Did a Lesbian help write the NIV?
The NIV took out over 64,000 words!
The NIV changes the Word of God into LIES!!!!!!!!
Did they take the most important part out?
Does the NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ?
Is it an unpardonable sin to offend a homosexual?
Who was the son of the gods seen in the fiery furnace?
Are all of the words of the Lord's prayer important?
Why was the term "fornication" not used in the NIV?
Is the NIV deliberately slanted to support extrabiblical Roman Catholic doctrines?
Did a Lesbian help write the NIV?
Did anyone know that Virginia Mollenkott, who worked on the NIV was a lesbian? Did she have any influence on the NIV translation? Let us look at that for awhile.
A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me ..." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV (Deut. 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7). And of course, in 1 Cor. 6:9, "... effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." is replaced with the non-offensive "... nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ," Notice the NIV in 1 Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS"!
In the June 1994 issue of the PBC, we published an article entitled An NIV/Lesbian Cover-up! It was written by Yvonne S. Waite, the wife of Dr. D. A. Waite. He is director of The Bible For Today, and is President of the Dean Burgon Society. This Society defends the Traditional Text and the KJV. I shall quote from that article.
Dr. D. A. Waite warned years ago of her (Mollenkott) fondness of women and of her penchant for non-Biblical views in his analysis of her early work. "Woman Men, & the Bible," which he drafted in 1977, (BFT #518/$4.00) In fact, he concluded after reading her book that she was not a "believer." He wrote: "Virginia Ramey Mollenkott might very well be an apostate who has never been born again, but is only posing as a `sheep' when in reality she is a `wolf' in `sheep's clothing.'" (pg. 33) Dr. Waite knew she was a practicing homosexual as far back as 1962-63 when they both taught at Shelton College in Ringwood, New Jersey--that's when she told her classes it was all right to lie, a la Tom Sawyer. In fact, Arthur Steele refused to be president of that college unless this "SOPHIAlator" were kicked off the staff! Yes, he has a letter, dated November 27, 1978, from Bob Jones, Jr. (Bob Jones University) saying: "We had a definite problem with her because she insisted on hobnobbing with a few girls when she was employed as a teacher here for one year in the fifties.
"The translation committee sends lesbian Mollenkott the book of Deuteronomy to edit. She comes to Deut. 23:17, which reads, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." The lesbian suggests that they use the word "sodomite" in their translation. So, you can't imagine that, well neither can I. So, she sends it back telling them that "sodomite" should be removed and "temple prostitute" be substituted. Of course, she has no ulterior motive! If you can believe that, you might well believe that elephants can fly.
This is listed under "The Lutheran Episcopal Center; 317 17th Ave SE; Minneapolis, MN 55414". Which is "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Faith Advocates Group". Which is "A campus-based faith organization that works to enhance the spiritual lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals at the University of Minnesota". If you need more help read, "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? by Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni".
NIV committee member still proud to be queer.
MOLLENKOTT A HOMOSEXUAL-Virginia Mollenkott, a "deconstructed" evangelical, is actually a pro-abortion feminist New Ager (11/1/93 CC), and "a practicing lesbian who promotes adultery and repudiates the Christian faith" (11/25 Chr. News). She is quoted as follows in the pro-gay Evangelicals Concerned's Spring 1997 Record concerning Ellen's recent "coming out": "I came of age in the 1940s and 1950s, discovering my own sexuality at a time when only negative information was available to me. I was one of the many gay teenagers who have attempted suicide, because we cannot fit in - one of those to whom Ellen dedicated her dual coming-out. When the show ended, I sat thinking about the parties all over the country. I thought of the many gay women and men celebrating perhaps the most public affirmation we had ever received."
MATTHEW 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.".
ACTS 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
The NIV PERversion completely "TAKETH AWAY" Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!
After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses! And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!
After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" ZAP-There goes another 12 verses!
Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!
That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!
The NIV took out over 60,000 words!
Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words! Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"!
That equals REMOVING the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more - COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible!
In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses!
The NIV changes the Word of God into LIES!!!!!!!!
JOHN 3:16: 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 NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.
The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "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." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BY A LIE!
Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE. . ." John 17:17 says, ". . . thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, ". . . God that CANNOT LIE" How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, ". . . it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to LIE" It is impossible for the LIES in the NIV to be the words of GOD! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44!
