Why Everyone Should Use the NIV

Huh? Ok, that is a strong statement but I think it is important to read from a translation you can understand and feel comfortable with. Here are some loaded and biased questions to convince you to use the NIV over the other translations:

  • Did you know that “the authorized version” does not mean that the KJV came straight from the hand of God?
  • Did you know that all translation takes some liberty with the original language and requires interpretation to render an accurate translation?
  • Did you know that manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was translated that make a significant difference in the translation of some passages?
  • Did you know that the KJV was translated from decent but less than adequate texts?
  • Wouldn’t you want to read a translation that doesn’t require you to find a dictionary from the 1600’s to understand?
  • Do you realize that all translations have problems and that the NIV’s are no worse than those of the NASB, NRSV, etc?
  • Wouldn’t you want to use a translation that allows you to be reading the same words as most of the people in the room with you (depending on where you are)?
  • Wouldn’t you want to read a translation that structures poetry like poetry, uses paragraphs, and is generally formatted like many other things you are familiar reading?
  • Does the NIV get it all right and that the others don’t? No. None of them get it all right. We wouldn’t ever even know if a translation got it all right because we don’t totally understand everything in the Bible.

Are you convinced? 🙂 Now seriously, the NIV is a pretty good translation. I have some real problems with it but I can handle them a lot easier and they occur less frequently than many of the other translations (possibly save the NRSV). I would go with the NRSV but I like to be reading the same words everyone else is reading and when I read aloud in a Bible class or sermon I like for people to be able to follow along easily and most people in our pews have the NIV.

I would also like to mention that one thing that is left out of the old “my translation is better than your translation” is the fact that in many languages there is no translation or only one translation. We are spoiled and so we can write posts like these. We are blessed to have options as to which version we understand the best. To make translations a salvation issue or a heated discussion is very egocentric.

What questions would you ask to get someone to read from your translation of choice?

About mattdabbs
I am a minister, husband, and father. My wife and I live and minister in Saint Petersburg, Florida. My primary ministry responsibilities include: small groups, 20s and 30s, involvement, and adult education.

89 Responses to Why Everyone Should Use the NIV

  1. mattdabbs says:


    Thank you for presenting a dissenting viewpoint. This is something I have read a considerable amount of literature about. I have read the debates and I have formed my own conclusions. This is one area I think we are free to differ and not think the other person is going to hell. I think someone can study the word of God from the KJV or the NIV and get an accurate picture of Jesus Christ and God’s intention of the key points of scripture.

    This issue will pretty much be dead in 25 years so I hope you don’t think all Christians who use versions than the NIV are going to hell because if that is true I am going to hell and pretty much 95% of future Christians will be too. Like you said don’t take this personal. This is just my take on it and I appreciate the fact that you took so much time to type such a lengthy and well thought out response.

  2. patrick says:


    It’s that type of attitude that is turning people AWAY from Christ, not TOWARDS Him. I’ve been an agnostic/seeker for many years and without fail, every time I start to feel the pull of Christ I run across people like you (either in person, on tv, or on the ‘net) and it’s like the wind has been taken out of my sails. But I’m slowly learning that those who are so angry and vehement about the evils around them are usually struggling with those same evils within themselves.


    I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful responses and that my purchase of a NIV New Testament tonight was a good choice, all things considered.

    I came across this site via Google search “why i use niv” and am glad that I did. I just finished reading Yancey’s “The Jesus I Never Knew” and it was very inspirational and really helped put some things into perspective for me (hence my desire to purchase a NT). If you haven’t read it I recommend it highly.

    I look forward to reading the rest of your blog.



  3. Aaron says:

    If anyone knows the KJV was actually translated before the dead sea scrolls where discovered and many other transcripts and most uneducated people will tell you that verses have been taken or changed in the NIV and New American Standard version and NLT. but infact when the NIV and New American Standard version when being translated it was noticed the the verses changed where actually added to the KJV and there where a few latest transcripts that had those verses in them, but the originals and majority of the transcripts did not so all this talk is silly it doesn’t change our faith or mission at all. I have many more facts but i would rather not continue on i just wish to clarify the major argument against God’s word. Get into the word whatever version you like and take all your questions to god honestly and earnestly and you will get an answer.

  4. Colin says:

    Many of the new bibles, including the NIV, were based on changes applied by people who didn’t believe the miracles of Jesus. Westcott and Hort are just 2 of those people who influenced the new versions in A BIG WAY. Westcott and Hort didn’t believe that normal people could actually see Christ because he was of a higher spirit…WE ARE WARNED OF THIS IN 1 JOHN 4:1-3 he who does not believe that Jesus came in the flesh IS OF THE ANTICHRIST…””PLAIN”” and extremely simple to “”READ””.

    Just read about these people who had their hand in the creation of the new bibles…It as also been disproved that the scripts used for the new translation have more basis…they don’t. You need to do some reading and research…Why would you want to study from a bible which those of the antichrist have had a hand in creating?

    I know they have failed and yes you can still get the idea of the plan that God and Jesus have given us in all versions BUT we must endevour to keep to the correct teachings. If you actually study what as been changed in the new versions you will see that it is subtle changes that go against the teaching of God…it is like they have done it to satisfy their own perversions. Please…look into it do not just say that the NIV is “easier” to read. The actual Thee’s, Thou’s and other words ACTUALLY HAVE MEANING that is required to use those words so that the scripturural translations could be followed more closely.

    That said I love you all, you are my brothers and sisters and we must not get into heated arguments but we must, we must, follow the Word of God and we must be mindful of how Satan will work…remember Genesis…the “subtle” serpent…this is how some of the new bibles have been changed. Remember not everyone who goes to church will be saved and not everyone who doesn’t go to church will be damned. Do not believe in everything that is said to you…challenge everything…we are all “failed again christians”…we are all sinners that is why Jesus had to save us. Love the lord with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love others as you would love yourself. Peace be with and may God show you His Word.

  5. mattdabbs says:


    Thanks for your thoughts. I have a couple of questions for you.

    – Can you give a reference of W & H’s beliefs about Jesus?

