Here is an interesting discrepancy between the KJV and the modern versions, for the newer translations make it appear that the caring ministry of the churches was reserved for those widows who had a male relative, while the widows who only had a female relative were left to fend for themselves. For most women of that time, a tremendous burden would have been laid upon them to provide not only for themselves, but also for another family member who was a widow. Does it not seem strange that the apostle Paul would have left widows and their female relatives to provide for themselves, while insuring that widows who had male relatives would be taken care of by the church? Such a stance doesn't make sense at all!
In the preceding context (5:9-10), the apostle had specified the requirements of a "widow indeed," but one will search in vain to find any statement where Paul said that widows could not be placed on the ministry list if they only had female relatives who could care for them. Feminists of our day would cry out in rage against the renderings of the newer translations if they were aware of their renderings, since they make the apostle Paul look like a male chauvinist who is only concerned for the male relatives of widows.
One of the earliest problems the church struggled with was that of the daily ministry to widows who were a part of the local assemblies. Acts 6:1-7 gives the details of how the apostles dealt with this problem. Interestingly, there is no discussion whatsoever in that passage about two companies of widows, i.e., widows who had male relatives and widows who only had female relatives. Is it not rather obvious that the local churches would probably be reaching out more to those widows who had no male relative(s) to help meet their needs, than those widows who did have male relatives? The KJV makes good sense, while the modern translations make the spiritual leadership of the early churches appear to be cold-hearted towards women. All the reason more to stick with the Received Text.
What are the newer translations speaking of when they refer to "life indeed," "life that is truly life," "true life," and "real life"? Are they speaking of physical or spiritual life? Who will determine the type of "life" that Paul is speaking of in these newer translations? Undoubtedly, most commentaries based on these bibles will assert that this verse is speaking of eternal life, or life derived from Christ. However, only the KJV specifies that the apostle was speaking unambiguously of eternal life.
Realizing that unbelievers read the Bible for various reasons, one wonders what their interpretation of the NIV rendering would be. What would a lost man consider "life that is truly life" to be? Some might consider sexual relations with numerous women to be "the life." We realize that Mormons teach that their men will one day become gods who inhabit their own planets, and populate those planets throughout eternity via many women. For Mormon men, the "life that is truly life" might be considered to be eternal sex with an unlimited number of women. In other words, an eternal lifestyle comparable to that of Solomon's earthly existence with his numerous wives and concubines. We would simply point out that the NIV rendering does not give the specifics of what "life that is truly life" properly intends. Others might consider such "life" to be the accumulation of wealth, good times with friends, enjoying intoxicating beverages, etc. Some might consider such a line of argument to be sophomoric and/or silly, but the fact remains that only the KJV gives the explanation that the "life" that the apostle is referring to is "eternal life." To conclude that the NIV rendering is referring to eternal life is to make an interpretation, but the translation itself does not specify such to be the case. That is all we seek to demonstrate.
As we have seen repeatedly, so once again we encounter an abbreviated text in Titus 1:4. "Mercy" and "the Lord" are dropped from the verse. Do "modern Christians" care if the consolation of God's mercy and the Lordship of Christ are subtracted from their bibles in this verse, or is it no big deal since those two topics are found elsewhere in their versions? The new bibles on the market seem to be quite fond of snatching words from the Bible that just happen to affect the attributes of God. In this case, God's mercy and Christ's Lordship are quietly deleted from the text. If any man declares such to be trivial or unimportant, he thereby reveals an inadequate and deficient view of the sacred text. Verbal inspiration demands that every word of God was inspired of the Holy Spirit. Thus, when the new translations repeatedly erase precious words and thoughts from the pages of Scripture, they come under the judgment of a holy God who is jealous for his Word.
