Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[Hobie]

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

 

[CharismaticLady]

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

I hear ya! It had to do with the Nicolaitan Gnostics that believed Jesus only came in Spirit. They interpret that to mean only sins of your spirit are condemned, but sins of the flesh were good; in fact, you must sin in the flesh daily to receive grace. That is why God hated this doctrine. The Nicolaitan men were to rape each other's wives daily.

 

[Enoch111]

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

Very definitely. The whole point of corrupting the Bible was to change doctrine. Paul even said that he was not like many who corrupt the Word of God.

It would take an entire book to show change after change and its impact on doctrine. Many changes are subtle and require spiritual perception and discernment.

 

[Deborah_]

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

What these people never tell you (perhaps they don't actually read the whole of the modern version) is that the 'missing' bit is still there - in the verse before!
"This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." (I John 4:2, NIV)
The NIV doesn't diminish Christ's deity in any way; it upholds it.

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

The NIV, in that verse, is actually a swipe at His (Jesus) humanity (human flesh nature). Roman Catholicism's teaching/dogma/doctrine, denies that Jesus came in the likeness (actuality) of sinful flesh, in other words, fallen sinful flesh. The theology of Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus came in the unfallen flesh of mankind, through its 'immaculate conception (of Mary) dogma', and it needs this because of it's 'Original Sin dogma' and 'Impeccability doctrines'.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

What these people never tell you (perhaps they don't actually read the whole of the modern version) is that the 'missing' bit is still there - in the verse before!
"This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." (I John 4:2, NIV)
The NIV doesn't diminish Christ's deity in any way; it upholds it.

Exactly! Sad thing is the kjvo cultists won't concede. Ironically they are always arriving at their errant teachings by missing the context. Same thing in this case.

 

[ReChoired]

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

In short. Yes. Definitely.

Just take a look at Hebrews 9:12 in the KJB and the NKJV (current edition, there are differing versions). The first is true, while the other false, and misrepresentative.

Consider also 1 Samuel 10:19 in the KJB and the NKJV (current edition, there are differing versions). The first is true, while the other fudges, because the authors did not believe Israel had millions of people come out of Egypt. They teach historical revisionism, and therefore must say 'clans', which might mean 50's, 100's. The Hebrew is literally, 1000's (aleph as a number, ולאלפיכם׃H505).

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare ...

There is also the Gender exclusivity that takes place, for instance, compare the KJB to the NKJV, whereas the male/female exists in the KJB, the NKJV neuters much, a few examples (non-exhaustive):

Isaiah 5:14

“Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.”

Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself
And opened its mouth beyond measure;
Their glory and their multitude and their pomp,
And he who is jubilant, shall descend into it.​

Ezekiel 31:16

“I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.”

16 I made the nations shake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to a]">[a]hell together with those who descend into the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the earth.​

Ezekiel 31:17

“They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen.”

17 They also went down to hell with it, with those slain by the sword; and those who were its strong arm dwelt in its shadows among the nations.​

1 Corinthians 1:26

“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:”

26 For a]">[a]you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many b]">[b]noble, are called.​

1 Corinthians 2:4

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:”

4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of a]">[a]human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 2:4 NU omits human

etc.

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare ..

Again the KJB vs the NKJV, these two verses are not saying the same thing, at all, and refer to two differing methods, two kinds of salvation:

Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above

6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above)​

The first is truth.

The koine GR TR reads as the KJB:

Rom 10:6 η δε εκ πιστεως δικαιοσυνη ουτως λεγει μη ειπης εν τη καρδια σου τις αναβησεται εις τον ουρανον τουτ εστιν χριστον καταγαγειν​

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare...

The following is just 'stupidity' and incompetence of translators of the NKJV, again the KJB vs NKJV:

Amo 4:4 Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years:

“Come to Bethel and transgress,
At Gilgal multiply transgression;
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
Your tithes every three a]">[a]days.​

"tithe" is a firstfruit, as in primarily crops or livestock, etc. How on earth is it going to be brought every "three days" according to the NKJV? Going to be a harvest, a birth, etc., every three days?