    – Can you give some specific and direct examples where those beliefs directly impacted his work and the newer versions? I am asking for specific glosses and definitions of words and specific texts you think have been corrupted based on their theology.

    – Do you believe the KJV and/or NKJV is the only “authorized” version of the Bible?

    Also, why do you believe that is has “been disproved that the scripts used for the new translation have more basis.” Please don’t say because they are Alexandrian…we have gone round and round about that in the comments above.

    I appreciate your attitude and spirit in your above comment and hope we can dialogue more on this. God bless

  6. Colin says:

    Hi mattdabbs

    Here are some words from their own book where they specifically say that christ did not appear in his physical form after the resurrection so please can you ask me how Thomas placed his hand in the side wound, from the spear, of Jesus?

    “The Revelation (of the Resurrection) was a Revelation to believers…That which is of the earth can perceive only that which is of the earth. Our senses can only grasp that which is kindred to themselves…the world could not see Christ, and Christ could not-there is a Divine impossiblility-shew Himself to the world. To have proved by incontestable evidence that Christ rose again as Lazarus rose again, would have been not to confirm our faith but to destroy it irretrievably”
    “The Resurrection, to set the matter in another light, was not an isolated event. It was and is an abiding fact. It was the beginning of a new and living relation between the Lord and His People.” (The Gospel of Life, New York; Macmillan & Co., 1892, p.35

    There you have it in their own words. Now if they don’t believe KJV and also what the NIV says then can you trust that the NIV as not been altered? Can you seriously say that you can trust the NIV. Also notice the posts above where LUCIFER has been equaled to Jesus when speaking of the Morning Start which clearly states in Revelations that Jesus is the morning star yet in the NIV version it as been altered (See how Lucifer at isaiah 14:12 is called the morning star in the NIV yet in Revelations 22:16 Jesus clearly states that He is the morning star. Now to the casual christian you can read the NIV and get [some] truths BUT NOT ALL…When you see passages that try and say the Lucifer is equal to Jesus then you know that is of the AntiChrist this is why the pope actually believes he can say who can and cannot go to heaven. Come on, please…open your eyes…this is THE ONLY evidence you need to see that the NIV has been altered…Why do you need more evidence…just look up what I have just shown you.

    You don’t need to compare which texts they use just look at what I have just shown in the NIV where it is actually stating that Lucifer is the morning star in other words it is *in a subtle way* trying to say that Lucifer is the Christ….this is how the devil works….Can you not see that…give me your explanation for the above ISAIAH passage and the change why did they get this SO WRONG? Its not a simple mistake its a grave error bordering on tampering…please give me your answer…I am quoting from scripture…do remember that the NIV and the KJV both agree in revelation that Jesus is the morning star but the NIV changes the ISAIAH passage to state that Lucifier is the morning star…tell me which one is it because the NIV cannot make up its own mind!?!?

  7. mattdabbs says:


    I am very much able to compare the KJV and the NIV to the Greek texts. The KJV has just as many questionable translations as the NIV does. Any and every translation has problems. None are without errors. Some very serious in both the NIV and the KJV. So it is pretty much a wash and it is good to be aware of what the issues are with whatever translation you decide is best to use. I can list some if you like (some are listed above).

  8. mattdabbs says:

    and thanks for that quotation. that was helpful.

  9. Colin says:

    Hi mattdabbs, and hi to all readers…I am not going to apologise for the length of this message because if I had to write till the ends of this earth then so be it. I love all my brothers and sisters so much that I find I must lay down the truth to you…look and read…

    I have just quoted from scripture and then shown with Westcott and Horts own words were they are fullfilling that scripture of the antichrist, yet it doesn’t seem to sway you. The very words passed from God, to Jesus and then by the Holy Ghost written into 1 John 4:3 and even that cannot persuade you.

    Remember brothers and sisters, I will not post something on here that I cannot backup from scripture. Now, mattdabbs, why do you not answer the question concerning the NIV on the quotation from ISAIAH 14:12 were the word Lucifer has been replaced with Morning Star and then in Revelations 22:16 Jesus explicitly states that he is the Morning Star. You can check this in both a 1611 King James version and then the NIV….The NIV first tells you that lucifier is the Morning Star and then in Revelations it states that Jesus is the Morning Star….This IS blasphemous and in NO WAY would it be missed by those truely interpretting the greek texts that is why the texts are poured over and over again by many eyes. IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE you just cannot get this wrong. Read ISAIAH 14 in its entire context and then read Revelations 22 how can they get this so wrong…A child can see that this is different…IT WAS DELIBERATE….and ISAIAH 14 actually gives you the answer to why it was deliberate…I am going to quote it so that the readers can see the words so that they don’t have to look them up…From the KJV…(this is why it was done because of the MADNESS of Lucifer)

    ISAIAH 14:

    12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    13: For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God : I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    14: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; [I will be like the most high]

    I have placed [ and ] around the words to show that he wants to be equal with God and this is why this text was changed because this very text in the NIV reads like this

    NIV version

    12: How you have fallen from heaven, [O morning star], son of the dawn….

    Can you see the subtle change it replaces Lucifer with [O morning star] and through this the devil is stating that he is the saviour. If you then read revelations you will see that Jesus is the morning star so out of pure trickery and perversion you can see why this passage WAS CHANGED.

    To the casual reader you just wouldn’t notice this ABSOLUTE blasphemous act and to some christians they would, even now after seeing the change with their own eyes, say that this is not a problem…

    FEAR THE LORD…for Fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom…do you think that God will let this pass by…NO…

    Here again I show you the differences, less we forget in our vain hearts. The very differences showing tampering of these verses. O how subtle satan works is evil among this world.

    ISAIAH 14:12

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

    Rev 22:16

    I Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches, I am the root and the off-spring of David, and the bright and morning star.

    I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.


    REMEMBER lest we all forget in our vain hearts

    Revelations 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this 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.