The translation of the KJV clearly delineates the truth that Christ alone accomplished redemption for his people. This verse reveals why the KJV is truly a Protestant translation, forged during a time when the translators realized the wickedness of the papal system, and utilized the traditional text for translation purposes. The Bibles of today are based on a Greek text that the Catholics are also comfortable with, even going so far as to endorse the modern versions with the Catholic imprimatur. However, you will never see such an endorsement for the KJV because Rome despises the Majority text. Consider the translations of Hebrews 1:3 above. Being knowledgeable of the doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism, do you see why she would not be happy with the rendering of the KJV? The two little words "by himself" demolish the need for prayers to the saints and Mary, dependence upon priests and their masses, and the belief that good works help to secure salvation. Nothing can be added to the finished work of Christ on the cross, for human efforts and accompaniments are worthless in assisting the perfect work of God the Son. He alone could provide a perfect salvation! The deletion of the words "by himself" open up a Pandora's box of papal works, rites, and ceremonies to enable sinners to complete the salvation that was begun by Christ, but must be completed by men. Truly, it is amazing what the erasure of two words from the sacred Book has accomplished in the history of the church. If these two words were received and believed by professing Christians, all the doors of Roman Catholic churches would be shut, the massive religious system coming to a complete halt. Would to God it were so!
Neither James White nor D.A. Carson in their books give a reason why this verse is abbreviated in the modern versions, but we would guess that they would state that the KJV rendering is another example of parallel influence, the phrase being previously found in Hebrews 7:17. The NIV includes the missing phrase in Hebrews 7:17, but deletes it in Hebrews 7:21, being based on the Nestle/Aland Greek text. We find it rather strange not to include the phrase once again in 7:21, since the apostle was quoting from Psalm 110:4. Isn't it rather odd that he would choose to quote the entire sentence from Psalm 110:4 in Hebrews 7:17, but not in 7:21? Why choose to omit "after the order of Melichisedek" while once again quoting from an Old Testament passage? The burden of proof rests upon the liberal textual critics who chose to delete the phrase from the ensuing verse, not upon the Majority text that repeats the quote in toto. Westcott and Hort were years ahead of the editors who produced the Reader's Digest Bible a few years ago, for they incessantly edited the text with numerous omissions.
The New American Standard, for whatever reason, chose to add three words to this verse that are not in the original, being signified by placing the words in italics. The result is a translation that is most lacking in sustaining the clear meaning of the apostolic writer. Taken at face value, the NAS makes it appear that one cannot be dogmatic about saying that the Law set forth a blood sacrifice for the propitiation of sins. The rendering makes such a statement to be tentative by the addition of the three words that are in italics. The result is that one may almost say, but cannot positively declare that "all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood is no forgiveness." What was in the minds of the translators when they chose to add these three words to the text? Were they trying to make the discussion clearer for the English reader? If so, they blundered greatly. They actually undermined the doctrine of the atonement being necessitated by the shedding of blood, thereby leaving the door open for some other avenue to assist the shedding of blood. Thus, we have in this instance an addition to the text that causes a distortion, rather than clarity.
We believe that the deletion of the two words "in heaven" do substantial damage to the argument of the apostle in seeking to bolster the steadfast hope of believers who were going through various trials. Did he seek to encourage them by telling them of their "better and lasting possessions" (NIV)that were on earth? Someone says, "Of course not. He was speaking of their heavenly possessions." Such must be inferred from the text, since the reference to the heavenliness of their possessions is not mentioned in the renderings of the modern versions. The KJV alone specifies that the sustaining hope of the persecuted believers was their heavenly inheritance. Why, we ask, did the textual critics feel that the removal of these two words would bring greater clarity to the text? Once again, the modern versions murky the clear waters of God's Word as translated by the KJV.
Notice the differences between the KJV and the NAS and NWT. The latter translations specify adulteresses alone as the subject of the question concerning friendship with the world. It goes without saying that such a rendering seems to absolve the male partners of adulteresses from rebuke. The KJV, NIV, and perhaps the NAB include both men and women who practice adultery, whether one interprets this verse to be physical and/or spiritual adultery. The NAS and NWT find themselves in a precarious position by seeming to pardon adulterers who are in love with the world. One cannot fail to think of the woman caught in the act of adultery, as recorded in John 8. The religious leaders failed to bring the male partner who was involved in the illicit relationship before Jesus for judgment, and in James 4:4 it looks as though the same scenario is repeated. What do you think about the discrepancy? Is it both male and female, or merely female? What is your verdict?
