Which Bible Translation Should I Use?

If you prefer the NIV (or countless other translations),  perhaps you have never really read the NIV (or the King James version for that matter).  Are you aware that then NIV removes, alters and completely changes the meanings of more than 64,000 words and verses in the Bible?  Imagine completely removing most of Paul’s teachings, all of Peter’s, Jude’s, James’ and John’s including Revelation.

Which Bible Translation Should I Use?


As with any study, I strongly recommend that you have a bible open as you begin. We have provided scripture for your benefit, however, I still recommend that you either have YOUR own bible open OR use the online link we have provided for you below. This link will open a new window to an online bible in order for you to study and follow along.

I have spent countless personal hours studying the NIV and comparing it with the KJV and I cannot and do not recommend the NIV to anyone for obvious reasons that I shall soon explain.

References for the material presented in this study may be found all across the internet and in many currently published books and I have used some of that material in this teaching. I have verified the accuracy of all materials I have obtained, however, I recommend that you PERSONALLY study the NIV compared to the KJV (or at the very least, READ IT for yourself to see the inaccuracies.

I DO NOT encourage the use of the NIV Bible, and I do not recognize the NIV as the infallible Word of God, I have provided a link in order for you to use during this study.

Are you one who says you cannot understand the “thees” and “thous” and “begets” in the King James Version? You say you just cannot understand the King James?

Let me remove all excuses for you. Look at the Evidence Bible from Bridge-Logos Publishers. I think you will find it to your liking. I have never recommended any other Bible before but I have found the Evidence Bible to be exactly what it claims to be the full-unadulterated King James Version of the Bible.

Following are the links for online versions of both the KJV bible and the NIV bible. Again, the NIV version is provided in order for you to use as reference in this study.

Have you been reading the NIV? Have you noticed some of the verses that have changed? Perhaps you consider them to be minor changes.  Do you really know which ones have changed?  Don’t just take my word for it, look it up for yourself!  

Do you still think that it doesn’t matter? Do you think that it matters very little just who handles the Word of God? Does it really matter to you whether the book you base your eternity on is corrupted or not?

Suppose SATAN himself translated the Bible for you. Would you trust him? Suppose one of his fallen angels had a hand in the work, would it matter then?

Suppose you had a Pastor who was also an adulterer, a liar, a thief, a sorcerer. Would THAT matter to you? Suppose that same Pastor did not believe in any miracles or healings, that he supported spiritism, communication with the dead (necromancy), consultation with ‘familiar spirits’, and rejected the creation of the world by God. What if he rejected the doctrine of the resurrection? What if he also rejected the fact that Jesus bore our sins and paid them all? What if he denied that it was through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ that forgiveness was given?

Would you Still trust that man to lead you to heaven, to teach you and to explain to you the Word of God?

Consider these questions as you study this lesson.

Ask yourself: Does it matter?

I recently heard that someone made the statement that the NIV was written long before the King James Version of the Bible? That is actually not true at all.  Are we a society that knows absolutely nothing of the origins of the Word of God?

The NIV is not the only corrupt manuscript available, however it is by far one of the worst. Do you know HOW the word of God was translated in each version of the Bible?

Have you ever read the PREFACE to the versions? Let’s look at the preface to each version to see what the ‘translators’ themselves had to say.



Those are quite striking differences in the preface!  I’m sure that you will not be convinced by just the preface of the bibles alone so let’s look at some of the corrupted verses themselves.

Before we do, however, I want you to keep something in mind. YOU have probably had access to and may have started out with a King James Bible. If so, you have an advantage. Many today are starting with a New International Version. Let us look at what they would see, read, and understand from the NIV point of view.

Although I prefer NOT to urge you to read the NIV, for this study and others like it, I HIGHLY recommend you get an NIV AND a KJV and compare them for yourself as we read. Remember, the links for the NIV and KJV online are both provided for you above.  The purpose in reading the versions for you is two-fold:

(1) You will be able to read it for yourself and say that you have witnessed the changes.

(2) You will have no basis to accuse this preacher of teaching from a corrupted bible.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

Let us begin with a table to show ONLY A SMALL PORTION of the changes in the New Testament alone.

King James Version or New International Version:  Who Really Cares?

Here are just a few of the many verses in question. This table is long and you’ll have to scroll down to see it all. It’s worth the time, though.

Again, I DO NOT support nor do I endorse the use of the NIV, but the link is provided for you benefit FOR THIS STUDY ONLY.



Now, consider some of the changes made in the NIV. In nearly all cases listed here, words are either removed or altered to the point that the passage meaning has been changed.


1:25 (FIRSTBORN) is omitted. Speaking of the Lord Jesus.
5:44 (BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU) is omitted.
6:13 (KINGDOM, POWER, GLORY) is omitted.
6:27 (STATURE) is changed to span of life.
6:33 (OF GOD) is omitted. Referring to the kingdom
8:29 (JESUS) is omitted. As Son of God.
9:13 (TO REPENTANCE) is omitted. Calling sinners
12:35 (OF THE HEART) is omitted. Good treasure
12:47 (VERSE IS OMITTED) About Christ’s mother.
13:51 (JESUS SAID UNTO THEM and LORD) is omitted.
16:3 (O YE HYPOCRITES) is omitted.
16:20 (JESUS) is omitted.
17:21 (VERSE IS OMITTED). About prayer and fasting.
18:11 (VERSE IS OMITTED). Tells Jesus came to save.
19:9 (LAST 11 WORDS ARE OMITTED). About adultery.
19:17 (GOD) is omitted. None good but (God).
20:16 (MANY BE CALLED BUT FEW CHOSEN) is omitted.
21:44 (VERSE IS OMITTED) About Christ the stone.
23:14 (VERSE IS OMITTED) Woe scribes and hypocrites.
25:13 (WHEREIN THE SON OF MAN COMETH) is omitted.
27:54 (THE SON OF GOD) is A SON of God.
28:2 (FROM THE DOOR) is omitted.


1:1 –(SON OF GOD) is omitted in Williams, Godspeed, Panin, Nestle, New World, Westcott & Hort.
1:14–(OF THE KINGDOM) is omitted. Jesus gospel–
1:31–(IMMEDIATELY) is omitted. The fever left–
2:17–(TO REPENTANCE) is omitted. Call sinners–
6:16–(FROM THE DEAD) is omitted. John is risen–
6:33–(HIM) is changed to them.
7:8 –(WASHING OF POTS AND CUPS) is omitted.
7:16–(VERSE IS OMITTED) About having an ear to hear.
9:24–(LORD) is omitted. A believer called Him Lord.
9:42–(IN ME) is omitted. Little ones that believe–
9:44–(VERSE IS OMITTED) About fire not quenched.
9:46–(VERSE IS OMITTED) Where worm dieth not.
10:21–(TAKE UP THE CROSS) is omitted. Jesus said–
10:24–(FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES) is omitted.
11:10–(IN THE NAME OF THE LORD) is omitted.
11:26–(VERSE IS OMITTED) If ye do not forgive, etc.
13:14–(SPOKEN BY DANIEL THE PROPHET) is omitted.
13:33–(AND PRAY) is omitted, or in italics.
14:68–(AND THE COCK CREW) is omitted.
15:28–(VERSE IS OMITTED) Scripture was fulfilled, etc.
15:39–(THE SON OF GOD) is A SON of God.
16:9-20–(12 VERSES ARE OMITTED) in some Bibles.


2:33–(JOSEPH) is changed to father.
2:43–(JOSEPH AND HIS MOTHER) is changed to parents.
4:4 –(BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD) is omitted.
4:8 –(GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN) is omitted.
4:41–(THE CHRIST) is omitted. The Son of God.
6:48–(FOUNDED UPON A ROCK) is well built.
7:31–(AND THE LORD SAID) is omitted.
9:54–(EVEN AS ELIJAH DID) is omitted.
9:56–(SON OF MAN IS COME TO SAVE LIVES) is omitted.
11:29–(THE PROPHET) is omitted. About Jonah.
17:36–(VERSE IS OMITTED) One taken, another left.
22:20–(VERSE IS OMITTED) Out in NEB, and RSV.
22:31–(AND THE LORD SAID) is omitted.
22:64–(THEY STRUCK HIM ON THE FACE) is omitted.
23:17–(WHOLE VERSE IS OMITTED) in many Bibles.
23:38–(LETTERS OF GREEK, LATIN, HEBREW) is omitted.
23:42–(LORD) is omitted. Remember me, etc.
23:45–(SUN WAS ECLIPSED) in Moffatt and NEB.
24:3 –(OF THE LORD JESUS) is omitted.
24:6 –(HE IS NOT HERE, BUT IS RISEN) is omitted.
24:12–(VERSE IS OMITTED) Peter’s testimony.
24:40–(VERSE IS OMITTED) Christ showed them hands, feet.
24:49–(OF JERUSALEM) is omitted.
24:51)CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN) is omitted.


1:14–(BEGOTTEN) is omitted in 1:18, 3:16, 3:18.
1:27–(PREFERRED BEFORE ME) is omitted. Jesus is)
3:13–(WHICH IS IN HEAVEN) is omitted.
3:15–(SHOULD NOT PERISH) is omitted.
4:42–(THE CHRIST) is omitted.
5:4 –(VERSE IS OMITTED) Pool of Bethesda.
6:47–(ON ME) is omitted. He that believes–
6:69–(THAT CHRIST THE SON) is omitted.
7:53–(TO 8:11) is omitted, in brackets or italics.
8:36–(FATHER) is omitted. Changed to He.
9:35–(SON OF GOD) is omitted. Is Son of Man.
11:41–(WHERE THE DEAD WAS LAID) is omitted.
16:16–(BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER) is omitted.
17:12–(IN THE WORLD) is omitted.
20:29–(THOMAS) is omitted.