    REMEMBER I am not speaking and writing of my words I am quoting DIRECTLY from THE WORD OF GOD. If you don’t believe what I am writing here then its because you are unable to READ THE WORD OF GOD…THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS BUT GODS WORDS that I have written above. YOU CAN SEE THE CHANGES WITH YOUR OWN EYES AND COMPARE THEM YOURSELF with the words GIVEN DIRECTLY FROM GOD…DIRECTLY….FROM….GOD hear me and read above and take it to heart.

    Daniel also repeated this message from a vision shown to him by God.

    Daniel 8
    [25] And through [[his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand;]] and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

    I have placed [[ and ]] so you can see that Daniel was for warned of the trickery that would occur through Lucifers hands and you can see this very vision coming true above with the changes in the NIV as he magnifies himself in his heart…ITS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE TO READ…ITS AS GOOD AS DNA AT A CRIME SCENE if you want to put it in laymans terms

    What do these new revisions bring? I will repeat what the cofounder of the NASV said, Dr Logsdon. He greatly regrets bringing out that version and truly repents what he did. He we go…

    1. Confusion! Proved by the countless websites with this very argument being waged continuously.

    2. The ability to stop memorisation. How can we quote from scriptures if the scriptures differ. If I quote from the KJV to the congregation who hold the NIV in their hand they read different words. To some this is confusing and it stops them memorising the word. WHICH ONE DO THEY MEMORISE FROM!?

    3.It obfuscates the word. It moves some of the verses away entirely or it moves them to the bottom of the page as a foot note. If you look up the word obfuscate in a dictionary you get something along the lines of : To render indistinct [or dim; darken.]. You know what my 10 year old daugher asked me before I wrote this reply. I haven’t even told her about this conversation that I am having with you and she asked me “Dad why do the bibles differ so much?”. O how a child holds nothing back. She hit the nail directly on the head!

    4. It provides doorways for the devil to change the word because there are so many different meanings given for the same verse that the reader can become confused. You can see this in action when you go to some bible lessons because you get everyone trying to compare meanings in different bibles. Would I tell one of you to sing song 12, another song 5 and another song 20 at the same time from a hymn book? NO because it would sound like DRABBLE. You all have to work from the same hymn sheet. Can you imagine a conductor giving out different music scores to the orchestra…same thing here…you must work from the same book…a book which doesn’t contradict itself (like the NIV does…as I have proved above with the verses)

    5. All of the above make teaching the bible difficult. How can you teach from a bible which contradicts itself on something “SO FUNDAMENTAL TO AS WHO LUCIFER IS”.

    Why would you want to teach your son or daughter from a book which actually states in its own pages that Lucifer is the morning star that appears at the end times as the saviour…WHY!?? Read it for yourselves above as I have pointed out to you…the words speak for themselves…Its plain for all to see.

    Brothers and Sisters, lets not be blind when before our eyes Lucifer shows his trickery and the Lord shows him to us. I love you and we are all sinners. Thank you God for sending your only son Jesus Christ our Saviour. Forgive me Lord and I pray that we may enter into true peace and love.

  10. Colin says:

    Hi mattdabbs,

    Do you believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh?

  11. mattdabbs says:


    I certainly do believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. To believe anything short of that would be unchristian.

    I appreciate the amount of work you put into your comment. Let me address what your concerns are if I may.

    The problem you are running into here is that you have connected some unconnected verses with little to no exegesis/interpretation. You have to consider a couple of things here in order to understand any passage of scripture (especially these!).

    Let’s look at two similar examples that would cause problems if you just look at the text without really exegeting it (considering context, audience, and original languages).

    Psalm 82:6 – “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (KJV).

    Scripture is clear that there is only one God (Deut 6:4). So how can the psalmist say we are gods? Jesus gives us some insights on this verse in John 10:34-35 by saying those who received God’s word (Israelites referred to in Psalm 82:6) could be called gods. The word used in psalm 82:6 is also not the divine name it is elohim.

    So on the surface Psalm 82:6 seems to be a contradiction of scripture by calling men gods but when you look a little closer there is more to it than on face value. By your method of interpretation in Isa 14 this couldn’t work because you would have to say you cannot call both God and man the same thing – gods. The psalmist is not saying God’s people are on the same level as God. He is saying that they have received revelation from God and can then be referred to as elohims.

    Another example – Psalm 68:4 – “Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.” (KJV)

    The psalmist calls God the one who rides on the heavens (literally the one who rides on the clouds). Canaanite pagan literature in the couple hundred years prior called Baal, who was believed to be the storm god, the rider of the clouds. (See the story of Anat I.ii at the very end as well as The Story of Aqhat C.i) which says, “For seven years Ba’al will disappear, for eight the Rider of the Clouds will dispatch no dew, no rain, not one flood, not a single thunder shower…”

    Is that problematic that the Bible would give the same title to God that the pagans gave to their “gods”? By your method of interpretation that just wouldn’t work. But it is right there in scripture. So how do we work that out? It is not problematic if you understand what the psalmist was doing. He was saying Jehovah is THE rider on the clouds. Not Ba’al and not any of the false gods. There is only one God of the Storm and his name is Yahweh. So here is an instance where God is given the same title as a pagan deity right there in the pages of scripture but I don’t see a problem with it because the psalmist is setting the record straight of who the real rider on the clouds is.

    Now to your example. You are contending that the NIV is basically of the anti-Christ because it gives the same title to Jesus as it does to the devil (Isa 14:12, Rev 22:16). Let’s look at this a little closer.

    KJV – “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

    What is even more important is the Hebrew. The word translated Lucifer by the KJV and “Morning Star” by the NIV is the word הֵילֵל (heilel). That word literally means “shining one” as the verb form means “to shine.” It is not a word that means satan or the devil in Hebrew. The word Lucifer is how the Latin Vulgate translated this word, which the KJV adopted. Lucifer in Latin is a combination of two words Lux = light and ferous = “to bear” or “to carry” which would make Lucifer = bearer of light in Latin.