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare ...

Singular and plurals, a confusion of 'you', 'you' and 'you'; again KJB vs NKJV:

Exodus 16:28

“And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye [definitely plural, the peoples] to keep my commandments and my laws?”

“And the LORD said to Moses, “How long [a] do you [maybe singular [Moses], maybe plural [Moses and people], pick and choose] refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?””​

John 3:7

“Marvel not that I said unto thee [singular, Nicodemus], Ye [definitely plural the peoples Israel/Pharisees, etc] must be born again.”

““Do not marvel that I said to you [singular, Nicodemus, or more?], 'You [singular Nicodemus, or more than Nicodemus??? pick and choose] must be born again.'”​

The "thee's", "thou's" and "Ye's" and "Your's" make all the simple difference, as it is not King James English, but Bible language of singular to plural, first person, to second person to third person identification. The KJB translators were faithful to that which was already there.

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare ...

Capitalizations, KJB vs NKJV:

Subtil non-capitalizations:

According to the Preface, page iv & x, of the NKJV, we read:

“... [page iv] Additionally, capitalization of these pronouns benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. Without such capitalizations the distinction is often obscure, because the antecedent of a pronoun is not always clear in the English translation. ...”

“... [page x] PERSONAL PRONOUNS and certain nouns are capitalized when they refer to Deity. ...”​

OK then, follow the logic that they (NKJV translators) gave:

2 Thessalonians 2:7

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”

“For [a] the [1] mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only [2] He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.”

The NKJV teaches that Deity (see their Preface notes), the Holy Ghost ("He") is to be removed, and that "He" (Deity, the Holy Ghost) is the 'let' (hindrance). The KJB teaches the "he" (antichrist; mystery of iniquity) will be removed at the coming of Jesus, see context 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 KJB, as the "only he who now letteth will let" is basically parenthetical and relates to vs 6:

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,​

Matthew 16:18

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

““And I also say to you that [a] you are Peter, and [b.] on this rock I will build My church, and [c] the gates of Hades shall not [1] prevail against it.”

“[b.] [Eph. 2:20]”​

Consider the NKJV Preface remarks, in that when the editors capitalize “personal pronouns” and “certain nouns”, they refer to Deity. Yet, notice in this instance, that the editors deliberately refused to capitalize the word “rock”, thus making the reference possibly to [sinful humanity] Peter, and not to [Deity] Jesus Christ, or the word of God. The NKJV footnote at “[b.]”, even further misleads the reader to consider that the church must be built upon Peter [the “rock”], at the very least. This is a specific Roman Catholic alteration. Yet, scripture [KJB] identifies the “Rock” as God Himself, even Jesus Christ throughout, as well does Peter, in [KJB] 1 Peter 2:6,7,8 [even the same word used in v.8, citing [KJB] Isaiah 8:14, in regards Jesus Christ, identified in [KJB] Isaiah 8:13, “... the LORD of hosts himself ...”]. See * below. See also Paul in [KJB] Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4, and Jesus in [KJB] Matthew 7:24,25; Luke 6:47,48, “... these sayings of mine … rock.” and “... to me … my sayings … rock.” See also the contextual identification **.​

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare ...

Even the Prefaces tell you what their (modern versions) translators did, read them carefully, word for word. Notice (I manually hand typed the preface to the NKJV, to see what it said and to comment at each point, notice an excerpt, first without notation (read it carefully and do not read my notation beforehand, and study it for yourself, then read it again with my notation, and see what you might have missed):

Without notation

Page iii, Paragraph 3:

“... Although the Elizabethan period and our own era share in zeal for technical advance, the former period was more aggressively devoted to classical learning. Along with this awakened concern for the classics came a flourishing companion interest in the Scriptures, an interest that was enlivened by the conviction that the manuscripts were providentially handed down and were a trustworthy record of the inspired Word of God. The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the other hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted. ...”​

Page iii, Paragraph 4:

“... In 1786 Catholic scholar Alexander Geddes said of the King James Bible, “If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent.” George Bernard Shaw became a literary legend in the twentieth century because of his severe and often humorous criticisms of our most cherished values. Surprisingly, however, Shaw pays the following tribute to the scholars commissioned by King James: “The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the Word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result.” History agrees with these estimates. Therefore, while seeking to unveil the excellent form of the traditional English Bible, special care has also been taken in the present edition to preserve the work of precision, which is the legacy of the 1611 translators. ...”​

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare ...