7:30–(OF THE LORD) is omitted. Angel–
7:37–(HIM SHALL YE HEAR) is omitted. Christ–
8:37–(VERSE IS OMITTED) or in brackets, or italics.
9:5-6–(MUCH IS OMITTED) Concerning God’s call.
10:6 –(WHAT THOU OUGHTEST TO DO) More is omitted.
15:18–(KNOWN UNTO GOD HIS WORKS) More is omitted.
16:31–(CHRIST) is omitted.
17:26–(BLOOD) is omitted.
20:25–(OF GOD) is omitted. The kingdom–
20:32–(BRETHREN) is omitted.
23:9 –(LET US NOT FIGHT AGAINST GOD) is omitted.
24:6-8–(MUCH IS OMITTED) or in brackets or italics.
24:15–(OF THE DEAD) is omitted. Resurrection–
28:16–(HALF OF VERSE IS OMITTED) in italics or brackets.
28:29–(VERSE IS OMITTED) in italics or brackets.


1:16–(OF CHRIST) is omitted or in italics, brackets.
1:29–(FORNICATION) is omitted.
5:2 –(BY FAITH) omitted in Moffatt, RSV, and NEB.
8:1 –(LAST 10 WORDS ARE OMITTED) or in italics.
9:28–(IN RIGHTEOUSNESS) is omitted.
10:15–(OF PEACE) is omitted. Gospel–
10:17–(OF GOD) is omitted. Christ is substituted.
13:9 –(SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS) is omitted.
14:6 –(15 WORDS ARE OMITTED) Regarding the day.
14:21–(OFFENDED, MADE WEAK) is omitted.
15:29–(OF THE GOSPEL) is omitted.
16:24–(WHOLE VERSE IS OMITTED) in italics or brackets.

1 Corinthians

1:14–(I THANK GOD) is omitted in many Bibles.
5:7 –(FOR US) is omitted. Christ sacrificed–
6:20–(LAST 7 WORDS ARE OMITTED) Your spirit, etc.
7:5 –(FASTING) is omitted. Joined with prayer.
7:39–(BY THE LAW) is omitted. The wife is bound–
10:28–(THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S) is omitted, and more.
11:24–(TAKE EAT) is omitted. This is my body–
11:29–(LORD’S) is omitted, referring to the body.
15:47–(THE LORD) is omitted. Lord from heaven.
16:22–(JESUS CHRIST) is omitted.
16:23–(CHRIST) is omitted.

2 Corinthians

4:6 –(JESUS) is omitted.
5:10–(THE LORD) is omitted.
5:18–(JESUS) is omitted, or in italics.
11:31–(CHRIST) is omitted, or in italics.


1:15–(GOD) is omitted.
3:1 –(THAT YE SHOULD NOT OBEY TRUTH) is omitted.
3:17–(IN CHRIST) is omitted.
4:7 –(THROUGH CHRIST) is omitted.
6:15–(IN CHRIST JESUS) is omitted.
6:17–(LORD) is omitted.


3:9 –(BY JESUS CHRIST) is omitted. God created–
3:14–(OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST) is omitted.
5:30–(OF HIS FLESH AND OF HIS BONES) is omitted.
6:1 –(IN THE LORD) is omitted. Obey parents–
6:10–(MY BRETHREN) is omitted.


3:16–(LET US MIND THE SAME THING) is omitted.


1:2 –(THE LORD JESUS CHRIST) is omitted.
1:14–(THROUGH HIS BLOOD) is omitted, or in italics.
1:28–(JESUS) is omitted.
2:11–(OF THE SINS OF) is omitted.
3:6 –(SONS OF DISOBEDIENCE) is omitted.

1 Thessalonians

2:19–(CHRIST) is omitted.
3:11–(CHRIST) is omitted, or in italics.
3:13–(CHRIST) is omitted, or in italics.

2 Thessalonians

1:8 –(CHRIST) is omitted, or in italics.

1 Timothy

1:17–(WISE) is omitted. The only wise God.
2:7 –(IN CHRIST) is omitted, or in italics.
3:16–(GOD) is omitted. Manifest in the flesh.
4:12–(IN SPIRIT) is omitted.

2 Timothy

1:11–(OF THE GENTILES) is omitted.
4:1 –(LORD) is omitted.
4:22–(JESUS CHRIST) is omitted, or in italics


1:4 –(THE LORD) is out, or in italics.


1:6 –(JESUS) is omitted.
1:12–(RECEIVE HIM) is omitted.


1:3 –(BY HIMSELF) is omitted. Purged our sins–
3:1 –(CHRIST) is omitted.
10:30–(SAITH THE LORD) is omitted.
10:34–(IN HEAVEN) is omitted.
11:11–(WAS DELIVERED OF A CHILD) is omitted. Sarah–


5:16–(FAULTS) is changed to SINS. (Wrong Greek text was used to translate.)

1 Peter

1:22–(THROUGH THE SPIRIT) is omitted.
4:1 –(FOR US) is omitted. Christ suffered–
4:14–(LAST 15 WORDS ARE OMITTED) or in italics.
5:10–(JESUS) is omitted, or in italics.
5:11–(GLORY AND DOMINION) is omitted of some Bibles.

2 Peter

2:17–(FOREVER) is omitted, or in italics.
3:9 –(US IS CHANGED TO YOU) Destroys meaning.

1 John

1:7 –(CHRIST) is omitted.
2:7 –(FROM THE BEGINNING) is omitted.
4:3 –(CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH) is omitted.
4:9 –(BEGOTTEN) is omitted in some versions.
4:19–(HIM) is omitted, or in italics. We love–


1:25–(WISE) is out. Referring to God.


1:8 –(THE BEGINNING AND THE END) is omitted.
1:11–(TEN WORDS ARE OMITTED) Alpha and Omega, etc.
2:13–(THY WORKS) is omitted.
6:1 –(AND SEE) is omitted in 3, 5, 7 also.
8:13–(ANGEL IS EAGLE) Greek text says “angel.”
11:17–(AND ART TO COME) is omitted.
12:12–(INHABITERS OF) is omitted. The earth.
12:17–(CHRIST) is omitted.
14:5 –(BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD) is omitted.
16:17–(OF HEAVEN) is omitted.
20:9 –(GOD) is omitted. Fire came from–
21:24–(OF THEM WHICH ARE SAVED) is omitted. Nations–

Those changes should shock you.  Now in all fairness, I realize there are many who claim the KJV has had “revisions” over the years and that it has also changed it’s text.

ALL REVISIONS to the King James Version are thoroughly documented in the table below and are included in chronological order for you to see them.

Following is a list of the revisions to the King James Version and the dates of revisions.


Note: the printing press was invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenberg in Germany.
Remember that translators did not have word processor’s, IBM PC’s or spell checking software!

1613 A.D. thy right doeth –corrected to— thy right hand doeth

1616 A.D. which was of our father’s –corrected to— which was our fathers

1617 A.D. Seek good –corrected to— seek God

1629 A.D. requite good –corrected to— requite me good

1629 A.D. this book of the Covenant –corrected to— the book of this covenant

1629 A.D. chief rulers –corrected to— chief ruler

1629 A.D. For the king had appointed –corrected to— for so the king had appointed

1629 A.D. The cormorant –corrected to— But the cormorant

1629 A.D. The crowned –corrected to— Thy crowned

1629 A.D. which was a Jew –corrected to— which was a Jewess

1629 A.D. the city –corrected to— the city of the Damascenes

1638 A.D. And Parbar –corrected to— At Parbar

1638 A.D. For this cause –corrected to— And for this cause

1638 A.D. a fiery furnace —corrected to— a burning fiery furnace

1638 A.D. now and ever —corrected to— both now and ever

1638 A.D. this thing —corrected to— this thing also

1743 A.D. the wayes side —corrected to— the way side

1762 A.D. shalt have remained —corrected to— ye shall have remained

1762 A.D. Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik —corrected to— of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik

1769 A.D. returned —corrected to— turned

Look at these again. These are true “REVISIONS”  not CHANGES! These “revisions” are very different from those claimed by the NIV (which are for the most part “changes”.

The NIV has been further revised since it’s released and has now become the TNIV, a text in which all references about Gender have been removed. (In other words, God the Father is no longer “HE”.

I will add the revisions to the TNIV later.

King James Version or New International Version:  Who Really Cares?

Did You Know?


See Matthew 27:4,24,25; Acts 5:28, 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7, 2:13; Colossians 1:14, 20; Hebrews 10:19; I Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:5, 5:9.


Let’s look at some others! Let’s start at some very basic scripture that everyone should be able to answer.

Remember to keep in mind that MANY people have never owned or read a King James version of the bible and they have NO PRIOR REFERENCE and would be taking their  teaching directly from the NIV.

What is so bad about that?  If it’s correct, there isn’t a problem, but what would an incorrect or a corrupt version of the bible do to them?  Let’s begin.

Who was the FATHER  of JESUS? 

Everyone would naturally answer that GOD was, but if you have an NIV, there is doubt!

Examine Luke 2:33:

The King James Bible reads, “And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”

Now read the NIV: “The CHILD’S FATHER and mother marvelled at what was said about him.”

What was that? The “Child’s Father”? Who was the Father of Jesus? If you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, then you CANNOT call Joseph, “the Child’s Father”. This is what the Pharisees did!

You will find as we study this further that the NIV directly attacks and calls into question the virgin birth of Christ on multiple occasions throughout its pages.