    Context in Isa 14:
    The Hebrew word heilel was an epithet or title for the king of Babylon. Look back at Isa 13:1 – “An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw.” (NIV). Isaiah 13 speaks of the destruction of Babylon (see especially 13:19). Chapter 14 continues this message. 14:1-3 is about the return from exile back to Israel. Then notice 14:4 – “You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:” The taunt seems to go from 14:4b-8. Then 14:9 talks about the grave meeting them at their coming. Meeting who? The same people the taunt was against – Babylon. Then 14:11-23 is more about Babylon – your pomp has been brought down, maggots are spread out beneath you, worms cover you….how you have fallen from heaven shining one, son of the dawn.” When you look at this in context, understanding it from Hebrew and not the Latin Vulgate’s interpretation (which was colored by several hundred years of Christian interpretation of his passage as being about Satan) you begin to see that it is really about the king of Assyria and not Satan or Lucifer. You find similar language against the king of Tyre in Ezek 28. This passage is about a real situation – the oppression and exile of God’s people and their oppression by the Babylonian rulers. God is calling for their fall. Isaiah calls him “son of the dawn.” It is a parallel to a star that rises high and bright in the sky at morning but then disappears quickly. That is what the king of Babylon will be like. It was early Christian writers who associated this passage with Satan, not anyone in scripture.

    This is the problem with word study – it strips words out of contexts and ends up at meanings that were never intended. You do a word study on Lucifer in the KJV with a concordance and you see Lucifer and Jesus have the same titles. That is a translation problem with the Latin Vulgate and the KJV and not with the NIV. The NIV translated the Hebrew word in a much more literal way than the KJV even though the KJV is often the one touted to be so literal.

    I could go on but let’s see if this is making sense so far.

  12. Colin says:


    Please refer to John 10:29-38 for an explanation of god’s used in psalm. Jesus gives you the explanation. and you know what its a relative to what we are talking about. Jesus says this…

    John 10
    34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
    35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    The ones called gods are those whom the word of God came to…the prophets. Also notice that gods is not God.

    Thankyou for that.


    Psalm 68:4 does not say clouds it says heavens the rest that follows in your message is stating that verse says clouds when it clearly does not so we can ignore that rest of your paragraphs talking about the god of the clouds. That said the true God of the clouds is God and God is the God of all Creation since only one God created us and that is what is said in the first commandment.

    The word you are talking about is “light bearer”. If I carry a torch I am also a light bearer but I am no more a Morning Star than a candle is in the dark. Show me the hebrew word for “star” in that verse. Also if that is your argument why did they then using morning star in Revelations 22 … wouldn’t they, if using your logic, have put Lucifer in there…NO…because the 2 or completely different. God does not confuse us here…he gives the description of Lucifer in the ISAIAH 14 verses and he also describes Jesus…they are not the same.

    An you say that is the problem with word studies. The Word of God is unchanging why does the NIV change so much why do the new versions differ, obfuscate and confuse.

    I too can count numerous problems with the NIV but I have already shown just one and you haven’t explained why the NIV doesn’t distinguish between the Jesus Christ the Morning Star and Lucifer. Lucifer, using your own argument, is the correct word to use in ISAIAH 14 but instead the NIV uses words, that scholars fully know means Jesus Christ our Saviour.

    And as for westcott and hort, who followers of the NIV love to promote, How can you explain this away. Remember the passage given to us by Jesus Good Fruit comes from the rightious. Westcott and Hort didn’t even believe in the miracles of Jesus so how can one of their bibles be of good fruit!

    You don’t believe…I do…I believe that the authorised version based on the correct text from the original early bibles, may I add the early bibles that came before the text that the NIV is based, is the true word of God…and I believe through proof above that the NIV and other “new” bibles have been corrupted by mans own thoughts.

    The KJV does not remove verses. The NIV does and continues to. Also do notice that the KJV IS A TRANSLATION of text. The NIV is not just a translation of some of the text, but it changes, subverts and incerts mans interpretations. WE DONOT NEED TO REVISE THE WORD OF GOD WE JUST TRANSLATE INTO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES…Why does the NIV feel that it needs to change the verses given to us in the original texts with MANS own interpretations? Why?

  13. mattdabbs says:


    I don’t believe? I am sorry but do I know you? It would be beneficial to you to try to listen before you call people apostate. If you are willing to jump to that so quickly to harsh judgment and condemnation when you clearly still misunderstand what I am trying to say here then it makes it really hard to discuss things with you.

    Psalm 68:4 – KJV says “heaven.” So you assume that here the Bible says “heaven” in Hebrew. It does not. The word for heaven in Hebrew is not the word found in Psalm 68:4. The word here is the word for “cloud” or even “dark cloud.” I have studied Hebrew and have doubled checked this and it lines up. That is what it says – rider on the clouds. That is hard to read if you are relying on the KJV and not the original texts/Hebrew. In this verse the NIV gets it right and the KJV is close but not quite on the money. So your dismissal of my point is unwarranted. It is a valid point.

    The word “star” in Isa 14 it is not there and neither is Lucifer. Lucifer is a proper name. This verse is referencing an arrogant shining one who is about to be brought to destruction (king of Babylon – Isa 13-14 says it and I am just passing that on to you. I would suggest you read those two chapters together to get to Isa 14:12 and not just read 14:12 all by itself).

    So if your point is the NIV adds words, so does the KJV in this verse. The word in Hebrew is not a proper name as you keep saying it is. You just cannot escape that. I gave the literal translation above. It means shining one, referring the king of Babylon. I know it is hard to hear tone when reading what someone is typing but I say all this in love and not in a condescending or arrogant way. I am just trying to make my point.

    You still haven’t addressed my points about the context being clear that this is about the king of Babylon (14:4 and all of chapter 13). What do you think about that?

    Why is it different in Isa 14 and Rev 22? One is Greek and one is Hebrew. The phrasing of Rev 22 is not even close to the same as Isa 14:12, which is a point you correctly made. In Revelation 22:16 (not 22:19) it does have the word star. It literally reads “the star bright morning” or “The bright morning star.”

    So lets get to it. Isa 14:12 says “The shining one son of the dawn”

    Rev 22:16 says “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright shining star.”