Even the Prefaces tell you what their (modern versions) translators did, read them carefully, word for word. Notice (I manually hand typed the preface to the NKJV, to see what it said and to comment at each point, notice an excerpt, first without notation (read it carefully and do not read my notation beforehand, and study it for yourself, then read it again with my notation, and see what you might have missed):

With notation:

Page iii, Paragraph 3 [personal notes in brackets, blue]:

“... Although the Elizabethan period and our own era share in zeal for technical advance, the former period was more aggressively devoted to classical learning [Ha!]. Along with this awakened concern for the classics [pagan, homo-erotic, gnostic, Greecian philosophies and myths] came a flourishing companion interest in the Scriptures [Utter rubbish, as the scriptures were always prized, by the true followers of God, and needed no “flourishing … interest” in “the classics” to “awaken” interest in them, for in fact, far from it, see Ellen G, White's - The Great Controversy; and Benjamin G. Wilkinsons' - Truth Triumphant; and Gail Riplinger's - In Awe of thy Word, & Hazardous Materials, & New Age Versions], an interest that was enlivened by the conviction that the manuscripts [Which ones are they referring to? The Alexandrian, or the Antiochan] were providentially handed down and were a trustworthy record [Antiochan, sure. Alexandrian, no way, as they are the most corrupted of all, altered in thousands of places] of the inspired Word of God [However, it was never the manuscripts that God said that He would preserve, but rather, He said that He would preserve His word, Psalms 12:6-7. In fact, as given in the scripture [KJB], there are two ringing examples, wherein the original material written upon was destroyed, and yet the words were perfectly preserved, [1] Moses and the Ten Commandments, [2] Jeremiah's [through Baruch] scrolls]. The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation [Amen!], and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering [Unlike all of the 'modern' English translations.]. On the one hand, the scholars [This word does not do them justice, as first and foremost, they were God-fearing Christians [even Protestants], who loved God and His word and fully believed in it.] were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English [No kidding, some of them [54 total est., 47 official names are extantly known] knew many languages, like Lancelot Andrews, and another even learning a new language in vacationing; see Gail Riplinger's – The Hidden History of the English Scriptures, Given By Inspiration To All Generations & In Awe Of Thy Word, and some even knew Erasmus]. On the other hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word [Anyone may take notice of the fact, that in the whole of the Preface, not once is Jesus Christ identified as that Author, neither as the “divine”, but instead we only get a vague Capitalized noun and pronoun ...] assured a translation [Notice, “a”, indefinite, not “the”, definite] of the Scriptures in which only a principle [Why not say, “... only the utmost accuracy ...” instead of “a principle of utmost accuracy ...” Is it accurate, or was only the principle there?] of utmost accuracy [See the previous note about what the translators really mean about “accuracy”] could be accepted. ...”​

 

[ReChoired]

Lets compare ...

Even the Prefaces tell you what their (modern versions) translators did, read them carefully, word for word. Notice (I manually hand typed the preface to the NKJV, to see what it said and to comment at each point, notice an excerpt, first without notation (read it carefully and do not read my notation beforehand, and study it for yourself, then read it again with my notation, and see what you might have missed):

With notation:

Page iii, Paragraph 4 [personal notes in brackets, blue]:

“... In 1786 [This date is a reflection upon 'modern' 'scholarship'?] Catholic [Roman] scholar Alexander Geddes [Why are the Preface writers [which are supposed to be carrying on the “legacy” of the Protestant [and True] faith, suddenly so interested in what Roman Catholicism's [the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the first Beast of Revelation 13] faithful would say? We are about to find out.] said of the King James Bible [Wait for the sarcasm and veiled mockery to sink in ...], “If [said the devil, Matthew 4:3,6, 27:40; Luke 4:3,9] accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed [Whoa, right where every one could see it! Hey, your split tongue is showing … Psalms 73:9, 109:2, 120:3; Jeremiah 9:5,8] to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent.” [Did you catch all of the sarcasm and veiled mockery? If not, read it again. These Preface writers are either totally ignorant of the true intent and context of the Roman Catholic 'scholar' Alexander Geddes remarks, or they have knowingly, purposefully, presumptuously, boldly and wickedly been accomplice to the broad daylight knifing of the KJB in the “face”. I could perhaps still vote for ignorance if enough evidence was supplied to that end, but in such a case, it immediately does not present a very educated front for those which say they are “scholars”, for if they cannot even get the plain meaning of everyday English, why would I trust them in translation of any foreign and/or ancient tongues into English?] George Bernard Shaw [Now, they're citing an avowed atheist ...] became a literary legend [Legend? To whom? Certainly not any [KJ] Bible believing person. Simply amazing, is the fact, that the Preface writers of the NKJV cite the very two elements/spirits [being one at the root] opposed to the KJB on all fronts, namely the King of the North [Papacy, Religious Humanism] and the King of the South [Atheism, Secular Humanism]:

"...The one withheld from the people the truths of the Bible; the other taught them to reject both the Bible and its Author. ..." - SoP Volume 4, page 192 [but read the surrounding also 190-193, etc]

“14-16 (Ephesians 6:12; see EGW comment on Revelation 5:11). Two Opposing Powers—Two great opposing powers are revealed in the last great battle. On one side stands the Creator of heaven and earth. All on His side bear His signet. They are obedient to His commands. On the other side stands the prince of darkness, with those who have chosen apostasy and rebellion (The Review and Herald, May 7, 1901).” - S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, p. 982.8 (1)​

and see also:

KJB 1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?; KJB 1 Corinthians 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:; KJB 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.] in the twentieth century because of his severe [Ahem, 'foolish', afterall scripture [KJB] says: Psalms 14:1, 53:1 “... The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ...”; Proverbs 30:9 Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.] and often humorous [Ahem, 'folly', KJB Psalms 49:13 This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah.] criticisms of our most cherished values [KJB Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.; KJB Psalms 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.; KJB Psalms 37:13 The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.; KJB Psalms 59:8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.]. Surprisingly [Not really, since Shaw, is merely admiring a poetic “form”.], however, Shaw pays the following tribute [Pshaw! John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?] to the scholars commissioned by King James: “The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators [Indeed, “to” them, but not to himself.] what they were translating was not [What Shaw really believes coming up...] merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture [Did you notice what he really believes?], but the Word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes [Which Shaw, himself, believes none of.]. In this conviction [And since Shaw does not believe in God, the “conviction” came from???] they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic [Notice, He didn't say anything about Truth, but rather “artistic”, ie. “form”, [ie the 'poetic' structure, and lyrical bounce], as the Preface writers are about to refer to.] result.” History agrees with these [Wow! Some praise that was … Be honest, is the sarcasm showing?, if so, perhaps it should be tucked in a little further.] estimates [Here is what all should take notice of, in what the Preface writers are really getting at, as they just agreed with a Roman Catholic and an Atheist, in their subtil mockings. Take careful note, that they are not, I repeat not, saying, that the KJB translators had accurate and preserved materials, but merely that they accurately translated what they had available to them, in which they would say were merely a miniscule amount of late manuscripts, with many emendations by scribes who erred here and there, needing to be corrected by the early Alexandrian texts, and thus simply speak about the outward “form” itself, not the actual texts.]. Therefore, while seeking to unveil [Which means that the Preface writers believe that the KJB is veiled [obscure, dark, needing to be 'enlightened' and/or 'illuminated' [2 Corinthians 11:14]], and needs to be 'unveiled' through the other Alexandrian mss, the so-called LXX, the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, German Socialists – the Kittel's [Gerhard, Rudolph], Hermann von Soden's personal and haphazard collation, and their own petty ideas, etc] the excellent form [Hey, they italicized it for emphasis, and for specific reason, as has been shown. The Preface writers do not believe that the KJB is the word of God.] of the traditional [Traditional?] English Bible, special care [Oh, indeed!] has also been taken in the present edition to preserve the work of precision [Again, take note of the italics here.], which is the legacy [Simply, “form” and “precision”, nothing about the awe-inspiring preservation of God's actual word, or Truth as it actually came down to the KJB translators, etc.] of the 1611 translators. ...”
​

