The Bible and the NIV                                      SCROLL 2.pngSCROLL 2.pngSCROLL 2.pngSCROLL 2.png SCROLL 2.png             


Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.  Jude 3

Introduction    Nothing in Christianity is as important as the preserved Word of God in the Greek language known as the textus receptus and its faithful translation into other languages.  In today’s world, it is extremely vital that all born-again Christians learn what is at stake regarding God’s Word.  The following article addresses only a very small portion of this issue.     


                                                                                      Facts Concerning the textus receptus    

  • 89% of all surviving scriptural manuscripts are textus receptus manuscripts
  • Only the textus receptus was available from the time of the apostles until 350 AD, so only the textus receptus was used by the early Christians to convert other Christians
  • Only the textus receptus comprises a complete New Testament
  • Only bibles translated from the textus receptus were made available to the common man, i.e., not to clergy only, as were the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


Since God promised to preserve His Word, all the above facts are sufficient to identify and validate the textus receptus as the only true, Holy Word of God.  For any other scriptural codex or manuscript to make the same claim, it would have to override these facts, and, of course, one cannot override the facts, they are what they are.

What is textus receptus?  Original manuscripts are known as autographa, and existing manuscripts are said to be  extant mss.  Also, in the evolution from papyrus and animal skin parchments, manuscripts were collated into codex form, a “book” of manuscripts, which in the process of time had replaced the scroll method of written material.  Thus, from generation to generation, copies were made from copies of the autographa in whatever medium happened to be available.  In time, the printing press was invented, and it finally became possible to print copies of a complete bible. 

Lucien  ( 250-312 AD ), a Christian of Antioch, collected and preserved those scriptures which the early church leaders revered as being inspired by God.  By this time the true church’s canon was complete, and it was comprised of the Greek scriptures which underlie our 27 books of the New Testament in the King James translation.  It was not the Roman Catholic church that determined what books would make up the bible, but the Holy Spirit who led and directed men such as Lucien and other Christians to preserve His Holy Word.

Similarly, God used William Tyndale to translate the textus receptus into English and He also used other Christians to produce the family of bibles from Tyndale’s work which eventually led to the 1611 King James translation.   The name textus receptus (received text) was coined in 1633 AD to characterize those preserved scriptures which the early church held to be inspired by God, and were also known as the Byzantine text, Universal Text, and as the Traditional Text. These manuscripts comprise 89% of all extant mss.  The earliest  printed  textus receptus was done by Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536 AD) in 1516 AD, but the original source of these scriptures were the autographa, penned by the Apostles and their associates.

Only the textus receptus was available from the time of the apostles until 350 AD    Since the Roman Catholic church has no scriptures validation (of its own) before 350 AD, one has to conclude that the only prevailing Holy Word of God was textus receptus from the Apostles until 350 AD.   The Roman Catholic church corrupted the textus receptus into its own version of what God has to say, producing the Vaticanus ( B ) and Sinaiticus ( Aleph ) texts in Alexandria, Egypt, around 350 AD.   Therefore, no matter what the Roman Catholic church wants to claim, it has no proof at all that the textus receptus was not the only New Testament scriptures available to those early Christians. Only the textus receptus comprises a complete and accurate New Testament. 

How can we know that the textus receptus is based on the autographa?     Firstly, there are several  extant letters written by the early church leaders to the churches in which many scriptural passages which agree with the textus receptus were used as a means of authenticating their beliefs from one to two hundred years before the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were supposed to have been written. These early church leaders’ writings are not in agreement with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in many places, but are in very close agreement with the textus receptus

Secondly, there were translations into several languages in which the textus receptus was clearly the source. The following New Testament translations from the Greek textus receptus were produced:

  • 150 AD  Syrian                     Peshitta into Aramaic
  • 157 AD  Italian                      Itala into Old Latin (no connection to Rome)
  • 350 AD Gothic language       Gothic Version  for Germanic Tribes
  • 400 AD  Ethiopia                  Ethiopic Version


Other New Testament translations from the textus receptus included the Armenian Version, Georgian Version, and the Slavonic Version ( 1 )  Clearly, the textus receptus was the basis for these church translations used by Christians in the early centuries which antedated Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by hundreds of years. 


Other Manuscripts  -  Sinaiticus and Vaticanus    There are principally two “bible” manuscript sources other than the textus receptus, The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. According to Roman Catholic sources, Sinaiticus contains other books in addition to the textus receptus’ canonical 27 books. 


