern Greek version used all over the world in the Greek Orthodox churches as well as the up and coming ISV (International Standard Version) in 2010.

Among foreign language Bibles, the reading found in the Traditional Greek Texts and the King James Bible of “GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children” are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 1909, 1960 and 1995, - “nos portamos con ternura”, the 1997 Biblia de las Américas put out by the Lockman Foundation - “benignos entre vosotros” as well as the Traducciôn en Lenguage Actual of 2000 put out by the United Bible Society- “los tratamos con mucho cariño”, and the Reina Valera Gomez Bible of 2004. Also agreeing with “were gentle among you” are the Italian Diodati 1649 and 1991 New Diodati, the Riveduta of 27, the Italian1997 La Parola é Vita - “gentili con voi”, the French Martin 1744 - “French Louis Segond 1910, the Ostervald 1996 and the 1999 La Bible du Semeur - “tendresse”, and the 2000 Portuguese O Livro.


However Vaticanus actually says: "But we were BABIES among you, as a nursing mother cares for her own children." Westcott and Hort first adopted this absurd reading, but very soon the critical text editors deleted this reading and replaced it with the correct reading of “gentle among you”. This reading lasted through at least 21 separate editions of their ever changing Greek Critical text. However the 27th edition of the Nestle - Aland text 1993 as well as the UBS 1 through 4 editions texts have now removed the previous reading of “GENTLE” and replaced it with the Vaticanus, Westcott-Hort reading of “we were BABES among you”.

Even though the more recent Nestle - Aland, UBS Greek texts have adopted this strange reading, still most modern versions that usually follow the critical text readings have not gone along with them on this.

But there are a few notable exceptions like Daniel Wallace’s NET version. Daniel Wallace’s NET version has actually followed this strange reading. His NET version reads: “although we could have imposed our weight as apostles of Christ; instead we became LITTLE CHILDREN among you. Like a nursing mother caring for her own children..." But there is more! The new NIV 2011 has come out and they have changed the underlying Greek text they followed in their first three editons (1973, 78 and 1984 - "but we were GENTLE among you") and now the late$e$t in Scholar$hip edition now reads: "Instead we were LIKE YOUNG CHILDREN among you."

1 Thessalonians 2:7 NIV 1984 - “BUT we were GENTLE among you, LIKE a mother CARING for her little children.”

1 Thessalonians 2:7 NIV 2011 - “INSTEAD, we were LIKE YOUNG CHILDREN among you.. JUST AS a nursing mother CARES for her children.”

This is similar to the Catholic Douay-Rheims version of 1582 which reads - “but WE BECAME LITTLE ONES IN THE MIDST OF YOU, as if a nurse should cherish her children”, but this reading is obviously absurd since it defies all reason and logic and turns the apostles into little children and the new believers into their care givers.

The Catholic version of 1970 called the Saint Joseph New American Bible went back to the reading of “we were GENTLE among you”, but then in 2009 the latest Catholic version, the Catholic Public Domain Version, has once again changed their underlying texts and have gone back to the reading of - “we became LIKE LITTLE ONES in your midst, like a nurse cherishing her children.”

The New Living Translation of 1998 has “we were as GENTLE among you as a mother feeding and caring for her own children.” But the 2004 New Living Translation has again changed their text to now read - “we were LIKE CHILDREN among you.”


2 Thessalonians 2:13 KJB - "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."

"From the beginning" is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It also was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions, and is still found in the NIV 1973, 1984 editions, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NET version and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 NIV 1984 - “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because FROM THE BEGINNING God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.”

2 Thessalonians 2:13 NIV 2011 - “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers AND SISTERS loved by the Lord, because God chose you AS FIRSTFRUITS to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.”

However, the latest Nestle-Aland texts have once again changed their reading, based on Vaticanus, and now reads: "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS to be saved" and this is how the NRSV, ESV and the NIV 2011 edition now read! So again, it looks like those old NASB, NIV's 1973, 1984 and 2003 Holman Standards are once again out of date and follow the wrong texts according to the late$t $cholarly finding$.

Hebrews 11:11 “Who did what?!?” Which NIV “got it right”?

Hebrews 11:11 KJB - “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.”

Hebrews 11:11 NIV 1984 - “By faith ABRAHAM, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS PAST AGE - AND SARAH HERSELF WAS BARREN—was enabled to BECOME A FATHER because HE considered him faithful who had made the promise.”