    Your whole point is the NIV calls Lucifer Jesus in Isa 14. The only commonality between these verses is the concept of someone being luminous (shining one vs bright shining star). The NIV is not trying to pass Lucifer off as Jesus. The NIV recognizes the context of these verses, which you apparently still do not recognize, that Isa 13-14 is about Babylon and not Lucifer/Satan.

    Hope that helps.

  14. Colin says:

    mattdabbs you have misunderstood me…I am not calling you a none believer I was saying that I disagree with you and I apologise for the misunderstanding on this brother.

    Which hebrew and greek texts are you taking the translations from?

    The Ben Chayyim Masoretic, as you know, is what is used for the KJV. This as been poured over for the last 400 years and they have never thought that heaven needed to be changed to cloud. No doubt you are aware of some Hebrew texts which have been assembled from -corrupted- text…Ben Asher hebrew texts to be more precise. Which version of the Hebrew are you working from?

    Also be aware that the the NIV has been translated from the Alexandrian texts and then translated back into Hebrew…so…The original texts where taken into Egypt came out as the Alexandrian text (changed from the originals)…brought into the NIV and then translated back into Hebrew from the Alexandrian. I am quoting my knowledge from those who have exaustedly gone through the source text for the NIV and the source text of the KJV from here.


    Why do people, who are promoters of the new version bibles, feel the need to translate the Alexandrian text back into Hebrew…why did they not just quote their Hebrew version which the text was supposedly taken from? Why translate from -> too -> and back to the original language from the translated version? Thats just absurd and most ludicrous?

    Lets physically look at this also so by using simple, logical reasoning. If 20 peopls say, for arguments sake, write down 20 versions of a true account of history that is to be the same history and from that account 18 agree and 2 do not, which account would you believe in…you go with the 18 because they validate their accounts because of the Majority. The King James Version of the bible uses not only this logic but it also bases agrees with the earliest recorded bibles, WHICH ARE OLDER than the 2 main sources of text that the NIV is based on.

    Both the Sinaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts that the NIV and so many other New versions are based on where “found” in the 14th century and “claim” to be “the best” versions for basing bible translation even though the wildly differ from versions of the bible which were dated earlier and also wildly differ from the true MAJORITY texts ie the 18 against the 2 theory. Lets also remember, using an argument that I think stands up, that both of these scripts Sinaticus and Vaticanus are in imaculate condition…I don’t know but if a book is that good then it should have been read over and over again…these look like they haven’t been touched.

    And also lets remember…

    1. The Sinaticus was found in a trash can.
    2. The Vaticanus was “lost” in the Vatican Library? The very guys who charge themselves with documenting the history of our religion “lost” this most important document that is now used as basis for fact for Gods word.

    It just doesn’t add up…The majority of documents used corroborate KJV because their translations match. however they do not match with the other 2 Sinaticus/Vaticanus manuscripts…In fact they remove vast amounts of the original majority texts (remove) and translate (wildly) from the originals.

    I can’t believe them? Why would you. Jesus said that good fruit comes from the rightious and the bad vine withers away. Westcott and Hort (who loved the Sinaticus/Vaticanus versions) didn’t even believe in the miracles of Jesus Christ….who would you believe. These 2 men who denounce Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ himself….why do you fail to see this simple truth. Brother mattdabbs. I love you brother but I love the Word of God more. I can trust in Him and only him. I wouldn’t trust Westcott and Hort to edit my bible? Would you?

    Peace and love to all brothers and sisters.

  15. mattdabbs says:


    Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding. That makes me feel a lot better. I appreciate the tone of your post and your willingness to do your homework. I have studied this at length and you can read plenty of my thoughts on this matter. Some of my thoughts are in the comments of this post in my dialogue with darqlyte. I have read extensively enough to know why you hold the position you do on the Alexandrian texts and we are just going to have to disagree on their validity.

    The Hebrew text I am working from is Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia, which is the standard text used by most OT scholars.

    Back to the word for “cloud” and “heavens” in the Hebrew text – which word does the text you are using (BCM) use in that verse?

    I also don’t understand how people can study how the KJV was translated and be comfortable with it. I think the KJV is a decent translation but you have to remember that it was based on only a handful of manuscripts that were only a couple hundred years old at the time. Whether or not you think Sin. and Vat are any good there are hundreds of other older fragments and texts that corroborate them than those used by the KJV.

    One of the problems I have had over and over again in trying to discuss these issues with people is that they keep running through a bunch of thoughts and ask a bunch of questions. I respond to your questions and ask my own questions but I never seem to be able to get any answers to legitimate questions that are essential to the conversation – like the context of Isa 13-14 and the impact of it being a curse on Babylon and even the king of Babylon being singled out in in 14:4…that is clearly who is being talked about in 14:12. I still haven’t heard your response to that. Can you humor me and try out a few of my above questions?

    I don’t base my faith on W & H. I do base it on the Bible and it is essential that we go back to the most reliable manuscripts possible in making these decisions. Thanks for your dialog.

  16. Colin says:


    I have pulled the following from a website who have looked into the issues that we are discussing


    A corrupt manuscript or corrupt Bible is a text which follows or depends upon:

    1. The UBS (United Bible Societies/German Bible Society) Text of the

    Greek New Testament/Nestle-Aland-Metzger-Martini version(s)

    [which is based mostly upon a. Tischendorf and

    b. Westcott & Hort]

    2.The UBS (United Bible Societies/German Bible Society) Text of the

    Hebrew Old Testament which – in turn – is based upon:

    a. Any Old Testament text or translation from Either

    Rudolph Kittel

    {Occultist/Jew-hater/anti-semitic} or Gerhard Kittel {Occultist/Nazi War Criminal – Nuremberg}

    b. Any Old Testament text or translation which uses or relies

    on the corrupt translations or manuscripts written by

    Ben Asher

    This would include the UBS Hebrew Texts Biblia Hebraica and/or

    Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.


    I will leave it to the readers to do their own research on why these texts can be considered not biblical.

    How can we compare hebrew and greek texts when you are comparing the translations from the above documents, which have been detested by many scholars…we can go on and on over and over but we would never reach a conclusion because we are using different text.