                                                                                       Facts Concerning Sinaiticus ( Aleph, or A )

  • Sinaiticus is a Greek text of the Old and New Testaments, housed by the Greek Orthodox Church in Cairo, Egypt; portions of this text were found by Constantine Tischendorf in a trash pile at St. Catherine’s monastery near Mt. Sinai in 1844, and other portions in 1853, 1859, and 1869. However, “It’s origin has been assigned to Rome, Southern Italy, Egypt, and Caesarea, but cannot be determined”. ( 2 )
  • Some scholars  believe that Sinaiticus was  translated by Origen or Eusebius ( both Alexandrian scribes ), around 350 AD
  • Sinaiticus and Vaticanus comprise approximately 11% of all extant mss
  • In addition to the 27 Christian Canonical books, Sinaiticus contains the “Shepherd of Hermes”, “Bel and the Dragon”, and the “Epistle of Barnabus”
  • Sinaiticus is not autographa; it is a corrupted counterfeit copy of textus receptus


According to Roman Catholic church sources, the Epistle of Barnabus is important enough to be in its canon.  Dr. Scrivener shows that this epistle has portions which are obviously not the Word of God in his historic work ( 3 ).   Only bibles translated from the textus receptus were made available to the common man, i.e., not to clergy only, as were the Sinaiticus and VaticanusIt is a well-known fact that, for centuries, the Roman Catholic church absolutely prohibited anyone but the Catholic clergy to have access to its version of the bible, under penalty of death.  And even more so was the prohibition of producing a bible into the English language. 

William Tyndale, the man most responsible for bringing the King James 1611 translation based on the textus receptus into being was both strangled to death and burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic church for his doing so.  Beginning in 1535, however, Tyndale's followers smuggled portions of the precursor to the King James translation into England, but full liberty to both publish and read the bible only became a reality in England with the advent of Queen Elizabeth I in 1558. 


                                                                                   Facts Concerning  Vaticanus ( Codex B )

  • Codex Vaticanus is an ancient copy of the Old and New Testaments in Greek, believed to have been written around 350 AD by either Origen or Eusebius of the Alexandrian School
  • The following scriptures are missing from Codex Vaticanus: Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Hebrews 9:15-28*;10-13; and  the entire book of Revelation
  • The Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican Library at Rome by Pope Nicolas V. in 1448, its previous history being unknown. Codex Vaticanus has been the property of the Vatican Library since before it was catalogued and was largely unknown to the outside world until 1889
  • Codex Vaticanus is not autographa, it is a corrupted counterfeit copy of the textus receptus, and contains numerous additions and deletions to the textus receptus


* The omission of Hebrews 9:15 to 9:28 was a deliberate and malicious move by the Roman Catholic church to remove Jesus’ involvement in being our Great High Priest, who replaced all would-be human priests ( especially those of the Roman Catholic church ) by His blood atonement at the cross.  The obvious implication, claimed by the Roman Catholic Mass, is that Christ is not seated at the right hand of the Father, but rather is continually being dismembered and sacrificed 24/7 in a cannibalistic ritual throughout the world in its Mass “celebration” ( please read Mrs. Prest's testimony before Roman catholic church Inquisitioners in ON CS LEWIS ).  What an abomination !!

The reason that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have survived as long as they have ( thus making up 11% of all extant mss ) is clear testimony that they were rarely used, if at all.  Had they been subjected to the rigors in use which the textus receptus  went through, they too would have vanished long ago.  This fact, plus the additional fact that nobody but the Catholic clergy was allowed to touch them is clear proof that they were not used to spread the gospel.  Their relatively superior physical condition to the textus receptus is not a testimony for their goodness, but rather a testimony for their evil.

The foregoing information has been given simply as a very abbreviated introduction to these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which some modern scholars like to worship as being superior to the textus receptus.  Several websites exist which detail and document the voluminous errors found in them, and these websites' URLs are presented in the bibliography below.  My main focus in this account is to show what illogical reasoning underlies the New International Version ( NIV ) in some selected passages of scripture.  Again, I would like to emphasis, and quite strongly emphasize, that what I am presenting is but a miniscule amount of the mistranslation of God's Holy Word by the NIV translators.  At some point it becomes obvious that some ( readers ) will reject the truth no matter how much evidence is presented; for these no amount of evidence will ever convince them of the truth.