As seen previously (e.g., 1 Cor.5:7), so again we observe the deletion here of two important words: "for us." Is this not the heart of the atonement, that Christ laid down his life for his sheep? Christ did not merely suffer in the flesh as an example for others to follow. He specifically suffered in the flesh for his church. What a difference the insertion of the two words make in this verse. The believer revels in the knowledge that his Lord and Savior suffered for him. His sufferings were inflicted on our behalf. However, the modern versions fail to mention this wondrous fact, choosing to erase the words from the text
One wonders why the originators of the new Greek text in the 1870's decided to expunge the word "forever" from this verse. Was it on the basis of textual evidence, or was it merely a matter of unbelief in the doctrine of eternal damnation? Those who believe in annihilationism or a temporary purgatory would gladly dispense with the thought of a place of judgment that lasts forever. The modern translations do not tell their readership that the mist of darkness is eternally reserved for false teachers, but simply informs them that a black darkness has been reserved for them, whether that be temporal or spiritual. In essence, the readers of these translations must determine for themselves what this black darkness entails. Is it mental, moral, temporal darkness, or is it the darkness of an eternal torment in hell itself? The KJV gives us the correct answer.
There is an old hymn that states, "Sing them over again to me, Wonderful words of life; Let me more of their beauty see, Wonderful words of life." Sad to say, multitudes of professing Christians have been pickpocketed from enjoying all the words of God by the inundation of new bibles that repeatedly delete, subtract, erase, and omit precious words, such as "Christ." Textual critics obviously have an aversion to the name of Christ, for they repeatedly snatch the word from the pages of the New Testament. What a weak foundation these new Bibles give to modern-day believers. As the majority of evangelicals are totally ignorant of the differences between the KJV and the modern translations, they are not even aware that they have been "ripped off" by Christ-denying liberals who have attacked the Word of God by removing words, phrases, and sentences from the sacred text. How many are aware that "Christ" was removed from 1 John 1:7? How many would even care if the missing word was revealed to them? Modern translations have truly desensitized the modern church to the importance of tenaciously believing in the doctrine of verbal inspiration.
Six important words are missing in this verse in the modern translations. My, how those words change the meaning of the verse when they are left intact. Any pastor preaching to his people from this verse in the newer versions would expound something quite different from that preacher who was utilizing the KJV, would he not? And again, why is it that the name of Christ is repeatedly removed from God's holy Word? The apostle John was dealing with the specific issue of Christ's humanity in this verse, so what gave the textual critics the right to remove that thought from the verse? Was the deletion made from a subjective bias? Did they weigh the objective evidence of manuscript support? Or did they once again rely on a few faulty manuscripts that happen to line up with the beliefs of heretics? Well, one things is for sure, the NAS, NIV, NAB, and NWT are good buddies in continually agreeing to disagree with the Received Text that the KJV is based on. This new Greek text that is supposedly superior to the one used by the KJV translators sure makes for strange bedfellows! Who would ever have thought that Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and evangelicals (alias, "Protestants") would be able to join hands together, and that around the Greek text to be used for their respective translations? Well, it has come to pass in our generation. Obviously, Protestants don't have anything to protest against anymore, or so it seems. Westcott and Hort would be proud to see the results of their ecumenical efforts coming to a completion in our day via the modern translations.
Isn't it amazing the way a little pronoun can change the meaning of a sentence, especially when that pronoun is missing from a sentence? The KJV asserts that believers love Christ because he first loved them. The other translations make a nebulous statement about Christians loving because Christ first loved them. Who is it that they love? Others? Jesus? Both? The KJV alone spells out that the love of which John was speaking was the believers' love for Christ.