    I encourage the readers to do their own research into this

    And to your answer of Lucifer. I will answer it with reason and logic. By your own admission the word lucifer translates to “shining one” so why does the NIV translate this to “morning star”? Ask yourself that. If you was sitting on the council of translators for the NIV would you not, by your own admission, have translated this to “shining one”? Why would the translators of the NIV translate this to “Morning star”. I quote your own words in the following verse.

    “The word “star” in Isa 14 it is not there and neither is Lucifer”

    You are right that the word star is not there but I would disagree that the word Lucifer is not there because if you look up the word Lucifer you find that it can be translated as “light bearer”. So by your own admission you actually agree that the NIV is wrong and that KJV is correct.

    But it goes deeper than this. You see if someone is reading the bible, and you ask most people today, who they think Lucifer is they will say to you Satan or the devil.

    Lets look at the meaning of Lucifer in the dictionaries. When I search the askoxford website for an explanation of Lucifer I get 2 entries back…Lucifer and Satan…

    Here is my link that I used.


    so for someone casually looking for the meaning of Lucifer they would link Lucifer with Satan (from this website)

    If I click on the returned link Lucifer from the above page what do we get? We get the following.
    noun 1 the Devil. 2 literary the planet Venus in the morning. 3 (lucifer) archaic a match.

    — ORIGIN Latin, ‘light-bringing, morning star’.

    So first we are told its the Devil then we see the word light-bringing (which matches with the KJV from your own admission that from your version of the hebrew you see “shining one”) but hold on we also see “morning star”. And by your own admision ;

    The word “star” in Isa 14 it is not there

    So where does the dictionary get the translation for morning star…lets look into this further. One source “dictionary.com” quotes the following

    The name Lucifer, which means “bearer of light” or “morning star,” refers to his former splendor as the greatest of the angels.

    Notice again the word “bearer of light” which is what you translated it to “shining one” but also notice “morning star” and you yourself contradict this because the word star does not appear. However Son of the morning, translated in the KJV would actually translate to Venus, which is sometimes called the morning star by astronomers. Where are the dictionaries getting their translation of “morning star” could they be mixing this up with “son of the morning” translated by KJV translators…it would be easy for them to do. However when KJV talks of “the morning star” in reference to Jesus Christ they do translate this to “morning star”. They never would have translated this to “Lucifer” the babylonian king who was against GOD, and therefor Jesus.

    Now if you lookup Lucifer in all of the dictionaries you will see that they link this to Satan/Devil, every dictionary which contains Lucifer links it with Satan and the devil.

    The babylonian king was against GOD and if you are against GOD your are against Jesus Christ.

    Matt 12
    [30] He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

    These are the words of Jesus Christ directly from GOD.

    The King James translators would never have put “morning star” in this translation because

    1. They know it would cause confusion. (Look at the dictionary definitions).
    2. It isn’t in the translation (so where did the NIV get it from?)

    So you see…you actually agree with the King James translation and by your own words you disagree with the NIV translation. Which if you lookup Lucifer in all the laymans dictionaries of today you will find equates it with Satan. They know that the Isaiah verses are talking of the ways of the devil. The KJV translaters actually translated this perfectly, because by your own admision “star” is not in that verse so they did not use it there but “light-bearer” is so they used Lucifer and this you also agree with “shining one”…your own translation. your own words.

  17. Colin says:


    As a brother I love you, as a scholar I disagree with you. which is why I feel compelled to point out certain things. The NIV is doing what it was created to do…it is causing confusion.

    Brother I love you.

  18. mattdabbs says:


    You make some good points and I wish I had time today to address them all. I will have to get to some of them later. The reason the NIV used “morning star” is because they believe in a dynamic equivalence translation. They believe this verse is being used symbolically with the analogy of the planet venus that shines bright but cannot rise very high into the sky and disappears quickly. That is what will happen to the king of Babylon. Hope that helps. There is nothing to do with the devil or Jesus in this verse.

    You can argue that my manuscripts are corrupt. That is fine. I disagree but that is another matter. It is just very convenient for you that any time you find something you disagree with you just say that the texts of my translation are corrupt. That is such an easy out.

    So here is what we need to do. We need to find Isa 14:12 in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic and see if it is any different than the text I am using (BHS). I doubt there is any difference in this verse. If they are the same, then there is no longer a way to shrug off my comments as due to my using corrupted texts. I will see what I can do.

  19. mattdabbs says:

    By the way, I don’t wholeheartedly agree with everything in the NIV just like I don’t 100% agree with the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, Message, New Living, and any other translation I have ever used. They all have problems. So I am not here to defend the NIV. I am trying to have an honest discussion of what this passage is all about and I appreciate what you are bringing to the table in this discussion.

  20. Colin says:


    what are you saying here…I quote…
    The reason the NIV used “morning star” is because they believe in a dynamic equivalence translation. They believe this verse is being used symbolically with the analogy of the planet venus that shines bright but cannot rise very high into the sky and disappears quickly….

    When you say they believe…who are you talking about…who believes what about this verse. So what you are saying is that …

    “shining one”

    translates to …

    “planet venus that shines bright but cannot rise very high into the sky and disappears quiclky”

    Are you saying that “man believes” excuse me but I thought that the bible was “The Word Of GOD” not what man believes. Which is why the KJV ** translated ** the text and the NIV ** added and subverted ** the meaning of the text.

    then you say and I quote

    It is just very convenient for you that any time you find something you disagree with you just say that the texts of my translation are corrupt. That is such an easy out.

    It is not me who said they are corrupt but many scholars who have poured over the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The KJV translaters refused to touch it because it was not corroborated enough it was the TRUE majority text (many manuuscripts) which corroburated with the what the KJV translated to. This is why I said IT IS UPTO THE READERS to investigate this and if and when they do they will see that what I speak of is the majority of learned scholars who have looked into it.

    and I quote you again…

    So here is what we need to do. We need to find Isa 14:12 in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic and see if it is any different than the text I am using (BHS). I doubt there is any difference in this verse. If they are the same, then there is no longer a way to shrug off my comments as due to my using corrupted texts. I will see what I can do.