You may be saying, “Come on now, THAT is no big deal, and besides, everyone knows what is meant”. However, to you I would ask REALLY? Do you mean to tell me that just ONE lie in a book presented as the Word of God is no big deal? Do you believe that someone would read the phrase: “CHILD’S FATHER was with Mary” and that person would naturally assume that GOD was the Father? I don’t think so, especially not if the only thing you’ve ever read was an NIV.

Your natural conclusion from reading this verse would then be that JOSEPH was his father.  How serious is this one corrupted verse? If you believe the verse, then you believe that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, that God was NOT his father, and that Jesus was born of fornication between Mary and Joseph. Do you personally believe that?

The NIV is FULL of subtle (and some not so subtle) changes and PERVERSIONS such as this. As we continue further, you will soon see that all references to the deity of Jesus Christ are removed AND references to the saving power of the Blood of Jesus Christ are removed.

Look at John 3:16: This is often the first verse that many people commit to memory regardless of denomination, church history or other religious affiliation.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD (don’t read that word as SHALL, it is not “Shall”, the word is SHOULD) not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KING JAMES VERSION).

The NIV reads, “For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”

Jesus was the ONE AND ONLY SON? Is that a true statement? Was Jesus the ONLY Son of God?

Read Luke 3:38, Job 1:6, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:2 for starters.

The NIV has purposely removed the word “Begotten” as if to lead us into believing that Jesus has not come “in the flesh”. Remember 1 John 4:3? No? Perhaps you need to read that verse for yourself.

To further reinforce the thought that removal of the word “begotten”  denies that Jesus has come in the flesh, look at 1 John 3:2.  NOTE that the phrase “in the flesh” is removed from this verse!

Jesus was NOT the “one and only son” but was in fact the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son. He was the ONLY one “procreated” or “fathered” by GOD. The only one BORN OF FLESH by God. Yet, the NIV, as we will see in a continuance of the study, is full of these types of changes.

Would you trust a Bible if you knew it contained Lies? Could  you trust it?

I would hope that your answer would be a bold resounding NO to both of the above questions. Only a complete fool would trust a liar with his eternal security.

Only a fool would trust a book of lies, yet the NIV is full of passages that either through wilful mistranslation, or something more sinister, has bold lies.

Look at the NIV Translation

Which Prophet Wrote That?

In Mark 1:2-3 in the KJV reads: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

The NIV reads in verse 2: “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”

Now, could you please show me, WHERE (in any version of the bible) ISAIAH wrote this passage?  Do you remember which in chapter that was found?  Are you having trouble finding it?  Stop wasting your time looking.  It is Not written in Isaiah, it is actually found in Malachi 3:1.

Apparently the translators were ignorant of this passage (didn’t they actually READ the book before they attempted to translate it?).  If, as stated in Hebrews 6:18, “It is impossible for God to lie, then where did THIS lie come from?  I think I have the answer and you can read it in John 8:44.

Do you still trust your NIV bible to lead you down the straight and narrow path, to show you the way, and to tell you the TRUTH?

Don’t get mad at me, I didn’t write the book.  There is more, much more.

Who Killed Goliath of Gath? 

Every child knows this!  What an easy question you say?  Sure it is, but NOT if you have an NIV. Take a look at 2 Samuel 21:19.

The KJV reads: “And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of  Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

The NIV reads: “. . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.”

WHOA!   Were there TWO Goliaths, both from the same place, with the same description?  Where is this found in the Word of God? The NIV itself doesn’t even have THAT account.    Apparently, the translators didn’t know the story of David and Goliath.

Do you suspect this might be a printing mistake?  Not according to the NIV translators.  In a statement issued by the IBS, they claimed in 1994 that this verse was correct according to “their” translation.

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!

Impossible you say?  Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan’s grandest wish “I will be like the most High.”  And with a little subtle perversion, the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan’s highest wish!

Isaiah 14:12:

The KJV reads “How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning.”

The NIV however, reads “How have you fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn…”.

DID YOU READ THAT?  The NIV changed the name LUCIFER into the TITLE of MORNING STAR !  I thought the LORD JESUS CHRIST is the MORNING STAR!

Revelation 22:16 reads:  “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.  I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR”.

The NIV clearly and blatantly makes LUCIFER seem as the Lord Jesus Christ and makes them appear to be the same.  What BLASPHEMY! What PERVERSION!  What a DAMNABLE Lie.

Do you still think the NIV is a “better translation”?  Why would anyone defend such a version?

Be sure to read Dr. Don C. Hewey’s excellent work concerning NIV Blasphemy located on the Elijah Project!

Isaiah 14:15

The King James Bible reads: “Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL…” thus condemning Lucifer to an eternal, burning punishment.

The NIV doesn’t even condemn Lucifer to HELL!  The NIV reads, “But you are brought down to the GRAVE…”

We all go to the Grave!  Why doesn’t the NIV want to mention Satan being cast into Hell?  This is the same teaching as is found in many of the cults of today.  They teach that the grave IS the same as hell, thus denying that God will ever put someone off or be separated from them for eternity.  (The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the grave is hell).

Could it be that these folks forgot (or have never really) read  Revelation 20:13-14?  “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them:  and they were judged every man according to their works.  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.  This is the second death.”

Many today teach that the grave is final and that hell is not eternal.  They teach that “if” you go to hell, then you’ll eventually be let out.  Well, according to the Word of God hell may not be eternal, but when death and hell are delivered up to be judged, they are BOTH (death and hell) cast into the lake of fire. There is NO COMING OUT OF HELL EXCEPT TO BE IMMEDIATELY CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE.

That’s Not All !

Find these verses in your NIV bible and read them please:

Matthew 17:21
Mathew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
* Mark 16:9-20 (removed in the footnotes)
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7

You will not find these in your NIV. They have been completely removed. Ask yourself this. IS IT OK to remove complete verses of the Bible? 

What kind of Bible is it that leaves out entire verses? What did these verses say? Among other things, they say that: Jesus came to save the lost; that hell is a place “where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched”, and that a person must be a believer in order to be baptized.

In the last verse listed above (1 John 5:7), the NIV is very deceptive, for it does have a verse 7, but their verse 7 is really the beginning of verse 8. Verse 8 has been split into two verses in the NIV (verses 7 and 8) so that you won’t know that verse 7 is missing.

1 John 5:8 (KJV) says: “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

The NIV actually omits 1 John 5:7 and instead, it splits verse 8 into two verses:

As recorded by the NIV,  verse 7 reads:
“For there are three that testify (bear witness)…”

The NIV’s verse 8, it says:
“… the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”


IF THAT ISN’T A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE, THEN I’M NOT SURE WHAT MIGHT BE. Look at those verses again and you tell me this. Can you and I be in agreement? Sure we can, does that make us ONE? Not at all. After all, we can be in agreement with sinful men at times, but that certainly does not make us one with the world.

There are those (including some of the NIV translators) who say, “Well, this verse means they are one in unity”. Does it really? If that is true that in Verse 7 the phrase “These three ARE one” means unity, then why change it at all?

This is a deliberately planned removal of a key verse in order to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, as the NIV does so well all throughout it’s pages.  It does so by removing any and ALL verses that might show the true deity of Jesus Christ.  The NIV also removes references to the  WORSHIP of Jesus.


DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT? The answer is in the verse that was removed.

The true verse 7 has been removed.

In the KJV: verse 7 says:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the : and these three are one.”

In the KJV in Luke 4:4, the bible reads “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

What does the NIV say?  “Man does not live by bread alone.”  Period.   That’s it.  Perhaps we don’t really need to live by every word of God?  Or maybe the problem is that if this verse was included, someone might associate Every Word of God with THE true WORD:  Jesus Christ.

Whatever their reasons, the truth is that this version is very seriously flawed and is totally untrustworthy.

You cannot and SHOULD NOT rely on the NIV to teach you the truth.


To understand how we got here, let’s look at some background. Make sure you have read the PREFACE to each version if you have not already.  Links to the preface are included for you

King James Version Preface

NIV Preface

Maybe you’re thinking “But I can’t even understand the King James Bible. Why should I read THAT?”  There are very good reasons for reading the King James Version of the Bible.  We’ll cover the reasons beginning on the next page.

Why Use a King James Bible at all? 

Are you reading an correct translation of the Word Of God? Can you know? How can you know?

Let’s look at some basic facts.

If you took the time to read the preface  to the King James Version of the Bible and compared it to the NIV preface,  you will find an entirely different purpose was set forth by  the King James translators when compared with the purpose of the NIV translators.

These links appear elsewhere on our site, but it they are important enough to include them once again here:

King James Version Preface

NIV Preface


You may be wondering what in the world Shakespeare has to do with the Bible. Well, the answer is nothing, yet EVERYTHING. Have you ever wondered why on earth that EVERY University and most High Schools today need the reading and study of SHAKESPEARE? Apart from being one of the great mysteries of the universe, there is a very realistic reason.

Shakespeare is written in the PUREST FORM OF ENGLISH available to us in today’s world.

Since the days of Shakespeare, the English language has been corrupted to a point that proper grammar is nearly outdated. Modern times alone (just in the last 20 years) have shown us that our language is corrupt. For example, if I were to exclaim that a car was “Bad”, what would you think? In my childhood, it meant you would NOT want to own it and that it was ready for the junkyard. Today, however, it means that the car is either very fast, it looks good, it has all the latest gears and gadgets, etc.

In addition, a janitor is no longer a janitor, but a custodial maintenance technician or a sanitation engineer. A house trailer is now a “manufactured home”. It is quite conceivable that at some point in the future, janitor and house trailer will be so obsolete that they will be removed from usage completely. Still further, a clerk is no longer a clerk, he is now a “marketing representative”, we no longer have “paychecks” but we received “compensation”. No one gets fired from a job anymore, they simply have their employment terminated.

Did you know? 

A villain was once a servant of a villa (a country farm house), instead of someone evil?