Case I         NIV confuses HELL and the GRAVE     Hell is defined by Strong's Concordance as the place(state) of departed souls.  Note that this definition does not include the fact that HADES ( Greek for Hell ) at one time consisted of two compartments - Hell ( a place of torment ) and Paradise ( Did Jesus go to Hell? ).  But we know that HADES did in fact contain the two compartments, for Jesus stated this as fact ( Luke 16:19-26 ).  With this in mind,

King James translation:  Luke 10:15  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to HELL.

NIV:   Luke 10:15   And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.

The word depths is mostly used as an adjective in the King James translation, such as the depths of the sea, or the depths of hell, or the depths of Satan, etc.  Why substitute depths, which is unclear as a noun, for hell, which is very clear?  Perhaps the translator doesn’t believe in hell( the word hell has been removed from the entire old testament in the NIV ).  It should be clear, given the context, that the people of Capernaum are being sentenced by Christ to inhabit the torment compartment of HADES, and not the compartment of Paradise. 

King James translation:  Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

NIV:  Acts 2:27 because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

King James translation:  Acts 2:31  He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

NIV:  Acts 2:31   Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

In Acts 2:27, king David is speaking to God and expressing confidence that He ( God ) would not leave his ( David's ) soul in HADES.  King David knew that he would be resurrected out of Paradise into Heaven.  Secondly, king David states that God would not allow Jesus' body to see corruption ( in the grave ).  But now note how the NIV erroneously substitutes the grave for hell. The first part of Acts 2:27 speaks of the soul, not the body, and no soul ever goes to a grave!!  The NIV translators compound their error further in Acts 2:31, where they identify Christ's soul as not being left in the grave, and His body not decaying.  There is no question that the NIV translators are completely confused about where a soul's destination was ( HADES ) and that of a common grave, six feet under. 

The rich man in Luke 16:23 was not "in the grave", but was in hell, in the heart of the earth, right across from Paradise, where Abraham was.  One has to use common sense when discerning between the grave ( six feet under ), and hell ( in the heart of the earth ).  Why, if someone thought that their departed dear ones were in torment only six feet under, wouldn't they try to help them by digging them up?  You see how ridiculous it is to get hell and the grave confused.  It would be bad enough if a single translator had made the foregoing errors, but to have a team of 104 "expert theologians" make them is unbelievable.  And yet, there they are, in print, for all Christendom to consider.


Case II       The NIV's removal of <begotten> from John 3:16   

 King James translation:  John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  

NIV:   John 3:16  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.

Begotten means "ordained to be", "to cause to be", "be brought to pass", etc.  As Christians, we know what was involved:  As Jesus was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, God caused Jesus to be conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary so as to be born in human flesh.  Jesus was ordained to be born of a woman, made under the Law, so that He could fulfill the Law of God and thus become an acceptable sacrifice unto God for the sins of all the world ( Galatians 4:4,5 ).  Therefore, the word begotten implies a much deeper spiritual meaning than "his one and only Son", which the natural man interprets as a human father-son relationship. 

The mystery of God's Holy Trinity has puzzled theologians for centuries, and cults have used the denial of the Trinity as the basis for their dogma.  And paramount in their dogma is the heretical position that Jesus is not God.   The first chapter of the book of John is very explicit as to the Deity of Christ, provided one consults the true Word of God ( King James translation ), and not some counterfeit non-bible such as the NIV, the New King James, and others. Space in this topical account does not permit an explanation that would do justice to a serious consideration of the word begotten.  However, the topic The Nature of God does address this specific concern.  After reading the Nature of God, the reader will be able to better appreciate the concern which all Christians should have with counterfeit bibles which have removed begotten from their publications.


Case III        Little Faith and Unbelief   

King James translation:  Matthew 17:20  And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief:  For verily I say unto you, If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

NIV:  Matthew 17:20   Because you have so little faith.  I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move, Nothing will be impossible for you.

Jesus told His disciples that it would take prayer and fasting to cast out the devil from a certain young child, but that they could not cast the devil out because of their unbelief.  Jesus told them that if they had a little faith, they could have done it.  To the contrary, the NIV translators say that the disciples could not cast the devil out because they had little faith.  And then they turn right around and state that if they had little faith, they could have done it - completely contradicting themselves !!  This scripture does not even require spiritual understanding, just plain common sense which the NIV translators apparently lack.