The NIV again openly LIES in 2 Samuel 21:19, ". . . Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?
Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the TRUTH of God into a LIE. . ."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!
 |
Did they take the most important part out? | |
| Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. | Ephes. 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; | Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. |
Does the NIV perverts the deity of Jesus Christ?
I TIMOTHY 3:16: This is the clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible reads, "1 Tim. 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!
PHILIPPIANS 2:6: The KJB again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,". The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!
Continues with the Birth of Christ
LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.
If we look in the NIV, we will never know anything about Lucifer for this term for Satan does not appear on its pages. The only reference to the name of the one who led the revolt against God is found in the King James Bible (KJB) in Isaiah 14:12. The referenced Scripture, and the verses following, have always been identified with the fall of Satan, and the names Lucifer and Satan have become synonymous in the English speaking world. The Isaiah Chapter 14 event is probably the same as the one Jesus described in Luke 10:18 where He said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
It is interesting to note the name that the NIV has substituted in the place of Lucifer as this is doctrinal and has far reaching effects on the credibility and reliability of the NIV as a Christian Bible. Looking at the Scripture below you will see the morning star is identified as the one who fell from heaven. Who is this morning star? I have always been led to believe that this was Jesus, but as you can see, the NIV has a totally different viewpoint. A brief look at the referenced Scripture in both the NIV and KJB will clearly verify the doctrinal differences between the two.
New International Version
Isaiah 14:12-15 (NIV) " How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.
King James Bible
Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJB) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
In defining just who this morning star is, we need to look at several references in both the NIV and the KJB where these terms are used together.
New International Version
2 Pet 1:19 (NIV)
"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."
Rev 2:28 (NIV)
"I will also give him the morning star."
Rev 22:16 (NIV)
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
King James Bible
Rev 2:28 (KJB)
"And I will give him the morning star."
Rev 22:16 (KJB)
"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."
In Revelation 22:16 both the NIV and the KJB identify the morning star as being Jesus and all the other noted references allude to the same concept. If a person is to accept the NIV as the Word of God, then he or she must also accept that it was Jesus who was cast from heaven in the event described in Isaiah 14:12. This really does not make sense because the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus voluntarily left heaven to provide a way of salvation for mankind, and it nowhere implies that He defied God and was cast out. The NIV really strikes out on this one.
Is it an unpardonable sin to offend a homosexual?
According to I Corinthians 6:9 in the NIV if a person offends a homosexual, he or she will not enter the kingdom of God. In this version, the homosexual offender is placed in the same category as adulterers, idolaters, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. Keep in mind this is not the sin of homosexuality as described in the KJB, but is specified as being those who offend homosexuals.
Perhaps this is made clearer by Webster's Dictionary definition of offend which means to strike against or to cause dislike, anger, or vexation. Offender is the noun presentation of the verb offend. An offender then is one who offends. It denotes action on the part of a person. In the case of the NIV, it is one who offends a homosexual.
New International Version
1 COR 6:9-10 (NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
King James Bible
1 COR 6:9-10 (KJB)
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Here you see a clear example of a version of the Bible being worded to accommodate a particular group of people, homosexuals. Their kind of sexual behavior used to be called perversion, but in today's world it is called a lifestyle. This is the class of people that occupied Sodom and Gomorrah. The KJB calls them Sodomites, a term that used to mean homosexuals in our society but has lately fallen prey to the cry to legitimize same sex relationships. The NIV calls them temple prostitutes, a description which in no way implies homosexual behavior.
God was not at all reluctant to offend the homosexuals when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and I seriously doubt that He has changed His mind to be in line with today's new morality. However the NIV, the Bible that offends no one except maybe God, has no reference to Sodomites in its pages and instead of an admonition against this grievous sin, it places a stern warning to those who might call attention to the fact that homosexuality is still contrary to Christian principles.
Who was the son of the gods seen in the fiery furnace?
All students of the Bible are familiar with the story of the three Hebrew men who were cast into the fiery furnace as related in Daniel 3:25. The Bible tells of their deliverance by a fourth man who was seen walking around in the fire. This fourth man has always been considered to be Jesus Christ in an appearance in the Old Testament; however the NIV speaks of this person as being a son of the gods which in no way describes Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.