The phrase “to take in” once meant hospitality, but now means “to deceive”.

The word ‘simple’ once meant “without guile” and simplicity meant “openness or plain honesty”. It now means “a fool”.

The word ‘story’ was once used as a short form of history. Then, men’s reports grew so full of lies and falsehoods, that the word story is now associated mainly with fiction.

There are many other examples of our language becoming corrupted and new words are being added on an almost constant basis. Anyone remember what a “turtle hull” was? (the trunk of a car)!

Back to Shakespeare 

Shakespeare lived from 1564 until 1616 when he died at the age of 52. During this time, English was in its purest form. What better way to study English than to read Shakespeare? The original meanings would be preserved and the proper use of grammar would have been observed.

It seems that the BEST thing to do would be to study the ENGLISH of the day in order to understand Shakespeare. The very same principle is involved when attempting to study the WORD OF GOD. It is wise to Study the English of the day in which it was written (translated).

The King James bible was translated, amazingly, in 1611, DURING THE SAME PERIOD IN WHICH WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE LIVED AND WROTE!

The King James version of the Bible was written using a text called the TEXTUS RECEPTUS (Greek for “Received Text”).

On the flipside of that coin, the NIV was “INTERPRETED” in a very loose way.  It was Not Translated, (by the NIV translation society’s own claims)  from a text called the Westcott-Hort Text (also known as the Alexandrian text).

As we continue in the explanation of TRANSLATIONS, we will look at the conditions under which the scriptures were translated INCLUDING the Lifestyles and Beliefs of the writers/translators.

I don’t know how you personally feel about the matter, but I believe the “character” of the translators should be examined.  There are Holy Men and there are Unholy Men.  We have Godly, Christ-like people and we have Ungodly Satanic-led people.

Would you trust ungodly, immoral people to present to you their personal ideas, philosophy and interpretation of the Holy Word of God?  Neither would I.

It is because of this, that the lifestyles, beliefs, conduct and writings of the translators themselves must be given scrutiny.

The Hebrew Scribes Used Very Strict Translation Rules

The Hebrew scribe took this task very seriously. The scribe took precise steps in preparing the parchment upon which they wrote AND in preparing themselves in order to copy God’s HOLY Word.

According to Hebrew Talmud , the rules of the scribe consisted of the following:

1. The skins of the parchment had to be prepared in a special way and dedicated to God so that they would be clean in order to have God’s words written on them.

2. The ink which was used was black and was made in accordance to a special recipe used ONLY for writing scripture.

3. The words written could NOT be duplicated by memory but must be reproduced from an authentic copy which the scribe had before him. Additionally, the scribe had to say EACH WORD aloud when he wrote them.

4. Each time the scribe came across the Hebrew word for God, he had to wipe his pen clean. When he came across the NAME of God, Jehovah (YHWH), he had to wash his whole body before he could write it.

5. If a sheet of parchment had one single mistake on it, the entire sheet was condemned. If there were three mistakes found on any page, the WHOLE MANUSCRIPT was condemned. Each scroll had to be checked within thirty (30) days of its writing, or it was considered UNHOLY.

6. Every word and letter was counted. If a letter or word were omitted, the WHOLE MANUSCRIPT was condemned.

7. There could be no less than 48 lines on any given parchment and no more than 60. Letters and words had to be spaced at certain distance and no word could at any time, touch another.

By examining these steps, one can see that the task of handling the Word of God was not one to be taken lightly, but was one of extreme care and caution. The scribes considered the Word of God to be HOLY and held the idea the the utmost reverence should be given to the Word.  After all, the Word of God warns us over and over NOT to change, alter, pervert or erase the Word of God….PERIOD.

Let’s look at the King James Translators’ views of scripture and their handling of scripture.

The King James Scribes (Translators)

* It is important to note that the King James translators used a formal or “verbal equivalence” method of translation. In other words, translations were meticulously made WORD FOR WORD and LETTER FOR LETTER by the translators.
The King wanted to appoint fifty-four learned men to this great and good work; but the number actually employed upon it, in the first instance, was forty-seven. Order was also taken, that the bishops, in their several dioceses, should find what men of learning there were, who might be able to help; and the bishops were to write to them, earnestly charging them, at the king’s wish, to send in their suggestions and critical observations, that so, as his Majesty remarks, “our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.”

Seventeen of the translators were to work at Westminster, fifteen at Cambridge, and the remaining fifteen at Oxford. Those who met at each place were divided into two companies; so that there were, in all, six distinct companies of translators. They received a set of rules for their direction.

1. The first instructed them to make the “Bishop’s Bible,” so called, the basis of their work, altering it no further than fidelity to the originals required

2. The second rule requires that the mode originally used of spelling the proper names should be retained as far as might be.

3. The third rule requires “the old ecclesiastical words to be kept,” such as “church” instead of “congregation.”

4. The fourth rule prescribes, that where a word has different meanings, that is to be preferred which has the general sanction of the most ancient Fathers, regard being had to “the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.”

5. The fifth rule directs that the divisions into chapters be altered as little as may be.

6.The sixth rule prohibits all notes or comments, thus obliging the translators to make their version intelligible without those dangerous helps.

7. The seventh rule provides for marginal references to parallel or explanatory passages.

8. The eighth rule enjoins that each man in each company shall separately examine the same chapter or chapters, and put the translation into the best shape he can. The whole company must then come together, and compare what they have done, and agree on what shall stand. Thus in each company, according to the number of members, there would be from seven to ten distinct and carefully labored revisions, the whole to be compared, and digested into one copy of the portion of the Bible assigned to each particular company.

9. The ninth rule directs, that as fast as any company shall, in this manner, complete any one of the sacred books, it is to be sent to each of the other companies, to be critically reviewed by them all.

10. The tenth rule prescribes, that if any company, upon reviewing a book so sent to them, find any thing doubtful or unsatisfactory, they are to note the places, and their reasons for objecting thereto, and send it back to the company from whence it came. If that company should not concur in the suggestions thus made, the matter was to be finally arranged at a general meeting of the chief persons of all the companies at the end of the work. Thus every part of the Bible would be fully considered, first, separately, by each member of the company to which it was originally assigned; secondly, by that whole company in concert; thirdly, by the other five companies severally; and fourthly, by the general committee of revision. By this judicious plan, each part must have been closely scrutinized at least fourteen times.

11. The eleventh rule provides, that in case of any special difficulty or obscurity, letters shall be issued by authority to any learned man in the land, calling for his judgement thereon.

12. The twelfth rule requires every bishop to notify the clergy of his diocese as to the work in hand, and to “move and charge as many as, being skilful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations” to some one of the companies.

13. The thirteenth rule appoints the directors of the different companies.

14. The fourteenth rule names five other translations to be used, “when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible.” These are Tyndale’s; Matthew’s, which is by Tyndale and John Rogers; Coverdale’s; Whitchurch’s, which is “Cranmer’s,” or the “Great Bible,” and was printed by Whitchurch; and the Geneva Bible. The object of this regulation was to avoid, as far as possible, the suspicious stamp of novelty. To the careful observance of these injunctions, which, with the exception of the first five, are highly judicious, is to be ascribed much of the excellence of the completed translation.

To these rules, Which were delivered to the Translators, there appears to have been added another, providing that, besides the directors of the six companies, “three or four of the most ancient and grave divines in either of the Universities, not employed in translating be designated by the Vice-Chancellors and Heads of Colleges, to be overseers of the Translation, as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule.”

The Authorized Version is a Book that was forged in blood, sweat and tears!

The King James Translators Excluded Some Books as Canon

The King James Translators did in fact review the books known as ‘Apocrypha’ and REJECTED them as scripture or ‘canon’ for a number of reasons.

These books were included originally in the King James Version as HISTORICAL books and were stated as such, however the reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as canon (or THE Word of GOD) were as follows:

1. Not a single one of these books was written in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament Books.

2. NONE of the writers ever laid claim to inspiration of God (or otherwise).

3. These books were NEVER acknowledged as sacred or as scripture by any Jewish writings, any church, etc. and were never referred to in any other Holy writings.

4. They were never used or quoted as scripture during the first 400 years of the Christian church.

5. They contain statements that not only contradict the canonical Scriptures, but also contradict themselves. For example: in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three different times in three different places.

6. The Apocrypha contradicts clear Biblical doctrine and promotes doctrine such as prayers for the dead.

7. The Apocrypha teaches immoral, unholy practices such as lying, suicide, assassination and (as if these weren’t bad enough) MAGICAL INCANTATION.
Unfortunately, some today view these as sacred scripture when they are in fact of PAGAN origin.

The word of God IS NOT NOW and NEVER WAS of any pagan origin and in fact, REJECTS Pagan views of the world, of creation, of salvation and of God himself.

To find out more concerning the Lifestyles of the men who translated the KING JAMES VERSION, read the PREFACE to the KJV.

We’ve seen how the translators and scribes handled the Word of God. To them it was sacred, holy and to be reverenced. They wouldn’t DARE put their own personal ideas into translation

Now let’s take a closer look at the translators of the NIV.

The NIV Translators Used Rejected Scrolls

They Did WHAT?

As we have seen already, both the Hebrew scribes and the King James Translators were extremely cautious in their translations and ALL lived their lives in accordance with the highest standards of Godly conduct and moral standards. The Word of God was never taken lightly and personal opinion was never considered to be a proper translation method.

It is not the attempt of this lesson to provide gossip or to destroy anyone’s faith. It IS, however the scope of this lesson to provide you with factual information in order for YOU to make a sound judgement.

If you have honestly read the preface to the NIV, you have discovered already that by the Translation Team’s own words, IT WAS NOT THE DESIRE of the translators to provide a WORD FOR WORD translation.

