Bible Translation Comparison

If we base our beliefs about how we live and die on the writings found in the Bible, then we need to understand where it came from. That’s why I have spent the last few units explaining the history of the Bible.

We have seen how the King James Version (KJV) is translated from a more faithful source than many modern versions. Today, we will examine some of the differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Texts (MT). We will also compare the Textus Receptus with other Alexandrian-type texts.

But first, let me ask you a question. If I ask you to take a message to someone in another country that speaks a different language, you would have to translate my words. Does that mean the translated words are no longer my message?

Even if the language changes, that doesn’t mean the message (or meaning) has changed. The only way the message changes is if the meaning changes. For example, “yes” in English and “sí” in Spanish both mean “yes.” However, if you say “no” in English and then translate it as “sí,” you have changed the message.

Does It Matter If There Is a Difference?

So why does this matter? If the Septuagint (LXX) and Alexandrian-type texts are simply copies of the originals, then they should carry the same meanings as any other copies of the original. If the messenger is translating my words, it shouldn’t matter if the translation is into Greek or Spanish. Both languages should still convey the same message and meaning.

The Bible is no exception to this rule. If the KJV is a copy of the original and modern versions are also copies of the original, they should say the same thing. But as we have already shown, they do not come from the same source, and they do not carry the same meanings consistently.

It has been said that the differences between the KJV and other versions are minor. These include different spellings of words, grammatical errors, missing or added words, and slight shuffling of word order. But do these “minor” differences change the message?

For the most part, the answer is no. For example, I can say “The ball is blue” or “The blue ball,” and you will still understand that I am talking about a blue ball in both cases. Thus, grammatical differences, spelling variations, and word order changes don’t always alter the meaning.

However, when the meaning does change, it is important to determine the correct meaning. This is why I have been emphasizing the authority of the KJV.

Often, modern versions use a combination of the Masoretic Texts and Textus Receptus (the sources for the KJV), along with the Septuagint (LXX) and Alexandrian-type texts. This blending of sources causes subtle differences, such as those found in the New King James Version (NKJV), which incorporates a small amount of the Septuagint and Alexandrian-type texts.

In some cases, a verse may omit something vital but include it elsewhere. This results from the combination of different types of originals. While the overall message may remain the same, there can be conflicts when studying individual verses in detail.

Essentially, even modern Bibles can still be trusted to convey the same overall message. However, if a witness testifies to one thing in one instance and then contradicts themselves in another, would that witness not come under suspicion of perjury?

Jesus said that a little leaven will leaven the whole lump. The Bible also states that no scripture is of private interpretation. All scripture is interconnected, like a chain. If there is one weak link, the entire chain falls apart.

A Matter of Trust

It is important to understand this because these weak links can affect our trust in scripture. Without knowing which version is authoritative, we risk misunderstanding God’s word and potentially damaging our faith.

For many, the question of authority might not seem essential—some believe the Bible without question. However, for others, it is a foundational issue, one that their faith may depend on. That’s why we are covering this.

What I am telling you is not meant to tear down one version of the Bible or exalt another but to build understanding and confidence in scripture. By understanding which Bible is authoritative, you can avoid the uncertainty of thinking the Bible contradicts itself and instead trust the consistency of God’s word.

Bible Translation Comparison

Having said all that, I think it’s important to provide some examples. What are some examples of differing messages between various translations? To examine this, we will compare the KJV (King James Version) and the NIV (New International Version), which is known for its use of the LXX (Septuagint).

Please note that other translations may also vary slightly. However, this comparison is intended to demonstrate the potential confusion and harm that can arise when there is uncertainty about which Bible translation is authoritative.

Here are a few examples of verses with differing meanings across translations:

Isaiah 14:12
In the KJV, Lucifer is referred to as “the son of the morning,” while in the NIV, he is called “the morning star.” Jesus Himself is referred to as “the morning star” in Revelation 22:16 in both the NIV and the KJV. This raises an important question: when the Bible mentions “the morning star,” is it referring to Jesus or to Satan?

This distinction is significant but is minor compared to some of the other differences we’ll examine.

Daniel 3:25
In the NIV, the passage describes “a son of the gods,” whereas the KJV reads “The Son of God.” Although this might seem like a small change, there is a substantial difference between “a son of one of the gods” and “The Son of THE God.”

Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:7
In the NIV, these passages state that God “punishes the children for the sins of the parents.” However, the KJV says that God “visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children.” The difference between “visiting” and “punishing” is critical.

This distinction has significant theological implications and has led many to believe in the false doctrine of being “born guilty of sin.” We address this topic in another unit, but in summary: the term “visiting” implies that the consequences of a parent’s sins may affect their children.

This is not the same as punishing the children for their parents’ sins. Punishment is a corrective action imposed on someone who is guilty of sin. Consequences, on the other hand, are the results of sin and can impact anyone affected by it, whether guilty or innocent.

Psalms 2:12
The passage in the NIV portrays Jesus as short-tempered and quick to anger. In contrast, the KJV emphasizes that even a small measure of His anger is destructive if He were to become angry. This difference has significant implications.

If the NIV is taken as authoritative, it would contradict other scriptures that describe Jesus as being slow to anger. The KJV avoids this contradiction by focusing not on how quickly Jesus can become angry but on how destructive His anger can be if (not when) it is kindled.

Micah 5:2
In the NIV, this passage describes Jesus as being “from ancient times,” which implies a beginning and does not necessarily convey eternal existence. However, the KJV states that Jesus is “from everlasting,” clearly affirming His eternal nature.

This distinction is critical, as the NIV’s rendering diminishes Jesus’ deity, suggesting He is not God eternal.