For those who advocate the NIV, I suppose this means that there are many gods who have many sons. This certainly does not agree with the one God concept held by the prophets and apostles and advocated by Christians down through the centuries.. Reference to the Scripture will show that there are major differences between the NIV and the KJB in this area.
New International Version
Dan 3:25 (NIV)
5 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
King James Bible
Dan 3:25 (KJB)
5 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
The NIV presentation of Daniel 3:25 supports a concept of many gods who have many sons, and it takes away a Scriptural reference to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament which is critical to understanding His preeminence and immortal existence. This is a far cry from the Bible of the past that presented the Son of God as the deliverer in the fiery furnace. God must really feel let down when the Christian churches accept this perversion as holy and reject the Bible that has been preserved for the saints.
Are all of the words of the Lord's prayer important?
The NIV deletes part of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. On the surface this doesn't seem important, but if we look closely at the words which are deleted, it will be apparent that the NIV is following its predisposition to lessen the supremacy of God.
New International Version
Matt 6:9-13 (NIV)
9 This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
King James Bible
Matt 6:9-13 (KJB)
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Two important points must be recognized:
We have not forgiven our debtors as a one time occurrence, it must be ongoing. We do not get forgiveness from God only once (even though salvation comes only once), but we continue to sin and must come back to God time and again to get forgiveness, and
It is important that we understand that we need to be delivered from the evil one (Satan) and all other kinds of evilness. I suspect that most of us must be delivered from our own evilness.
The last part of the prayer, which is left out of the NIV, has a significant message to the Christian, for it indicates that we recognize that God has total control over all things and can order all things. He has the power and the might, and we are nothing but dust, and we need to always recognize exactly who God is and His relationship to us. God is worthy of all honor. That is why we need to recognize that He is the glory, for He alone is worthy because of His goodness, mercy, and longsuffering, and He alone can give us atonement of our sins.
It is to be a member of God's kingdom that we seek by accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. This can only come from God. When the Lord's Prayer is mutilated and these important words are left out, it changes the whole demeanor of what Jesus said. After all, this is the Lord's prayer.
Why was the term "fornication" not used in the NIV?
Fornication, as used in the KJB, was replaced with sexual immorality, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution or dropped completely in the NIV. Nelson's Dictionary defines fornication as follows:
FORNICATION
[for nih KAY shun]-- sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage. The technical distinction between fornication and ADULTERY is that adultery involves married persons while fornication involves those who are unmarried. But the New Testament often uses the term in a general sense for any unchastity. Of the seven lists of sins found in the writings of the apostle Paul, the word fornication is found in five of them and is first on the list each time (1 Cor. 5:11; Col. 3:5). In the Book of Revelation, fornication is symbolic of how idolatry and pagan religion defiles true worship of God (Rev. 14:8; 17:4).
While all the substitutes for fornication have important implications, the one concerning sexual immorality is the most misleading and does more to reveal the covert intentions behind the NIV than all the others. What is sexual immorality? The dictionary does not give the definition of these two words together, so they must be defined individually. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definitions.
SEXUAL
1. of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes. 2. Having or involving sex. (Sex, in the sense of sexuality, has to do with sexual intercourse.)
IMMORALITY
1. The act or state of being immoral. 2. An immoral act or practice. (Immoral means conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.)
Sexual immorality then is totally identified with sexual conduct as identified by a specific society. If a society decides that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is acceptable, it is not against the Word of God when the teachings of the NIV are followed. However, fornication is a more explicit term which forbids sexual intercourse outside of marriage and has nothing to do with what society wants, but this term clearly defines what God demands.
It appears that fornication was dropped from the NIV to make it acceptable to any society in the world regardless of its sexual practice. Plural marriages, or concubines can easily be explained away as not being immoral because the society accepts them. In America today there are a great number of men and women who are living together (both homosexuals and heterosexuals) outside of marriage without the slightest conviction that what they are doing is wrong, and our society as a whole accepts this as normal.
According to the dictionary definition of sexual immorality, and the way the NIV applies this to sexual acts, it must be all right. One example to contrast the difference between the NIV and the KJB will make this clear.