Instead, they attempted to discern the “thoughts” of the original writers (i.e. “What was Paul REALLY thinking when he wrote his letters?).  They also placed (again according to their own statements), their personal thoughts and feelings concerning the translation of the Word of God rather than a LITERAL word for word translation.

Despite the claims of an “eclectic” method, the NIV translators have overwhelmingly shown a prevailing preference for the Westcott-Hort texts, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MATTERS OF FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE.  In other passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used the Majority (Greek Textus Receptus) text.

In many verses containing essential doctrine, the NIV translators used the MINORITY (Westcott-Hort) texts and it appears that every opportunity was seized to promote New Age philosophy and to DEMOTE Christ.

The translation also was designed to appeal to (and not to “offend”), a wide variety of religious sects. It appears that the hidden agenda of the NIV was to alter critical biblical doctrine and to readjust men’s thinking in order to conform to that of this world.

While the claim that the King James Version had too many “archaisms”, it is interesting to note that the NIV often uses even more archaic words!

A quick comparison of many of these will quickly show that the argument for “replacement of antiquated, archaic word” is null and invalid.

Take for Example:  the old archaic word “displeased” as found in 1 Samuel 18:8.  This old, outdated, antiquated word, displeased, has been replaced by the more modern, easier to understand word:  GALLED.

Yet another old, outdated word, “Green”, as used in Song of Solomon 1:16, has been replaced by the more up to date, modern word:  VERDANT”.

Oh, it gets much worse from here.

Do you understand what a Lieutenant is?  Esther 3:12 uses the word Lieutenants:  Pretty Easy to understand, right?  The NIV replaces that old archaic word with the supposed correct word for today:  “SATRAPS”.

I hope by now you get the picture.  These are by no means a full list, but to see some more of the “archaic” (according to the NIV translators) King James words that have been replaced by more modern, ‘commonly used’ words, look at the following chart that shows some of the “Archaic” words that the NIV translators “corrected” for out better understanding:


It’s pretty amazing, isn’t it?


Let me ask you this: What kind of lifestyle would you expect from any person who was charged with translating the Word of God?

From the scriptures themselves, one would expect them to live a godly, blameless life, ACCORDING THE MOST HOLY OF STANDARDS set forth in the Word of God. Isn’t it safe to say that you WOULD NOT EXPECT OPEN, BLATANT SIN to reign in their lives? Is that Right?

Well, normally that would have been a correct statement, however, with the NIV translators, this is not the case at all. One has to simply redefine sin and sinful actions (according to a majority of the “world’s” scholars) in order to become righteous (in our own eyes). Read Proverbs 12:15.

Let’s Examine Westcott and Hort for a moment before we move on.


The NIV, released in 1978 was translated using, NOT the Greek “Textus Receptus” but a series of translations known as the Alexandrian or ‘Westcott-Hort’ text.

Just what is this “Westcott-Hort” text, what is it and who wrote it?

As the names imply, the answer is two men: Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892).

Both were Non-Christian Anglican “ministers” who held strongly to Alexandrian beliefs and had a well documented deep-rooted hatred for the King James Version of the Bible and for the Greek “Textus Receptus”.

Let’s examine the lives of these men and I’ll let YOU decide how “HOLY” their translation was:

Brooke Foss Westcott 

As an undergraduate at Cambridge, B.F. Westcott also founded the Hermes Club, which he named after the Graeco-Egyptian deity, Hermes Trismegistus.   Subsequent Hermetic societies founded by other Spiritualists would become famous in England — one organized in 1884 by Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland, which was in close contact with the Theosophical Society, and The Order of the Golden Dawn founded by MacGregor Mathers and Wynn Westcott.

In 1853, two years after founding the Cambridge University Ghost Society, F.J.A. Hort and B. F. Westcott agreed, upon the suggestion of publisher Daniel Macmillan, to take part in “an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme,'” that is, to undertake a joint revision of the Greek New Testament.

The project was withheld from public knowledge during the twenty years required by Westcott and Hort to complete the New Greek Text and during the subsequent ten years during which an English Revision Committee revised the 1611 Authorized Version.

However, during this period of nearly thirty years, Drs. Westcott and Hort maintained their involvement in the Spiritualist pursuits of their various secret societies and political cabals: the Hermes Club, Ghost Society, Company of Apostles, and Eranus.

Dean John William Burgon refuted the claims of the Westcott-Hort Theory as:

“the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek Text, — that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all, — which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. In 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72) . . . Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text, — their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which documents however they freely confess are not more ancient than the ‘Traditional Text’ which they despise;) — knows no bounds.” (John William Burgon, B. D., The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon Society Press, 1883, pp. 241-42, 270)


The following are letters written from Brooke Foss Westcott to various people and the quotes are directly from his letters. The bold type, italics and color are placed for emphasis and did not appear as such in his original letters:

Written January 1852 concerning SPIRITUALISM
“The interest and importance of a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely called ‘supernatural’ will scarcely be questioned.’ . . . My father ceased to interest himself in these matters not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. But there are many others who believe it possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways, and also are unable otherwise to explain in many facts the evidence for which cannot be impeached.”

Written to John A. Hort, May 5, 1860
“For I too ‘must disclaim settling for infallibility.’  In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth — I reject the word infallibility — of Holy Scripture overwhelming.”

June 14, 1886 — To the Archbishop of Canterbury
“No doubt the language of the rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the presence of Christ’s glorified humanity with place: heaven is a state and not a place.”

March 4, 1890 — To the Archbishop of Canterbury
“No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history — I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did — yet they disclose to us a gospel.” (Also in Westcott’s New Bibles, James H. Sightler, M.D.; Page 14; Westcott, A., op.cit.,Vol. II,p.89)

Concerning the bodily resurrection of Jesus:
“It may indeed be said that the Church was founded upon the belief in the Resurrection and not upon the Resurrection itself; and that the testimony must therefore be limited to the attestation of the belief, and cannot reach to the attestation of the fact.” (Westcott’s 1867 pamphlet, The Resurrection as a Fact and as a Revelation, page 13)

“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 impossibility – 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 Gospel of Life, New York; Macmillan & Co., 1892, p.35, Heresies of Westcott and Hort 1979, pp 32-33)

“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, Heresies of Westcott and Hort 1979, pp 32-33)

Concerning Darwinism:
“A celebrated author and divine has written to me that ‘he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development into other needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the actions of his laws.” (Second edition of Darwin’s Origin, January 1860 quoting from Westcott’s letter)

Concerning Incarnation:
“The essence of the idea of the Incarnation lies not in the recognition of a distinct divine person, but in the personal and final union of the Godhead and humanity. The Divine counsel of the union of God with man realized in the Incarnation is the foundation of Revelation” (The Gospel of the Resurrection of 1866)

“The Incarnation if commonly made to depend on the Fall:  the conceivableness of the Incarnation lies in the thought of what man was originally made, and not in what he became through his self-assertion: Man did not lose the image of God by the Fall. His essential nature still remained capable of union with God, but it was burdened and hampered. And further: “We believe that the Incarnation would have been necessary for the fulfillment of man’s destiny even if he had perfectly followed the divine law”  (Westcott,B.F. op.cit.,History Faith, p.250-51, Christus Consummator, p.104,116,118., Historic Faith,p.66)

There is much more that can be written to show what manner of man Mr. Westcott really was, however, I think you’ve got enough to understand.


The Westcott-Hort Text

Mr. Hort was the most outspoken of the two (Westcott-Hort) and we have much more of his material in writing than we have of Mr. Westcott’s. He joined the “Company of the Apostles” in 1851 and was subsequently responsible for the writing of an oath which bound the members to a conspiracy of silence. Two other ‘societies’ were later started in which Mr. Hort had a major part (if he was not the originator of them); The Ghostlie Guild, and the ‘Bogie Club’.

Fenton John Anthony Hort

As with Mr. Wescott, Let’s take a look at Mr. Hort and read his own words:

Letters from Fenton John Anthony Hort

 Written November 16, 1849 to Revelations F.D. Maurice concerning Atonement:
“The fact is, I do not see how God’s justice can be satisfied without every man’s suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins”

Written October 15, 1850 to Mr. Brooke Foss Westcott:
“The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a species…It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which support such as view as Darwin’s…But it seems to me the most probable manner of development, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that some kind of development must be supposed”

October 21, 1858 — to Revelations Dr. Rowland Williams — On the Authority of Scripture
“Further I agree with them [authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology. . . The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible . . . If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme. It is surely likely to bring on a crisis; and that I cannot think desirable on any account. The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism.”

* (In other words, Mr. Hort has purposefully conspired to pervert and subvert the bible)

April 3, 1860 — to Revelations John Ellerton — On Evolution
“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.  If so, it opens up a new period in — I know not what not.”

August 14, 1860 — to B.F. Westcott — On the Divinity of Man 
“It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms.”

August 16, 1860 — to B.F. Westcott — On Substitutionary Atonement
“Perhaps we may be too hasty in assuming an absolute necessity of absolutely proportional suffering. I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father.”

October 15, 1860 — to B.F. Westcott — On Substitutionary Atonement 
“I entirely agree–correcting one word–with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that ‘the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself’ is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. But I doubt whether that answers the question as to the nature of the satisfaction. Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.”

* Mr. Hort believes Isaiah 53 is heresy?

April 12, 1861 — to B.F. Westcott — On Heresy 
“Also — but this may be cowardice — I have sort of a craving our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.”

* Again, Mr. Hort knew his and Westcott’s writings were erroneous, heretical and blasphemous, but he wanted to promote them BEFORE THEY COULD BE BANISHED!  In other words, he wanted to spread them to as many places as possible before anyone would “catch” them.

