We spend too much time arguing about this rather than winning souls for Christ and honoring God with our lives.

God has preserved His Word. He didn’t tell us how He would do it. I’ve read most of the new translations. Still preach out of the KJV and like it. But don’t see the need to bash other Bibles. Nor do I see the need to “critique” and look down on those who choose (through their own God-given free will) to make it their Bible.

Then I came across a passage in I Kings that I did not understand so I tried to look it up in the NIV to get better understanding. It wasn’t there. It was then that I decided to not rely on the NIV so much.

Hope all is well.

I appreciate your kind comments here.

Sorry it took so long to respond (I’ve been battling colds and have been otherwise occupied).

Anyways, there are 2 ways to look at words “left out”. They are either “left out” or “added in”. I hope we agree that we want to be most accurate to what God actually said.

There are many places where the KJV leaves out words that are in the modern versions. Also, as in the places about the blood, there is no systematic removal of the teaching on the blood. Even if in one or two places the word is removed. Same with the titles of Jesus.

There are places where the modern versions are more clear and direct about the deity of Christ than the KJV. We have to be careful about judging texts and translations by how doctrinal they sound versus how accurate they are. There is much evidence that some copyists and editors spruced up the text to make it sound more theological and orthodox. There is also evidence of times when heretics tried to cut out words and books from Scripture. All this needs to be considered when we look for the correct and accurate reading.

In the KJV 1 John 5:7 is a clear proof of the Trinity. But sadly, those words were added to Scripture. They are only present in the text in 4 copies (only 1 of which dates earlier than the 12th century). They go back to one scribe who added in words from a commentary/sermon in the margin of his copy, and later copyists thought those words were original to the text. If 1 John 5:7 had been original, it would surely have been cited in the doctrinal controversies surrounding the Trinity in the 3, 4 and 500s. But it wasn’t.

What is amazing about this example is that the Church still came to the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, even without the words of 1 John 5:7 to give it further credence. So here we see how God preserves proper doctrine even when he allows a mistake to be perpetuated for a while in this text. The words of 1 John 5:7 are not Scripture they have been added to Scripture. We must be honest and admit this, even though the words themselves are good and true.

I hope that helps you somewhat in understanding where I’m coming from in this issue.

Thanks and God bless,

Bob Hayton

David