New International Version
1 Cor 6:9-10 (NIV)
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Bible
1 Cor 6:9-10 (KJB)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God regardless of how the NIV reads, or who believes it. God is clear on sexual sins and He doesn't make any exceptions for societies or their learned scholars; marriage legitimizes the only admissible intimate relationship between man and woman, and the acceptance of any sin by any society will never make it right in the eyes of God.
The NIV gives two accounts of Goliath being killed. In one David does the task; in the other, Elhanan does it. Both accounts can't be right.
New International Version
1 Sam 17:51 (NIV)
51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.
2 Sam 21:19 (NIV)
19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.
1 Chr 20:5 (NIV)
5 In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.
King James Bible
1 Sam 17:51 (KJB)
51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.
2 Sam 21:19 (KJB)
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Ja'are-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
1 Chr 20:5 (KJB)
5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.
There is clearly an inconsistency in the NIV. In one place it says David killed Goliath, in another it says Elhanan killed him, and still in another it says that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. I would say that this is definitely a contradiction. A disagreement is not a good thing for a Bible; especially since God is not supposed to make mistakes.
Is the NIV deliberately slanted to support extrabiblical Roman Catholic doctrines?
It seems that the NIV is intended to be the Bible for all people and all beliefs for it reflects practically any doctrine you may be searching for somewhere within its pages. It appears that in many places it has been deliberately changed to support Roman Catholic church traditions such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Roman Catholic priesthood whether the text calls for it or not. These subtle (Do you remember that word from Genesis 3:1?) changes totally disagree with the doctrines of the reformation faith and bring about conflicting statements within the NIV itself. A few of these are given below to illustrate the point.
Romans 15:16 has been changed to make the proclaiming of the Gospel a priestly duty instead of keeping the responsibility among all ministers of Jesus Christ.
New International Version
Rom 15:16 (NIV)
16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. King James Bible
Rom 15:16 (KJB)
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Hebrews 10:12 has been changed to make it more of a priestly duty to offer the sacrifice for sins.
New International Version
Heb 10:12 (NIV)
12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
King James Bible
Heb 10:12 (KJB)
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
In Matthew 12:4, the shewbread has been changed to consecrated bread to correspond with the Roman Catholic wafer used in their mass.
New International Version
Matt 12:4 (NIV)
4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread-- which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.
King James Bible
Matt 12:4 (KJB)
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
New International Version
Mark 2:26 (NIV)
26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
King James Bible
Mark 2:26 (KJB)
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
New International Version
Luke 6:4 (NIV)
4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
King James Bible
Luke 6:4 (KJB)
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
Notice in Hebrew 1:3 that it has been changed to reflect that He has provided for the purification of sins instead of the proper rendering of "He had by Himself purged our sins." This opens the door for the Roman Catholic practice of the priests being able to forgive sin.
New International Version
Heb 1:3 (NIV)
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
King James Bible
Heb 1:3 (KJB)
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
In Matthew 1:25 the term firstborn is missing. This is to give credence to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
New International Version
Matt 1:25 (NIV)
25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
King James Bible
Matt 1:25 (KJB)
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The NIV's rendering of James 5:16 where it says to confess our sins to each other is a misrepresentation of God's Word and cannot be justified, for there is no doctrine anywhere in the Bible where we are to do this. This again supports the tradition of the Roman Catholic church where the people confess to the priests.
New International Version
James 5:16 (NIV)
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
King James Bible
James 5:16 (KJB)
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Notice that the last part of Revelation 2:15 has been omitted. This has to do with the doctrine of the Nicolaitans which Jesus hates. The reason for this is because the Roman Catholic church is built upon this doctrine. Nicolaitan is a term which means "To conquer the laity." It sets up a priesthood which rules over the people. This is the thing that Jesus hates, but you notice the NIV presents it in such a way that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church won't be in question.
New International Version
Rev 2:15 (NIV)
15 Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
King James Bible
Rev 2:15 (KJB)
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
There are many other instances where our traditional doctrines have been changed or weakened. We must be ever minded that the Roman Catholic church has not changed throughout the centuries. To embrace a version that confirms her doctrines abandons the traditional faith of our forefathers and is an insult to those who have died under Roman Catholic hands defending the true faith of the Bible.