October 17, 1865 – to B.F. Westcott — On Roman Catholicism
“I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results…we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood.”

May 14, 1870 — to Revelations J. Ll. Davies
“No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favour of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory.   I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years.”

* This statement alone is enough to prove that there was a DELIBERATE attempt to remove 1 John 5:7.  Does the version of the bible YOU USE do so?

There is ALWAYS an attack on 1 John 5:7-8 in EVERY corrupt translation.

July 7, 1870 — to a Friend — On Bible Revision
“It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first . . . The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences . . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked . . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment.”

* It almost sounds as if Mr. Hort were scoffing, doesn’t it?  “So far the angry objectors HAVE REASON for their astonishment”? It appears from this letter alone that CORRUPTION of the Word of God was the intent and purpose of this “revision” the entire time. It is as if he and Westcott knew they would do much damage to Christianity in the future!

November 12, 1871 — to the Bishop of Ely — On Substitutionary Atonement
“But it does not seem to me any disparagement to the sufferings and death of the Cross to believe that they were the acting out and the manifestation of an eternal sacrifice, even as we believe that the sonship proceeding from the miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary was the acting out and manifestation of the eternal sonship. — So also the uniqueness of the great Sacrifice seems to me not to consist in its being a substitute which makes all other sacrifices useless and unmeaning, but in its giving them the power and meaning which of themselves they could not have… He (Mr. Maurice) may have dwelt too exclusively on that idea of sacrifice which is suggested by Hebrews x. 5 – 10, and he may have failed to make clear that Sacrifice is not the only way of conceiving Atonement…”

“(Revelations 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.” (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

Conclusion concerning Westcott and Hort:

I think there has been enough information provided on just the lifestyles and beliefs alone to determine that these two men stand in GREAT CONTRAST those who considered the Word of God as HOLY, unchangeable, and infallible. These men have shown themselves to be believers and followers of, not Jesus Christ, but Darwin and other pagan ‘gods’. They have also shown themselves to be Spiritists, belonging to “secret” paganistic societies. They have both shown a complete and total disregard for Authoritative scripture and a deep hatred for the Bible (Authorized Version….KJV).

They have shown a willingness to deceive, to propagate something they knew was heresy and to attack even the most basic fundamental doctrines of salvation, atonement and forgiveness, even at times attributing the works of God to the works of the Devil and stating that they see no difference. Perhaps they should have read one scripture a little more closely ……. Mark 3:28-30.

Now, ask yourself this: WHY would you align yourself with one who consults “familiar spirits”, one who praises “Mary worship”, one who deliberately denies the sufferings of Jesus and basic Christian doctrinal teaching?

There is imminent DANGER in doing so.

Now Let’s Look at Some of the Modern Day Translators, their lives and their quotes concerning the scriptures:

Quotes from Modern Day Translators

What Do Modern Bible Translators REALLY Think about the Bible?

Granted, these are but a few quotes from the numerous translators of modern day versions of the bible, however, upon further study, you’ll find that the ideas and faith (or rather ‘lack of’) is found in every circle of modern day translators.

Credits are given to the respective authors and their books.


“Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book. … Even on Christian soil it has sometimes been held that the books of the Bible were practically dictated to the writers through the Holy Spirit. … I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN POSITION.  If God once wrote His revelation in an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which this could be passed on without contamination through human fallibility. … The true Christian position is the Bible CONTAINS the record of revelation” (Clarence T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity).


“The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable” (Julius Brewer, The Literature of the Old Testament).

“The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some of the Old Testament prophecies” (James Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament).

“One cannot of course place John on the same level with the synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke] as A HISTORICAL SOURCE” (William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity)

“He [Jesus Christ] was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the oriental world” (Henry F. Cadbury, Jesus, What Manner of Man?)

“As to the miraculous, one can hardly doubt that time and tradition would heighten this element in the story of Jesus” (Ibid., Cadbury).

“A psychology of God, IF that is what Jesus was, is not available” (Ibid., Cadbury).

“According to the ENTHUSIASTIC TRADITIONS which had come down through the FOLKLORE of the people of Israel, Methuselah lived 969 years” (Walter Russell Bowie, Great Men of the Bible).

“The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is LEGEND, no one can positively tell” (Ibid., Bowie).


“This phrase [`Thus saith the Lord’] is an almost unfailing mark of SPURIOUSNESS” (William A. Irwin, The Problem of Ezekiel).

“Only bigotry could bring us to deny an EQUAL VALIDITY WITH THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL in the religious vision of men such as Zoraster or Ikhnaton or, on a lower level, the unnamed thinkers of ancient Babylonia” (Ibid., Irwin).   (Note:  In other words, he thinks the Babylonian “religious” men were equal to the prophets of God)

“The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon the soldiers sent to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY” (Fleming James, The Beginnings of Our Religion).

“What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW” (Ibid., James).

“We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we must believe and do” (Millar Burrows, Outline of Biblical Theology).

A more recent illustration of Modernism comes from the pen of John Shelby Spong, a bishop in the Episcopal Church in America: (yes, the one who decided that the abominable practice of the ordination of homosexuals as priests is a good thing):

“Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not literally true? The answer is a simple and direct `Yes.’ Of course these narratives are not literally true. Stars do not wander, angels do not sing, virgins do not give birth, magi do not travel to a distant land to present gifts to a baby, and shepherds do not go in search of a newborn savior. … To talk of a Father God who has a divine-human son by a virgin woman is a mythology that our generation would never have created, and obviously, could not use. To speak of a Father God so enraged by human evil that he requires propitiation for our sins that we cannot pay and thus demands the death of the divine-human son as a guilt offering is a ludicrous idea to our century. The sacrificial concept that focuses on the saving blood of Jesus that somehow washes me clean, so popular in Evangelical and Fundamentalist circles, is by and large repugnant to us today”(John Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Harper, 1991, pp. 215,234).

Upon reading this damnable quote, it is no wonder that homosexuals have a prominent place in the Apostate Episcopal Church!

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can say that I WILL NOT use a modern translation of the bible that was mishandled by these types of men who cannot even follow the most basic teachings of holiness and righteousness.

I refuse to take my instruction from men who cannot understand the basic scriptures and who refuse to turn away from their wickedness.

You, however, must decide for yourself. Who will YOU follow?

The NIV Embraces and Supports Sodomy and Homosexuality

The following was reproduced with permission from the original author


Beginning of Reproduced Material


December 4, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) — The following report by the FBIS editor, David Cloud, contains lengthy sections by Michael Penfold and also incorporates part of a report done by Carl Graham.

On January 25, 1997, the Fundamental Baptist Information Service published an article on Virginia Mollenkott, a literary consultant for the New International Version. Many had asked us for information on this woman because of her connection, however significant, with this popular modern version.

Thus we gave a general overview of her life and writings as follows:

Mollenkott is a pro-abortion feminist who claims to be a ‘left-leaning’ Evangelical. In reality she denies the very God of the Bible and worships an idolatrous female god of her own imagination. She grew up in a Plymouth Brethren fellowship and moved in Fundamentalist circles during her early years. She studied at Bob Jones University and taught at Shelton College in the 1950s. She has moved miles from that position, though. Today she is an Episcopalian, serves as professor of English at William Patterson College in New Jersey, and moves in the most radical ecumenical feminist circles. In the 1970s, Virginia Mollenkott was a consultant for the New International Version translating committee. She worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed.

In 1978 she co-authored (with Letha Scanzoni) the book entitled Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, in which she called for nondiscrimination toward homosexuality. The book argues that the Sodom account in Genesis does not teach the evil of homosexuality, but the evils of violent gang rape and inhospitality to strangers. The book also claims that ‘the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or ‘condition’ is never mentioned in the Bible’ (p. 71), and that Romans 1 does not ‘fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian’ (p. 62). This is the exact position taken by one of the actual translators of the NIV, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, in a report he assisted in producing for the Christian Reformed Church in 1973. More on this later.

In 1979 Mollenkott participated in the 9th General Conference of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (a denomination composed largely of homosexuals). In a report which was published by the Christian Century, Sept. 26, 1979, Mollenkott stated, ‘This was the most grateful celebration of Christ I had ever attended…’

In the early 1980s Mollenkott was a member of the National Council of Churches’ committee that produced an inclusive-language lectionary which addressed God in feminine terms. At a news conference at the NCC’s governing board meeting on November 10, 1983, Mollenkott claimed there is some evidence that Jesus Christ was really a woman. She cited the research of biologist Edward Kessel, who argued that Jesus was “born in parthenogenesis; that parthenogenetic births are always female; that in some cases, therefore, he would be willing to refer to Jesus as ‘she’ — up until the last minute of sex reversal, in which case Jesus remains chromosomally female throughout life, but functions as a normal male and looks like a normal male” (Christian Challenge, August 1984).

In October 1985, Mollenkott’s signature appeared on a statement supporting homosexuality which was published in the Sojourners magazine. The statement was also signed by James B. Nelson of the American Lutheran denomination, author of a book which promotes homosexual marriages and homosexual pastors.
In her plenary address before the July 1986, convention of the Evangelical Women’s Caucus International (EWCI), in Fresno, California, Mollenkott warned against “heterosexism,” the idea that everyone must be heterosexual.
In 1987 Mollenkott wrote an article claiming that refusal to ordain homosexual “clergywomen” is unscriptural discrimination. She wrote: “To ask lesbians and gay men to pretend they are like the majority is to deny them the self-identification and affirmation that is the natural legacy of every healthy adult. Forcing gay Christians into silence also denies them the opportunity to celebrate in gratitude to God for their authentic nature and for their life-enriching mutual relationship with a loving partner” (Christianity and Crisis, Nov. 9, 1987).