Hebrews 11:11 NIV 2011 - “ And by faith EVEN SARAH, WHO WAS PAST CHILDBEARING AGE, was enabled TO BEAR CHILDREN because SHE considered him faithful who had made the promise.”

Revelation 9:13 KJB- “...and I heard a voice from THE FOUR horns of the golden altar which is before God”

Revelatin 9:13 NIV 1984 - “and I heard a voice coming from the horns of the golden altar that is before God.”

Revelation 9:13 NIV 2011 - “and I heard a voice coming from THE FOUR horns of the golden altar that is before God.”

Again, this is a textual change. The words “the four” are found in the majority of all Greek texts. Sinaiticus original said “ONE of the FOUR horns”, but Sinaiticus correction and A omit the word FOUR. The NIV 1984 followed the reading of A and omitted the word “four” but now follows the TR and majority texts and includes the number.

Including the number FOUR are the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, NKJV, Douay-Rheims, the New Jerusalem bible and now the NIV 2011. Omitting the number FOUR are the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, the Message, the NIVs of 1973, 1977 and 1984, St. Joseph NAB and the NET version. Several have footnotes telling us “other ancient authorities lack “four”.


Revelation 15:3 "thou King of saints"

This is the reading found in the Greek manuscripts of 296, 2049 and 2066. It is also the reading of the Greek texts of Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, and the Trinity Bible Society Scrivener text. "King of saints" is also quoted by various church fathers like Victorinus, Tyconius, Apringius, and Cassiodorus.

Not even the modern versions agree among themselves. Westcott and Hort originally went with “king of AGES” (twn aiwniwn) but later UBS texts changed it to read "king of NATIONS" (twn ethnwn) and so read the NASB, NRSV, ESV, Jerusalem bible, and Holman Standard. However, versions like the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, RSV, Douay, and the NIV 1984 all read: "king of THE AGES". There is no Vaticanus mss. for Revelation, but the other so called "oldest and best mss." - Sinaiticus - originally read "ages" then it was changed to "nations" and then somebody changed it once again to "ages".

Notice that the RV, and ASV read "king of the ages", but then the revision NASB changed this to "king of nations". The RSV read "ages" but the revisions of the RSV now read "nations". The Douay read "ages" but the other Catholic revision now says "nations". The NIV 1984 edition says "ages" too, but wait! Now the revision of the NIV has come out in 2010 along with the TNIV of 2005 and they both say: "king of the NATIONS". NONE of the revisions agree with the previous versions.

Revelation 15:3 NIV 1984 - “and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the AGES.”

Revelation 15:3 NIV 2011 - “and sang the song of God’s servant Moses and of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the NATIONS.”

Revelation 18:2 - KJB - "And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful BIRD." (orneou)

So read the Majority of all texts, the TR AND Sinaiticus. "every unclean and hateful BIRD" is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, The Message, and the NIV 1973 and 1984 editions.

However manuscript A (Alexandrinus) reads "the cage of every unclean and hateful BEAST." and omits the part about "cage of every unclean bird" (theerion)

The previous Westcott-Hort, Nestle's Greek texts read as do the King James Bible and even the NASB, NIV 1984, but later on, the UBS Greek "scholars" decided to change it, and it now includes both readings in full.

So now the 2003 Holman Standard and the 2001 ESV have come out and they add this extra reading of five Greek words which follows neither the Majority text, Sinaiticus nor Alexandrinus. These two latest versions read:

“Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the great! She has become a lair for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN BIRD, AND A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN AND DESPICABLE BEAST." (Holman Standard 2003, ESV 2001.) So, it looks like not even the "old" NIV of 1984 nor the 1995 NASB are now "up to date with the latest scholarly findings"!!!

Revelation 18:2 NIV 1984 - “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a HOME for demons and a haunt for every EVIL spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable BIRD."

Revelation 18:2 NIV 2011 - "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’ She has become a DWELLING for demons and a haunt for every IMPURE spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN AND and detestable ANIMAL."

The new NIV 2011 now takes part from the majority of texts and the other 5 words they add from just one manuscript which also omits the previous 5 Greek words found in the other manuscripts. So, they now include both readings in a single verse, and there is no Greek manuscript on this earth that reads that way. Modern scholarship is a wonderful thing to behold, isn't it?