CASE IV       Incorrect Lexicon Usage

King James translation:  John 1:3   All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

NIV:   John 1:3   Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

For translators, a lexicon is an invaluable tool used to determine the meaning of a word in one language in another language.  Among lexicons used for biblical studies, Strong's Concordance has been a popular source of Greek and Hebrew meanings of the English words of the King James 1611 bible.  As is the case in ordinary usage, a dictionary often provides several meanings for a given word, and it is left to the reader to select which of the meanings best fits the context.  Selecting the wrong word can change the entire meaning of a sentence, even though the wrong word was in the selection list. Moreover, selecting the wrong word from the given list may provide a hazy meaning to the sentence.

In the scripture above, the correct translation of the King James makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things.  Cults who deny that Jesus is God and the creator of all things use the words in the NIV version that substitute through for by.  If one goes to a car dealer and asks the salesman "Who is this car made through?" he might get a puzzled look from the salesman, who would probably answer "You mean who this car is made by?"  The word through simply does not convey the same meaning as by.  It is very difficult to rationalize why the NIV translators would make this substitution - it does not make understanding the bible any better, but only leads to confusion without reason. 

Moreover, cults also use counterfeit bibles to deny the Deity of Christ by omitting key words, such as in the following translation, where the words  who created all things <by Jesus Christare simply edited out


King James translation:   Ephesians 3:9  "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:"

NIV:   Ephesians 3:9  "And to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God who created all things******************.

WHY are the words   by Jesus Christ   removed in the NIV ? 

CASE V       The NIV Denies the Virgin Birth of Christ 

King James translation:   Luke 2:33   And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

NIV:  Luke 2:33   The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

The bible faithfully records the actual words spoken, whether they be spoken by God or by man.  Also, the bible faithfully records the thoughts of both God and man.  One must be careful to discern who is doing the speaking in the scriptures.  In the scripture above, it is plain to see that it is God's observation of Joseph's and Mary's  thoughts being recorded, and not that of man.  Thus, the King James translation is careful to record that Joseph is not Jesus' father. 

In contrast, the NIV implies that Joseph is Jesus' father, which not only contradicts what the textus receptus autographa states as recorded in the King James translation, but in doing so the NIV denies the virgin birth of Christ by implying that Joseph is Jesus' biological father!  The NIV claims to have 104 people who contributed to its production, but apparently this great number of NIV contributors seem to be grossly ignorant of bible truth about one of the most basic of Christian doctrines.   

Of Thee and Thou     A popular reason given for the “necessity of revising” the KJV has been, and unfortunately has been repeated by well-meaning Christians, is that ye, thee, thou, etc. needed to be updated with the more “understandable” you.  What needs to be pointed out is that the original Greek language differentiated between singular and plural, a much more inclusive and clearer meaning than “you”: ye is plural, while thee, thou, thy, and some other words beginning with “th” are singular in meaning.  Surely a pastor who is supposed to know the Word of God knows this? 

Note    According to some bible scholars, the Roman Catholic church’s Douay “bible” is more or less a direct translation of the Vulgate, which is based on the Vaticanus, and that the NIV basically parallels the Douay.  No matter that the Vaticanus has all those missing books, like Genesis and Revelation! 

What you have read here is only the tip of the iceberg regarding the factual evidence of the King James 1611 Translation and the NIV counterfeit which is masquerading as a bible.  When we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, we are going to have to answer as to what we did with the precious Word of God, given to us by those faithful martyrs that refused to accept the counterfeit words from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But, today we have modern versions of these same corrupt texts, such as the NIV and the New King James bible confusing even our very own brethren. I would urge everyone to do their homework on these translations for themselves, not depending on anyone else.  After all, it is your soul which is at stake. 




           ( 1 )   A General Introduction to the Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1968; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix


           ( 2 )   Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London, 1901,  p. 56


           ( 3 )   A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, Dr. Scrivener


                                                                                                                Other Sources


        Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Hendrickson Christian Classics, 2006, John Foxe

       The True Character of the Sinaiticus ( Aleph ) and Vaticanus ( B ); TWOGISTATES,  Will Kinney

        Which Version ?, Philip Mauro


                                                                                                Compare the King James Bible with the NIV





                                                                               Questions/Comments?   Email me at   



web stats