In 1988 Mollenkott published the book Women, Men, and the Bible (New York: Crossroad Publishing).

In the June 1991, issue of the Episcopal*  monthly entitled The Witness, she testified, “My lesbianism has always been a part of me. … I tried to be heterosexual. I married myself off. But what I did ultimately realize was that God created me as I was, and that this is where life was meaningful.”

In 1993 Mollenkott published a book entitled Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism (New York: Crossroad), in which she reflected on her rejection of fundamentalism, her lesbian “coming out,” and her belief in a female God. Mollenkott concludes that “in a very physical sense we are all gay, we are all lesbian, we are all heterosexual, we are all bisexual–because we are all one” (p. 153). Her view of the kingdom of God on earth is a society in which “lesbian women, bisexual people, and gay men are going to be accepted as first-class citizens in the church and in society as a whole” (p. 153). She defines sin as “the absence of trust” (instead of disobedience to God’s law) and defines salvation as “being brought back into a trusting relationship by remembering Who We Are: God’s children, never actually separated from God’s love even though we had imagined we were” (p. 157). Her view of the new birth is as follows: “In the instant of remembering our true identity, we are at-once, restored to a trusting relationship with God, with our Selves, with other people, and with the universe” (p. 157).

Mollenkott claims that providing mutual sexual pleasure, whether it be homosexual or bisexual or whatever, is one of the most important things in life. “Learning to love ourselves and others (including mutual pleasuring) is the greatest contribution we can make to the creation of a just society. And I am confident that the day will come when most Christian churches will teach a creation-positive method of glorifying God and enjoying Her forever” (p. 158). Mollenkott turns sin and righteousness upside down by claiming that it is the “pleasure haters” (those who believe God made the sexual relationship for heterosexual marriage only) who are the “unjust” (p. 158). She claims that her lesbianism “is simply a good gift, as all sexuality is a good gift” (p. 162). She admits that when she first started voicing her lesbianism publicly she “felt slightly soiled, as if I needed a good shower,” but later she recognized “that the soiled feeling was residual heterosexism” (p. 162).Mollenkott worships a woman-made idol she identifies as “our tender Father and our demanding Mother and then again our loving Friend, faithful Companion, and cosmic Lover” (p. 166).

At the November 1993 Re-imagining conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which was sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Mollenkott said: “[Jesus] is our elder brother, the trailblazer and constant companion for us–ultimately is among many brothers and sisters in an eternal, equally worthy sibling-hood. First born only in the sense that he was the first to show us that it is possible to live in oneness with the divine source while we are here on this planet. … As an incest survivor, I can no longer worship in a theological context that depicts God as an abusive parent [referring to Christ’s death on the cross] and Jesus as the obedient, trusting child.” At the same conference, Mollenkott said she longed to see the creation of an interfaith “worship community” in which each member respected completely the religion of the others and Christians ceased to make missionary efforts to target members of other religions. She labeled soul-winning evangelism as “imperialistic attempts to make others such as I.”

In 1994 Mollenkott published The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female (New York: Crossroad). This book is filled with such heretical statements as, “The pursuit of holy peace within and the pursuit of peace on earth are perhaps the best of all reasons for lifting up the biblical image of God as the One Mother of us all” (p. 19) and “…because God is womanlike–women are Godlike” (p. 78). Mollenkott suggests that “the Lord’s prayer might be addressed to ‘Our Father/Mother who is in Heaven’” (p. 116). (David W. Cloud, “Virginia Mollenkott,” Fundamental Baptist Information Service, Jan. 25, 1997).

When we published the previous information, we hesitated to suggest that the New International Version is weak on homosexuality due to the influence of homosexuals. Having come into possession of more evidence, though, we no longer hesitate. The parallels between the translation of NIV passages dealing with homosexuality and the views of modern homosexual “Christians” are too striking to be incidental.


Mollenkott aside, we have learned that there was another homosexual involved with the production of the New International Version. This one was directly involved with the translation. His name was Dr. Marten Woudstra, and he was Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee.

Consider the following report by Michael Penfold, Box 26, Bicester, Oxon, OX6 8PB, England, UK

“James White’s book The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House Publishers, 1995) includes a question and answer section. One of the questions reads, ‘I’ve been told that there were homosexuals on the NIV translation committee. Is this true?’ On pages 245-246 of his book James White gives the following answer. ‘No, it is not [true]. But due to the consistent bearing of false witness by many KJV Only advocates, Dr. Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Centre, had to write a response to the accusation, which I quote below:

[Dr. Barker writes]: ‘It has come to my attention that false rumors are circulating, in both oral and written form, that the NIV is soft on sodomy (that is, homosexual sins). The alleged reason for this is that some NIV translators and editors were homosexuals and lesbians. These charges have no basis in fact. Thus they are simply untrue. And those who make such false charges could be legitimately sued for libel, slander and defamation of character. Here are the facts. It is true that in the earliest stages of translation work on the NIV (in the late 1960s and early 1970s), Virginia Mollenkott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views. Those did not begin to surface until years later in some of her writings. If we had known in the sixties what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.’

“This is a very cleverly worded statement and one which we can allow Virginia Mollenkott to answer herself. In a letter to me [Michael J. Penfold] dated Dec. 18th 1996, in reply to my investigation into her true role on the NIV, Mollenkott wrote the following revealing letter:

“[Virginia Mollenkott writes] ‘I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed,although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labor of love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept “homosexual” is too anachronistic to be utilized in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. At the time I was naive about how many millions of dollars are made by a successful Bible translation! Please tell Kenneth Barker for me that although there is much controversy about homosexuality among Biblical scholars, to my knowledge nobody denies that the Bible condemns lying about other people. He should be ashamed of his attempt to rewrite history.

“’Somewhere in my files is the letter I got thanking me for my work on the NIV when the project was completed. I also have the slipcase version sent out to the whole NIV team in 1978 by Zondervan; and I have the tenth-anniversary edition sent out to the whole team in 1988 by the International Bible Society. Various other editions were also sent out gratis to the translation committee and stylists, but I have received nothing since 1988 that I can remember. Because I am idealistic and sincere, it never occurred to me that anyone would lie about my contributions, so I was not meticulous about keeping records. Thank you for anything you can do to set the record straight. You may utilize this letter to do so, and I’d appreciate you sending me a copy of anything you generate. Sincerely, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.’

“Why could not Dr. Barker have told the truth in the first place? Taking Mollenkott’s words at their face value, the NIV publicity machine has nothing to worry about. Does their anxiety to distance the NIV from homosexual associations reveal something more sinister?

“In the light of the following, I believe it does, as it has now come to light that THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NIV’S OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATION COMMITTEE, DR. MARTEN H. WOUDSTRA, WAS A HOMOSEXUAL. This is much more serious than Mollenkott’s involvement. Here we have one of the leading scholars on the NIV CBT who is a homosexual. Obviously this fact compromises the whole project, especially as this fact was well known by his colleagues for many years. However, only now is this fact coming to the notice of the general public through articles like the one you are reading.

“Dr. Woudstra, who died in the early 1990s, was a long-time friend of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. This organization was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian ‘evangelical Christians’ and their friends. ECI’s address is 311 East 72nd Street, New York, NY 10021. They can be found on the internet at http://www.buydomains.com/lander/korpi.com?domain=korpi.com&traffic_id=tdfs_ono_transition_redirect&traffic_type=tdfs_ono_transition_redirect

“It was during a series of research phone calls to Dr. Blair that I first confirmed the fact of Dr. Woudstra’s homosexuality. Blair and Dr. Woudstra were friends. Dr. Woudstra had been on the mailing list of Evangelicals Concerned from its inception, and although he had no formal ties with ECI, on one of his many trips to New York he called in and had tea with Dr. Blair. Dr Blair told me that Dr. Woudstra shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong ‘loving monogamous relationships’ between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament (his special area of technical expertise) that corresponded to ‘homosexual orientation’. The ‘sodomy’ of the OT simply involved temple rites and gang rape (Gen 19). Notice the similarity between this view and that of Virginia Mollenkott. Dr. Blair clearly stated to me on the phone on 23rd September 1997 that Dr. Woudstra, a lifelong bachelor, was a homosexual. He intimated that other members of the NIV translation committee were also quietly supportive of ECI, but he was not able to tell me who they were (for obvious reasons). He later called them ‘bigger’ names than Dr. Woudstra.

“As to Dr. Marten Woudstra theologically, he was once the OT Professor at Calvin Seminary, the college of the Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Calvinistic). Over 70% of this denomination’s churches now use the NIV. Dr. Woudstra was considered very ‘conservative’ within Calvin Seminary. He wrote the Joshua Commentary in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans) which was also contributed to by such illustrious ‘evangelical’ names as F.F. Bruce.

“In 1973 the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) published their official position relative to homosexuality. There is currently discussion, debate and disagreement over the issue of homosexuality within the CRC as in the wider Reformed denominations. For instance, the CRC’s sister denomination, the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, took the position in 1979 of actually approving homosexual behavior within certain bounds.This is a more liberal position than the CRC has ever yet taken. Is it not incredible to think how far the CRC has traveled over the years when one considers some of the former teachers, professors and presidents Calvin Seminary has had, such as Harry Bultema, Herman Hoeksema, H.J. Kuiper, Louis Berkof and William Hendrikson, to name a few.

“In 1970, the CRC Synod appointed a six man committee to study homosexuality. Its report was adopted by the same Synod in 1973. One of the six, Clarence Boomsma, was four times moderator of the CRC and pastor of two CRC churches. In fact Boomsma held the record for the longest pastorate in the CRC; 35 years in the CRC church in Grand Rapids, near the Calvin Seminary.