The “new” NIV is way more “Gender Neutral” than even the old NIV was.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm

The same USA article about the 2011 NIV had this to say regarding the gender neutrality of the TNIV -

“The NIV, now in pews and homes in 46 countries, was originally published in 1978; it was updated in 1984. A plan to revise it in 1997 died when word got out that it would use "inclusive language" — code for largely eliminating masculine pronouns.

The scholars and publishers tried again, releasing an accessible updated translation in 2005. This Bible had a slightly different name, Today's New International Version, or TNIV It eliminated masculine or feminine usage they said was unsupported by original manuscripts or unclear in modern lingo.

The TNIV was greeted with horror by traditionalists and scholars. Wayne Grudem, author of The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy and a professor of the Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary in Scottsdale, Ariz., spotted 3,000 places where words such as "man," "father," "son," "brother" and "he" vanished.

MORE F&R: Egalitarian or complementarian view of men and women in religion?

Tuesday, Danby said they erred in presenting past updates, failed to convince people revisions were needed and "underestimated" readers' loyalty to the 1984 NIV. Maureen Girkins, president of Zondervan, says the "divisive" TNIV and "cherished" 1984 NIV will not be published after the newest NIV comes out. "We need to undo the damage," she adds.”

Well, what has happened in fact is that the new NIV 2011 is just as “gender neutral” as the former TNIV and even worse. Look at the following examples and see if you think they “got it right this time” or not.

The new NIV changes literally thousands of words from what the old NIV read, making the 2011 NIV far more gender neutral.

Here are just a few of the hundreds of examples:

1984 NIV Luke 9:24 - “For whoever wants to save HIS life will lose it, but whoever loses HIS life for me will save it.”

2011 NIV - “For whoever wants to save THEIR life will lose it, but whoever loses THEIR life for me will save it.”

Luke 9:25 1984 NIV - What good is it for A MAN to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit HIS very self?

2011 NIV - What good is it for SOMEONE to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit THEIR very self?

1984 Luke 10:16 - ““HE who listens to you listens to me; HE WHO rejects you rejects me; but HE WHO rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Luke 10:16 NIV 2011 - “WHOEVER listens to you listens to me; WHOEVER rejects you rejects me; but WHOEVER rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Luke 12:9 NIV 1984 - “But HE who disowns me before MEN will be disowned before the angels of God.”

Luke 12:9 NIV 2011 - “But WHOEVER disowns me before OTHERS will be disowned before the angels of God.”

Luke 14:15 NIV 1984 - “Then he asked them, “If one of you has a SON or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull HIM out?”

Luke 14:14 NIV 2011 - “Then he asked them, “If one of you has A CHILD or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull IT out?”

Luke 14:35 NIV 1984 - ““HE who has ears to hear, let HIM hear.”

Luke 14:35 NIV 2011 - “WHOEVER has ears to hear, let THEM hear.”

Luke 17:3 NIV 1984 - “So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke HIM, and if HE repents, forgive HIM.”

Luke 17:3 NIV 2011 - “So watch yourselves. “If your brother OR SISTER sins against you, rebuke THEM; and if THEY repent, forgive THEM.”

Luke 20:4 NIV 1984 - “John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or FROM MEN?”

Luke 20:4 NIV 2011 - “John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or OF HUMAN ORIGIN?”

Luke 21:17 NIV 1984 - “ALL MEN will hate you because of me.”

Luke 21:17 NIV 2011 - “EVERYONE will hate you because of me.”

Luke 21:26 NIV 1984 - “MEN will faint from terror...”

Luke 21:26 NIV 2011 - “PEOPLE will faint from terror...”

John 5:41 NIV 1984 - “I do not accept praise from MEN”

John 5:41 NIV 2011 - “I do not accept glory from HUMAN BEINGS”

John 7:16 NIV 1984 - “Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from HIM who sent me.”

John 7:16 NIV 2011 - “Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from THE ONE who sent me.”

John 13:19 NIV 1984 - “I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am HE.”

John 13:19 NIV 2011 - “I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am WHO I AM.”

Acts 5:4 NIV 1984 - “You have not lied to MEN but to God.”

Acts 5:4 NIV 2011 - “You have not lied just to HUMAN BEINGS but to God.”

Romans 3:4 NIV 1984 -”Let God be true, and every MAN a liar.”

Romans 3:4 NIV 2011 - “Let God be true, and every HUMAN BEING a liar.”

Romans 5:5 NIV 1984 - “God has poured out HIS love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom HE has given us.”

Romans 5:5 NIV 2011 - “God’S love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”

Romans 7:1 NIV 1984 - “Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to MEN who know the law—that the law has authority over A MAN only as long as HE lives?”

Romans 7:1 NIV 2011 - “Do you not know, brothers AND SISTERS—for I am speaking to THOSE who know the law—that the law has authority over SOMEONE only as long as THAT PERSON lives?”



Sometimes the NIV just arbitrarily changes the numbers.

Luke 16:6 KJB - “And he said, AN HUNDRED measurs of oil. (All Greek texts read 100 - hekaton) And he said, sit down quickly, and write FIFTY.” (All Greek texts say 50 - penteekonta)

Luke 16:6 NIV 1984 “‘EIGHT HUNDRED gallons of olive oil,’ he replied. “The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it FOUR HUNDRED..’

Luke 16:6 NIV 2011 - “NINE HUNDRED gallons of olive oil,’ he replied. “The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY.:”

Revelation 6:6 KJB - “A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny...”

Revelation 6:6 NIV 1984 - “A QUART of wheat for a day’s wages, and THREE QUARTS of barley for a day’s wages...”

Revelation 6:6 NIV 2011 - “TWO POUNDS of wheat for a day’s wages, and SIX POUNDS of barley for a day’s wages...”



Sometimes the new NIV is just weird -

2 Corinthians 2:14 KJB - “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ...”

2 Corinthians 2:14 NIV 1984 - “But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ...”

2 Corinthians 2:14 NIV 2011 - “But thanks be to God, who always LEADS US AS CAPTIVES in Christ’s triumphal procession...”

Galatians 3:13 KJB - “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on A TREE.” (See Deut. 21:23)

Galatians 3:13 NIV 1984 - “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a TREE.”

Galatians 3:13 NIV 2011 - “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a POLE.”

Ephesians 5:13 KJB - “But all things that are reproved are made manifest b the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” [Note: The light of God’s truth shows everything to be what it is.]

Ephesians 5:13 NIV 1984 - “But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible.” [same meaning as found in the KJB.]

Ephesians 5:13 NIV 2011 - “But everything exposed by the light becomes visible,—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.” [Note, to expose sin and false doctrine by the light does not make sin and false doctrine to become light.]


These are just a few of the hundreds and even thousands of changes the “this time we’ll get it right” new NIV of 2011 has introduced. What we in fact see is that the modern versionists have no settled text and their so called “science” of textual criticism is about as scientific as throwing darts at a dart board.

At present the majority of present day Christians no longer believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and infallible words of God.

May I suggest you get yourself the only Bible that has stood the test of time and is believed by thousands of blood bought Christians to be in fact the 100% historically true words of the living God - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

”for ye have perverted the words of the living God” - Jeremiah 23:36

“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” Jeremiah 15:16

All of grace, believing The Book,

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I had a look at this when it was first announced, and found a very helpful site listing the differences in the NIV 2011, for anyone to search.
http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/#039-002


A few changes stood out to me as being exceptionally bad. One of them was in Malachi.

Malachi 2:15,16, Authorized Version:
(15) And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
(16) For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Malachi 2:15,16, NIV 2011:
(15)
Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[d] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.
(16) “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[e] says the LORD Almighty.

Look at the multitude of changes there!

When did God make one?

Genesis 5:1-2
(1) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
(2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

God created man. God created them--Adam and Eve--but gave them one name--Adam. Adam and Eve were created as one, in unity, in God's image--in the image of a triune God--as Elohim Jehovah--having a plurality of persons in one united essence. Remember, Eve's name was not given until after the fall. Before, Adam and Eve were called by their name Adam.

And that word "one"--"did not he make one?"--is the Hebrew word "echad," indicating a unity.

Ok, so the NIV 2011 completely gets rid of any idea of "Did not He make one?". Sorry Adam and Eve, and sorry united husband/wife couples.

God had the residue of the Spirit. Meaning, after He made Adam and Eve one--after He breathed the breath of life and made them a living soul, He had "plenty more Spirit where that came from." God had plenty of breath left to breathe, and could have created many more wives for Adam--but He only created one, so they could be a unity.

Ok, so sorry Holy Spirit, and sorry again Adam and Eve, but the NIV translators did not understand the phrase "residue of the Spirit," so they decided to change the literal translation and just make something up that fit their idea of what the verse should say.

And why did God only make one unity--one Adam and Eve--why do man and woman come together as one? That He might seek a godly seed.
Wow, such an important phrase.
One, God wants a man and woman to be united as husband and wife, loving each other, and before God as one, because that is the ideal way to raise children up to love God. I think society has proven this out--a huge proportion of people in jail grew up without a father. Every child needs a father and mother who love each other!
And two, God wanted one Adam and one Eve that He might seek a godly seed, which is Christ. Jesus is the godly "seed of the woman" that God had been seeking and preparing for all through Old Testament history. There was one Adam and Eve, and there could only be one Messiah, because He had to be the perfect God Himself come down in flesh to save us.

The question is "Why did God make a unity?" The answer is that He might seek a godly seed. The NIV 2011 gets rid of the question altogether, and splits the answer, making the first half the question, and the second half the answer. So sorry fatherless children, now we no longer know how important it is to children to have united husbands and wives. And along with that goes a possible reference to Jesus Christ, referred to in Genesis 3:15 as the seed of the woman.

The Authorized Version tells us "take heed to your spirit." The NIV 2011 replaces this with "be on guard." What's missing is, not only should we be on guard (or take heed) against outside influences against our marriage and family, but we should also (and especially!) be on guard against influences from within our own hearts. If I keep my heart right with God, and my thought life pure, God will give me the strength to do right, even if corrupt influences sneak in through no fault of my own. If I am careless, and take no heed to my own spirit, then I can destroy my family from the inside, without any help from the devil.

Mark 7:21-23
(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
(22) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
(23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

The NIV 2011 removes the caution to take heed to your own self. But 1 Corinthians 10:12 says "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall"!

And of course the NIV is right that we shouldn't be unfaithful to our wives, but I like the stronger language of the Authorized Version, which commands us to "deal not treacherously." Today we might call it a little fling, or an affair, or unfaithfulness. Let's call it what it is--treachery! That's not to say God can't forgive it, but it is a much greater sin than society makes it out to be. The homosexuals don't need to destroy the institution of marriage, because we heterosexuals and professing Christians have already made it a laughingstock. Marriage, adultery, divorce, remarriage, rinse and repeat... But God calls it treachery, and Jesus forbids it in Matthew 19:9.

So interestingly enough, in Malachi 2:16, God no longer hates putting away! Now, the man who hates and divorces his wife does a disservice (violence) to the one he should protect. That leads me to wonder, is divorce and remarriage ok as the divorced couple doesn't hate each other? (Or on the other hand, is it ok to hate your wife as long as you don't divorce her?) It's strange how they pair hate and divorce together as being a problem, when the truth is, when a couple has come together before God and men, and made a lifelong vow to God and each other, to love each other for richer or poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, etc., etc., till death do they part, and then divorce after 72 days because of "irreconcilable differences"--God hates that. And I'm sorry, because it affects a lot of people, and it has affected people in my own family, and it saddens me, and it's a very sensitive topic; but God hates it. And when God says He hates something (and from what I've read, the Authorized Version translated this fairly literaly from the Hebrew, and most other translations agree), let's not water it down to appease a crowd (which is exactly what I think the NIV is doing here).

The NIV 2011 is just bad news. In these two verses, they have managed to completely destroy the biblical doctrine of a strong, united marriage, and in so doing, have attacked a few other important doctrines as collateral damage. Amazingly, the NIV 2011 is somehow even worse than the NIV 1984 and the 2005 TNIV. All in the name of progress!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A new NIV? What was wrong with the old one? Ahhhh, never mind. :frog:

I thought of this post of yours today when I was reading an article, which was pretty good, but the author used the NIV in a few quotes. As I was reading those quotes I was familiar enough with them to know the KJB sounded much different and as I read the NIV quotes I came away from them thinking "huh?". Those quotes from the NIV were so weak and seemed to meander so much that the meaning was lost.

I know there are some strong Christians who primarily use the NIV, but I don't know how they do it. I don't think I would have ever progressed much beyond the babe in Christ stage if all I had was an NIV. I'm so thankful the Lord guided me to the KJB!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...