What deception of words in English in the NKJV Preface.

 

[Hobie]

I came across a few verses that have been taken out or partially deleted in new versions which are interesting...

Matthew 18:11 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Luke 9:56 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Acts 8:37 New Versions take out "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."

I John 5:7-8 New Versions take out "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"

Can anyone guess why they took the verses out as these are just a few, there seems to be a pattern here..

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I came across a few verses that have been taken out or partially deleted in new versions which are interesting...

Matthew 18:11 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Luke 9:56 New Versions take out "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Acts 8:37 New Versions take out "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."

I John 5:7-8 New Versions take out "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,"

Can anyone guess why they took the verses out as these are just a few, there seems to be a pattern here..

The verses weren't "taken out" of the bible. The 1611 isn't the standard, the mss are. It is the KJV that actually added things that were not there.

 

[Hobie]

Guess again...they were there but the new versions come up with any excuse to take them out..
Here is a good overview..."Today, the modern translations are based largely on the witness of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts (which come out of the Vatican stable) and a handful of uncials in juxtaposition to the cloud of manuscripts testifying to the opposite. The Vaticanus manuscript was the prime witness to counter the Reformation Bible and the Sinaiticus adds its voice to form the bulwark of the modern translations. Isn’t it fascinating that the foreword of the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses states so clearly what its source of inspiration was? Also remember the furore this translation created when it first appeared because of its numerous alterations, deletions and perversions. The foreword of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures states on page 9:

The Greek text that we have used as the basis of our New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk. Where we have varied from the reading of the Westcott and Hort text, our footnotes show the basis for our preferred reading. We give some definiteness to the background for the renderings of our text by showing in our footnotes the most ancient manuscripts and versions on which we call for support. (As quoted in Burnside – The New International Version or the King James Version.)

The basis for modern Bible translations is the Nestle-Aland text which is based on the same handful of manuscripts described above. In fact Nestle makes it clear in stating explicitly that “the Vatican manuscript is to be preferred above every other manuscript” (Ruckman p. 25). Furthermore, their text, by their own admission, is based on ecumenical considerations and is a dynamic (ever changing) text as the ecumenical climate dictates. In 1968 the UBS (United Bible Societies) and the Vatican reached agreement that only this text may be used as a basis for the new translations, in churches and in Bible studies (Rudolf Ebertshäuser, Der Überlieferte Text des Neuen Testaments und die heutigen Bibelübersetzungen, p.19.) With such an agreement it is obvious that this text is the preferred Roman Catholic text and as such signals their victory over the Reformation and it’s Bible...."Bible Versions, Does It Really Matter Which? | Bible translations

 

[ReChoired]

The verses weren't "taken out" of the bible. The 1611 isn't the standard, the mss are. It is the KJV that actually added things that were not there.

Nonsense, even though you didn't specifically point to a single example, so I will generalize also, see

[1] KJV Bible Vindicated

[2] KJB Articles

[3]

The Mss evidence is overwhelming for the KJB text type. The verses under question were indeed 'removed' (they do not merely 'differ').

 

[CharismaticLady]

Very definitely. The whole point of corrupting the Bible was to change doctrine. Paul even said that he was not like many who corrupt the Word of God.

It would take an entire book to show change after change and its impact on doctrine. Many changes are subtle and require spiritual perception and discernment.

What is interesting is that back then when speaking of "Scripture," Paul was referring to the Old Testament. It was the rabbis who were corrupting Scripture, like divorcing for any reason.