“I called Clarence Boomsma on the phone in October 1997, and had a long talk about Dr. Woudstra since he had know him for many years and had been his friend. HE TOLD ME THAT DR. WOUDSTRA ASSISTED THEM IN WRITING THE REPORT ON HOMOSEXUALITY. I have a copy of the complete report in my office. It takes acompromised ‘middle line’ between the Biblical anti-homosexuality absolute, and the Reformed Church of the Netherlands liberal acceptance of homosexual behavior within certain bounds.

Let me quote a few lines from the report (Report 42, Art. 53, 1973):

‘In fact, its [homosexuality] origin is so unclear as to be finally a mystery’ (page 613)

‘As the cause of homosexuality is uncertain, so is the possibility of correcting it’ (page 614)

‘Responsibility and the possibility of personal guilt for the homosexual arises at the point where he must decide what he will do with his sexuality. It is here that the Christian homosexual must ask what God’s will is for him in the same way as the Christian heterosexual must ask what he must do in obedience to God with his sex drive’ (page 616)

“[Note here the clever but wrong comparison being drawn. For a man to desire sexual relations with a woman is not wrong within the marriage relationship. However, for a man to desire sexual relations with another man is always wrong in all circumstances].

“‘From this story [Genesis 19, Sodom & Gomorrah] read as an isolated incident we cannot conclude however that homosexualism is here condemned’ (page 617).

Note that this report took the position that a person may be a homosexual by birth (homosexualism) due to the fallen and irregular nature of humanity, but should not practice homosexual acts (homosexuality)!]

“‘In how far the prohibition of homosexualism [in Lev 18:21 & 20:13] is binding on us is therefore a question that remains’ (page 619).

‘It has been suggested that the use of these words [malakoi and arsenokoitai in I Cor 6:9-10] stresses the activity rather than the condition of homosexuality’ (page 619)

“[Note this vital belief of Dr. Woudstra. This is the reasoning behind the very clever translation in the NIV in I Cor 6 ‘homosexual offenders’. Thus the NIV here allows a person to be a homosexual, as long as they don’t offend.]

“The report refers constantly to the ‘Christian homosexual’, and urges that he ‘deserves the same acceptance, recognition, compassion and help that is given to any person (page 626).

Since the report urges a fully functional place in the church for ‘Christian homosexuals’ is it any wonder that, according the Boomsma, the CRC has currently (1997) one openly ‘celibate’ homosexual minister who has ‘come out’. All through the report one is struck with the similarities it bears to the views of Virginia Mollenkott. Even the title of her book ‘Is The Homosexual My Neighbour’ finds an echo on page 631 of the CRC’s Homosexuality Committee’s 1973 report where paragraph 2 begins ‘Love for the homosexual neighbour…’

“The 1973 report advised homosexual ministers to seek pastoral and psychological help to cope with their desires, but stopped short of condoning homosexual practice. Boomsma felt that although the CRC should understand and ‘sympathize’ (page 630) with the struggle homosexuals faced, for which they may bear minimal responsibility (page 631), it could not make an exception and allow such people to engage in ‘homosexual activity’ that is wrong. This is still the view of the CRC in general

“Taking the scriptural principle of two witnesses, I will now add the comments of Clarence Boomsma regarding the sexuality of his friend Dr. Woudstra, the Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee. Boomsma made the following statement to me on the phone on 25th October 1997; I wrote it down verbatim: ‘It is generally believed among us [Christian Reformed Church and Calvin Seminary] that Dr. Woudstra was a homosexual.’

“I asked Boomsma if Dr. Woudstra was an ‘active’ homosexual. Although he knew Dr. Woudstra’s views on homosexuality very well and holds in his possession a written dissertation by Dr. Woudstra on the subject, he did not feel free to comment on its contents. However, he did tell me about a ‘[homosexual] incident’ in Dr. Woudstra’s career in which his professorship was at stake. Woudstra survived and was not fired by the Seminary.

“Boomsma also spoke of Dr. Woudstra’s frequent trips to New York ‘which like all large cities has a large homosexual population’. On his return Woudstra would tell Boomsma how much he enjoyed the ‘plays’ in New York. I asked were these ‘gay plays’. Boomsma would only say that New York has a large gay culture and is dotted with gay bars, and it was his impression that his friend, Dr. Woudstra, took part in this side of New York’s social scene.

“I submit this research as I feel it has a direct bearing on how the NIV treats homosexuality. By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced. By speaking of homosexual ‘offenders’ in I Corinthians ch. 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don’t ‘offend’ by being ‘active’; and this is the position of the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin Seminary, Evangelicals Concerned, and who knows, quite a few other members of the NIV Translation Committee other than the late Dr. Woudstra. The fact that Leviticus denounces homosexuality in total does not worry them as such ethical condemnations do not apply today!

”A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit” (Matthew 7:17).”
Original Author
Michael Penfold, November 1997
P.O.Box 26, Bicester, Oxon. OX6 8PB, England UK.


The NIV translation allows for the false view that homosexuality as a natural condition is not condemned in the Bible, that the Bible only condemns the misuse of homosexuality. It is much easier to support this strange view from the NIV than it is from the KJV

The following study is expanded from one which was originally put together by Carl Graham entitled Sodomy and the NIV (first published 1991; revised 1996, Twogistates Publishers, 500 Wheeler Dr., Angier, NC 27501) after he researched the connection between the NIV’s rendering of passages touching on homosexuality and the presence of a homosexual on the translation review team. It is amazing to see many direct parallels between Mollenkott’s views about homosexuality and the translation of the New International Version. Graham’s study has been enlarged by Michael Penfold with the addition of sections of the 1973 Christian Reformed Church report on homosexuality and by additional comments by me (David Cloud). As noted earlier, Dr. Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee, helped the six-man committee write this report. Thus the 1973 report can be taken as the views of at least one prominent member of the NIV CBT.

After Graham published his booklet, he was threatened with a lawsuit by the publishers of the NIV, the International Bible Society. He was accused of slandering the members of the NIV, and they insisted that he withdraw the booklet immediately or face a possible lawsuit. Graham hired an attorney, who assured him that he was on firm legal grounds. After receiving communication from Graham’s lawyer, the IBC apologized to Graham for the threatening letter and dropped the matter.

Graham wrote his report without the knowledge that a homosexual man headed up the Old Testament New International Version translation team. Graham saw the amazing connection between Mollenkott’s views and the rendering of various NIV passages, and he assumed this connection was caused by some direct input by Mollenkott. It appears now that this was not the case. Mollenkott probably had nothing to do with the translation of these various passages. At least that is what she has testified. There can be no doubt, though, that Dr. Woudstra had a direct role in the translation and that his views were precisely aligned with the views promoted by Mollenkott and other “Christian” homosexuals today.

Some people still believe two and two equals four. The connection between the NIV’s rendering of passages touching on homosexuality and the views of modern “Christian” homosexuals is no accident. It is apparent that there must have been other members of the NIV committee who were like-minded with these modern “evangelical” sodomites. Michael Penfold’s research has confirmed this, but the names of other NIV translators who were sympathetic with homosexual Christianity will possibly not be brought to light until the judgement seat of Christ.

THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY CAN BE CONDEMNED OUT OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, BUT IT IS NOT AS PLAIN AS IT IS IN THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. We have seen repeatedly that this is one of the devil’s tactics. He does not necessarily completely change or remove a doctrine; he merely tampers with it. In a fierce warfare, the difference between winning and losing often depends upon very small details. To clandestinely dull a warrior’s sword is tantamount to open sedition.

The sad fact which must be faced is this: IN SCHOLARLY EVANGELICAL CIRCLES, THE IDEA THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS SOMEHOW COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY IS GAINING A WIDENING SYMPATHY. The book by Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor (Harper & Row, 1978), received favourable reviews in Christianity Today, The Christian Century, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and The Christian Ministry. Joe Dallas, author of A Strong Delusion: Confronting the ‘Gay Christian’ Movement (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1996), made the following conclusion: “ENDORSEMENTS FROM SUCH RESPECTED CHRISTIAN PUBLICATIONS WAS PROOF THAT THE GAY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT WAS GAINING MOMENTUM AND CREDIBILITY.”

End of Reproduced Material 

Do YOU personally believe someone who cannot live by the written Word of God can be trusted to translate that Holy Word for you?  Would you sit under a Pastor who was a homosexual?

If the answer is NO, then why would you trust a bible that was in part translated, interpreted and rewritten by a homosexual? Personally, I don’t trust anything that was written or translated by someone who is openly and blatantly living in  rebellion against the Word of God.

If they cannot FOLLOW the Word, it stands that they are corrupt enough to change the Word and corrupt enough to lead you astray, even unto “another Gospel”.

Next, Let’s Look at the particular SIN of sodomy according to the Bible:

(Don’t look for the word sodomy in the NIV, it’s been removed)

As we examine the usage of the word sodomy and the sin of sodomy as defined in the bible, we will also read some of the commentary provided by some of the NIV translators.  This should be an eye opener for you.

It’s Decision Time!


This study has by no means been complete but it has given you enough facts to make a SOUND DECISION concerning the problems with modern translations of the Bible especially the NIV.

As if the NIV weren’t bad enough, there is now a newer version of the NIV itself (I suppose no one could understand the “old English” of the NIV).

The TNIV is an even more damnable NON-GENDER SPECIFIC (In other words, God is neither male nor female…hmmm….wonder why we call him “FATHER”?) version that excludes more of the Word of God than ever before.

By the words of the TNIV translators alone, more than 7% of the NIV has been changed (if you can imagine further changes than what has already been done!)  I will cover it in the future to present the same type of teaching as found with the NIV.

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst”.       AMOS 8:11-13








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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s