1 John 4:3
In the KJV, this passage asserts that any spirit that does not confess that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God—it is the spirit of antichrist. The NIV omits the reference to Jesus coming in the flesh, which means the passage itself fails to confess that Jesus is come in the flesh.

This omission raises questions about the spirit behind the Alexandrian-type texts, which form the basis of the NIV and similar translations.

Philippians 2:6
In the KJV, the passage declares that Jesus “did not think it was robbery to be equal with God,” affirming that Jesus considered Himself equal with God.

The NIV, however, states that Jesus “did not consider equality with God something to be used to His own advantage,” while the ESV renders it as “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”

These translations directly contradict each other. The KJV affirms Jesus’ deity, while others imply He was merely human and unable to attain equality with God.

Matthew 9:13, John 6:47, Revelation 22:14
In Matthew 9:13, the NIV omits the words “to repentance,” which are vital to understanding salvation. In John 6:47, the NIV states that belief alone is sufficient but fails to specify what to believe, unlike the KJV. In Revelation 22:14, the NIV removes the requirement of repentance, instead saying we must simply be washed.

These omissions significantly alter foundational doctrines about salvation, reducing the emphasis on repentance.

Galatians 5:12
In the NIV, Paul expresses a desire for those troubling the saints to have their genitals cut off. The KJV, however, states that Paul wants those individuals to be excluded from the group—declared as not part of the body of Christ.

This difference has implications for church discipline and the understanding of being partakers in others’ sins. Such a misinterpretation could potentially lead to much harm.

Mark 9:29, Matthew 6:13, Luke 11:2
In Mark 9:29, the NIV omits fasting, which is included as essential in the KJV. In Matthew 6:13, the NIV fails to acknowledge that the kingdom, power, and glory belong to God. In Luke 11:2, the NIV goes further, denying that God’s will is to be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Additionally, it does not mention Heaven at all.

Hebrews 10:34, Revelation 16:17, 1 John 5:7-8
In Hebrews 10:34 and Revelation 16:17, the NIV similarly excludes references to Heaven. In 1 John 5:7-8, the NIV removes mention of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Some argue this exclusion is due to these words not being present in the original texts. However, the Textus Receptus (used for the KJV) includes these words, as do manuscripts such as Codex 61, 88, 221, 429, 629, 636, 918, and 2318.

It is only the Alexandrian texts that the words are not found in. This exclusion reflects the personal preference for Alexandrian texts, which, as addressed in earlier studies, are not as reliable as the Textus Receptus.

Mark 10:24
In the NIV, this verse states only that it is hard to enter Heaven. The KJV, however, clarifies that it is specifically hard for those who trust in riches.

The truth is that it is not hard to enter Heaven—all it takes is Jesus. However, it is impossible for those who place their trust in anything other than Jesus. The KJV ensures the focus is on where our trust lies, not on the difficulty of salvation.

Luke 4:4, Revelation 2:15, Romans 8:1
In Luke 4:4, the NIV omits the crucial detail that man lives by every word of God. Revelation 2:15 fails to mention that God hates the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Similarly, Romans 8:1 in the NIV omits any reference to repentance, altering the understanding of salvation.

1 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 26:29, Matthew 27:48
In 1 Timothy 3:16, the NIV avoids fully confessing that Jesus came in the flesh, instead ambiguously referring to “a body” without specifying what kind. Matthew 26:29 and Matthew 27:48 introduce another discrepancy. The KJV clearly states that Jesus drank vinegar, not wine vinegar, as the NIV claims. This change implies that Jesus contradicted His own statement about abstaining from wine until the kingdom of God is fulfilled, making Him appear as a liar.

Key Omitted Verses and Their Implications

The omissions in modern translations like the NIV significantly alter biblical teachings as well. Here are some examples:

Acts 8:37 – The KJV teaches that belief must precede action, highlighting the necessity of faith before baptism. Without this verse, the emphasis on genuine belief is lost.

Mark 11:26 – The KJV warns that God will not forgive those who refuse to forgive others. The omission removes the clear consequence of harboring grudges, reducing forgiveness to a mere suggestion rather than a divine requirement.

Mark 15:28 – The KJV shows Jesus fulfilling prophecy. Without this verse, an essential fulfillment is absent, undermining Jesus’ claim as the Messiah.

Mark 9:44 – This verse in the KJV emphasizes eternal torment in hell. Without it, the doctrine of eternal punishment becomes ambiguous.

Mark 16:9-20 – Although present in the NIV, a footnote casts doubt on this passage, undermining its authority and theological significance.

These verses highlight the significant theological differences between the Masoretic Texts (MT) and Textus Receptus (TR) versus the Septuagint (LXX) and Alexandrian-type texts.

Comparison and Summary

Alexandrian-type texts: These translations often fail to confess Jesus as both fully God and fully man. They limit repentance to turning from unbelief to belief, excluding the call to repent of sin itself. They imply that Jesus lied, did not fulfill all prophecy, and deny eternal torment for sinners.

Masoretic Texts and Textus Receptus: The KJV, based on these texts, upholds the doctrines of Jesus being 100% God and 100% man, the necessity of repentance from sin, and the integrity of Christ as well as the fulfillment of prophecy. It also affirms the reality of eternal punishment for sinners.

Modern Bible Translations: A Cautious Perspective

While there are significant issues with modern Bible translations, God can still use them to bless and guide you. For many, these differences may never affect their faith, as the overall message remains consistent:

Humanity is fallen and separated from God. Sin has consequences. Jesus died and rose again to pay the debt for our sins. We must believe and accept Him as Lord.

Modern versions still retain most of God’s Word and can aid in understanding difficult passages. However, where they differ from the KJV, it is wise to defer to the KJV as the ultimate authority.

Unit 1:12 – The Apocrypha OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God