    No mattdabbs I don’t have to do anything. You are taking it out of context from the original argument which was that the NIV replaces “Lucifer” with “Morning Star” and even you yourself have just said that star doesn;t exist so you actually agree with KJV because “Lucifer” can mean “light bearer” .. It is YOU alone who needs to find a version of the biblical hebrew text that translates “shining one” into “morning star”. If the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text (KJV based on) states the “shining one” and we know that the BHS states “shining one” then that ** strengthens ** my reasoning and it also ** strengthens** the translation of KJV because KJV translates “shinging ones” to “Lucifer” which in turn can be translated to “light bearer” which has much more equality than “Morning star”. SO the NIV has a corrupted translation because, by your words not mine, “”they believe”” that the words of GOD actually mean moring star, which we both know is wrong!

    Excuse me mattdabbs but forgive me if you seem to be making excuses for what you have written. It is you, by your own words, that has corrected yourself by agreeing with the KJV. All I did was state that the NIV was wrong within that translation and you agree with me on that, don’t you?? Or do you now disagree with yourself on that?? Is it because you are confused with you text that you just cannot answer me. IS THIS WHAT THE NIV IS ALL ABOUT, CONFUSION!

    The words of the NIV, which you condone, are now your own witness against your error.

    I think you need to change the title to

    Why everyone should stay away from the NIV.

    And your second post corroborates everything. Because you actually don’t agree with ANY bible. You are now saying that all bibles have problems.

    You see that is where I differ because I believe that the words of the KJV are “The words of GOD” translated to English for the English speaking people because that is what it is…a translation…

    1. no changes…
    2. no “I believe this should actually mean this”…

    because it is not upto us to place other words in there. I am not shrugging of your translation because “shining one” translates to Lucifer and we agree on that…If you are going to start comparing the BHS text with the Ben Chayyim Masoretic then you had better start from the beginning because there are a lot more changes than the one we have been arguing about.

  21. mattdabbs says:


    The KJV does not translate this word properly either. They use a proper name, Lucifer in place of “shining one”. They equate this verse with Satan. It says in Hebrew shining one. By your own standard why didn’t the KJV just translate it to “shining one”? Lucifer can mean that but Lucifer also means a lot more. So both the KJV and NIV mess up this verse. I agree that it is not up to us to place words in there…the NIV and KJV both do a poor job here…how about that? It should say “shining one.”

    If you believe the KJV is the perfect translation you need to do a bit more studying of the KJV, the texts that were used to translate it, and the doctrinal errors and poor translations that run throughout. It is an extraordinary translation and I have respect for it because it has done a lot of good but it, like all other translations, are far from perfect. If you have ever translated from Hebrew to English or Greek to English you understand just how hard it is to do the work of translation. I have wrestled with it, studied it, and done translation and know just how difficult it is. Then take several hundred years of language development and change as culture and definitions shift and it makes the KJV even more difficult.

    It is a translation. You treat the KJV like it IS the original text in the original language. It is not. If you have a problem with dynamic equivalence translation you have to understand that both the NIV and KJV do that with this verse. It doesn’t say Lucifer…that is a proper name for the devil, right? Can you tell me why they chose to translate it “Lucifer” and not the literal translation “shining one”? If you are going to try to poke holes in the NIV’s handling of this verse then it is good to be honest about what the KJV did with this verse as well. You keep saying it has to be translated what it means and yet the KJV has the same problem in this verse because Lucifer has a lot more meaning packed into it than just shining one.

  22. Colin says:

    O mattdabbs,

    Lucifer = “light bearer” = “shining one”
    Dictionary lookup finds that Lucifer means Satan “too many people” as well as light bearer but in this context KJV leaves it as Lucifer because in context of the rest of ISAIAH that is what it means…it also can mean the babylonian king who was against God and Jesus Christ. That is why they use lucifer.

    Morning star relates to Jesus Christ through out the Bible. See Peter and Revelations whenever we speak of Morning Star we mean Jesus Christ…

    So why does the NIV use Morning Star instead of Lucifer/light bearer/shining one?

    Lets have a look at one of the other “New” bibles shall we?

    New Century Version ***Publisher Thomas Nelson the same publishers of the NIV***

    Lets compare them from KJV translation to NCV so we do one verse at a time… Each line of the NCB will start with NCB and KJV for the King James. and after each translation is given I will write a comment of the changes…which no doubt will be in plain site anyway. Here the Lord is speaking to Ezekiel.

    Ezekiel 33
    Ezekiel Is Watchman for Israel

    Verse 1
    NCB : The Lord spoke his word to me, saying:
    KJV : Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

    Not too many changes here

    Verse 2
    NCB: “Human, speak to your people and say to them: ‘Suppose I bring a war against a land. The people of the land may choose one of their men and make him their watchman.

    KJV: Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:

    Hold right there…notice that now “Son of man” is a Human in the NCB … what is it a woman, child what! No its a human…wierd! Also notice how in the NCB that the Lord is stating that suppose He brings a war on the land. In the original text God doesn’t suppose anything. The KJV sets this right with “When I bring the sword upon a land” and its prophesing of a future event. The NCB is trying to say that this is figurative. The KJV tells it for what it is…a future event…

    Verse 3.
    NCB : When he sees the enemy coming to attack the land, he will blow the trumpet and warn the people.

    KJV : If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;

    And again the NCB is now saying “enemy” instead of “sword from GOD”. Do you know what the trumpet is? I will answer that later.

    Verse 4

    NCB : If they hear the sound of the trumpet but do nothing, the enemy will come and kill them. They will be responsible for their own deaths.

    KJV : Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

    Very similiar you may think but the NCB text is constantly removing the sword sent by GOD and replacing it with “the enemy”. its watering down the prophesy! Remember this is a future event. its not something that is supposingly going to happen as stated by the NCB!

    Verse 5.
    NCB :They heard the sound of the trumpet but didn’t do anything. So they are to blame for their own deaths. If they had done something, they would have saved their own lives.

    KJV : He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

    Still sounds kind of the same but look…the last sentence of the NCB talks of saving their own life. The KJV speaks of deliverance! REMEMBER deliverance, trumpet, sword what does this all mean…we will get to that later.

    Verse 6

    NCB: But if the watchman sees the enemy coming to attack and does not blow the trumpet, the people will not be warned. Then if the enemy comes and kills any of them, they have died because of their own sin. But I will punish the watchman for their deaths.’

    KJV : But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

    Again the “sword sent by God” is replaced with “enemy”

    These passages have powerful meanings which reverberate through history and the future events that it describes…Whenever I read these verses I am left breathless with the Glory of God that shines through these words.

    The sword of God is the judgment of God but you don’t see this in the NCB because it constantly refers to the Judgement of GOD as “the enemy”. Thats wrong isn’t it. How do I know its the Judgment of God? Well further down at verse 20 the KJV

    KJV [20] Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways

    even the NCB states

    20 You still say: ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Israel, I will judge all of you by your own ways.”

    So that chapter states that “The Sword” is “The Judgement of GOD. and everyone of us will be judged for we are all sinners on the face of the earth.

    What is the trumpet? The Trumpet is the word of GOD who do we know as the word of GOD? Jesus Christ is the word of GOD

    John 12:
    [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father
    which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I
    should say, and what I should speak.
    [50] And I know that his commandment is life
    everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the
    Father said unto me, so I speak.

    The watchmen are those charged with delivering the word of God to his people. They are our bishops, priests and vicars…our preachers who must pass on the word of God for they have been charged with it by his own people. If they are charged with passing on the word…and they do not pass on the word of God, then they have failed in their duty and they not only die in their sins but also they cause many others to not be delivered.

    [50] And I know that his commandment is life
    everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the
    Father said unto me, so I speak.

    We are delivered through Jesus who was sacrificed for our sins and Jesus also tells us that GODs commandments is life everlasting. You see when God Judges your physical body may already be dead by through faith in Jesus Christ our saviour who died for our sins and the word of God you are saved and will live for ever in the new kindom. You don’t get this from the NCB because it has been removed! The judgements of GOD become the enemy and the word deliverance is removed altogether. You don’t get the ringing, if I may use that phrase, of the winds which link to the Gospel and the teachings of the true Prophets.

    I will continue.

    If our charged deliverers of the word, deliver the true word of GOD and we do not hear it then we die in our own blood. We are solely to blame for ignoring the word of God. So can you see how important it is that you get the correct bible text?

    Readers….go and look at the NCB and then compare it with the KJV…see how it alters the text and turns the prophecy of this true event, OUR DELIVERANCE, into something that it supposes might happen? Where does the word “suppose” every occur when talking of prophecy. This event is talking about our future deliverance, or not, depending on whether we take the word of GOD to heart and live by the commandments of GOD and believe in His son Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins and his our Saviour…to give us our deliverance. NCB removes all of that meaning…it removes it…its blaspemous!

    Now I know that the NCB is not the NIV but both are based on the same text and the same publishers who brandish the same copyrights and control over the text.

    Look at me a simple man who can compare the text and see the word of God removed from those so called New Version bibles. Shame on you who can see these changes more clearly but say nothing. Are you not like the watchmen who hide the word of the Lord?

  23. Colin says:

    Sorry the word winds… in this paragraph in my last post.

    You don’t get the ringing, if I may use that phrase, of the winds which link to the Gospel and the teachings of the true Prophets.

    should read “words”. Sorry for that.

  24. Colin says:

    Oh by the way…they pick and chose truth and lies in the new versions….which is why they differ so much. Also the NKJV is NOT the KJV make sure if you want to get a KJV that you get the correct version…better still go and look round the old book stores and charity shops were you might find an old version which hasn’t passed through the hands of certain publishers.

  25. Colin says:


    Let us not call each other sinners, let us not judge each other better than the other, let us not cause grief between us, let us not look at the thorn in each of our eyes and miss the Log in our own eyes

    For brother … “I love you Matt” as if you were my only brother left on this earth I love you from the bottom of my heart and I truly mean that.

    Let us not continue this discussion less we one another begin to blame…for what do we know! Let us look to the word of God and hope in salvation in Jesus Christ our Saviour and give Glory to the one True God the Father in Heaven….Glory and praise from my heart goes out to God and blessed is our Saviour who sacrificed himself for our sins, Jesus Christ.


  26. mattdabbs says:


    I certainly don’t fault you for having a different view on this than I do. I understand where you get it from and how you make the connection. It doesn’t make me love you any less because we disagree on this issue. I really do appreciate and love you as well and I am glad to see we can discuss our differences. God bless,


  27. Colin says:

    Just like to point out that some of the messages have been removed between me and mattdabs…I don’t know why…but if you want to see the full transcript then I have kept a copy. Just email me.

  28. Colin says:

    Ignore my last post…it was the IE cache!…Sorry about that.

  29. I’ve been reading some of these posts from a couple of years ago. Just wanted to add for Isaiah 14:12, beside “Lucifer,” the original 1611 King James translator’s marginal note says, “or, daystar.” So 400 years ago they knew that this was a possible way to translate the word! Kind of shoots down the KJV-Only Lucifer argument, IMHO!

    I wonder how you feel about the NIV update? I’ve memorized much scripture in the 1984 NIV, and wondering if I want to stay with it or not.

    • mattdabbs says:

      John, thanks for pointing that out. I don’t remember hearing that before. As far as the new NIV you may want to search around on Claude Marriotini’s blog. He has brought it up on occasion.

  30. Tim sturm says:


  31. best voip phone system says:

    Does your site have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an email. I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.

  32. Ben says:

    There are 909 changes made from original scripture in the NIV. The deity of Jesus is just about stripped from Him. Some of these changes are extremely radical. I can not believe that this could be allowed by people who claim to be God fearing. This bible will help the cause of a huge “falling away” as prophesied by Jesus…

  33. Blake says:

    Great article! That is the kind of information that should be shared around the web.
    Shame on the seek engines for not positioning this publish higher!

    Come on over and consult with my website . Thank you =)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: