What do you mean by "testing the spirits", and if you go back to the original Greek you can see the intent of the writer, or you can compare your version to the KJV which is tried and tested..

Here is part of the comparison Proffesor Veight did...

KJV
(King James Version)RSV-------------(Revised Standard Version)-----------NIV(New International Version)

1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
---For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
---For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
---( missing )


Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
---Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
--- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,


Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
---wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
---and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
---wash your sins away, calling on his name.
__________________

The problem with some versions is that it is not a just a'different translation', sometimes there is editing to take out whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with their doctrine or traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own... and I like where the professor adds 'You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV...'

So its not just a 'different translation' with some versions....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The Textus Receptus (the vast majority of copies from original, and what the King James is based on) has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands....


"...Textus Receptus

Before we considerthe King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17th century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.

Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2) The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim, under whose editorship it was printed in in 1524-5).
Two Bibles


In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller's first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:
Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). For 45 years I was in this camp; but I thank God for opening my eyes.
Those who only study Bibles based on the Majority Text, from which came the Received Text - Textus Receptus. I have now joined this camp.
Fuller continues: Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)
Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?

The answer is because:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
Reverend Gipp comments further:
Quote: "The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents themajority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3)


Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book: Quote: "Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' " (Ref:B4)
In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus: Quote: "Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref3) In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:
Quote: "For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text… If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be."(Ref: E1)
__________________

for anyone interested this is an article by our pioneers back in the day on the kjv.

some thoughts by our pioneers on the "common version" aka kjv

review and herald VOL. XVIII. BATTLE CREEK, HIGH,, THIRD-DAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 1861. No. 23.

Words Added to the Scriptures in the Common Version.

ITALIC letters are used in the common version to denote the words and phrases, which have been added by the translators to complete what they supposed to be the sense. Many of these are mere human additions to the words of inspiration. A few examples will make this plain,

In the 19th Psalm, David, contemplating the glory of God in the material heavens, exclaims:
" Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth
knowledge."

But lest this might impart an erroneous impression, he adds,

" No speech! No language ! Their voice is not heard ! but their line hath gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

As Addison says:

"What though nor real voice nor sound Amidst their radiant orbs be found ?
In reason's ear they all rejoice, And utter forth a glorious voice, Forever singing as they shine The hand that made us is divine."

But in the common version this idea is completely changed by the addition of italic words, making the psalmist say:

" There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

In Matthew xx, 23, our Lord says:

" To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but for whom it is prepared of my Father."

The meaning here is plain. Christ gives it only to those for whom it is prepared by the Father, this meaning is completely changed by the words inserted in italic, which make the passage read:
" It is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."

By these words it is represented that Christ has not the power to give, thus contradicting his declaration that all power is given to him in heaven and earth.

In many passages the word man is inserted, limiting or destroying the sense of the original, which is none, or no one. In John x, 29, our Saviour says of his sheep, " No one is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Our version makes it, " No man is able.

So in Hebrews x, 12, the word man is inserted, where it is not in the original. The sense of the passage is much injured here, and in various other places, by such an insertion., The manhood of Christ is not here referred to, but his priesthood.

2 Cor. iii, 3 : "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men, manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ," is changed by inserting the useless and perverting words, " For as much as ye are."

"Words in the Common Version Mistranslated,

THE number of words and phrases in the common version that do not express the meaning of the original, have never beeu accurately computed. Dr. Conquest lately published a. Bible with twenty thousand emendations. Some of these alleged amendments undoubtedly are changes which do not introduce much
improvement, and others may be regarded as doubtful, but the great body of them are those which commentators and other scholars have proved to be needed to express the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. Any one who has examined the revision of Job by Dr. Conaut, and carefully compared it with the common version, must be convinced that the errors of the common version are far more numerous than is indicated by the work of Dr. Conquest. A few examples will show their character :

Matthew vi, 25. " Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat,or what ye shall drink." This inculcates an improvidence about temporal matters, which would bring confnsion and distress into every household. The meaning of the original is,

Be not anxious, etc.

Matthew v, 25. " Offend," This word frequently occurs in the New Testament. The original word never means to cause offense, but to cause to fall, entrap, to allure to sin, etc.

Acts vii, 45. " Jesus" is put for Joshua,

Matthew xxiii, 24. A typographical error, substituting " AT" for out,gives the idea of an attempt to swallow, instead of that which the original furnishes, "straining out."

Teresa,

Oh how I wish people today would be so careful about the message and purity of God's Word! The (per)versions of Scripture which abound today would soon fail to find an audience if such were the case; and perhaps we would have a truly improved translation from the Textus Receptus that would have fixed these errors without adding more errors into the equation.

Where are the Tyndales, the Husses, and the Jeromes today? I know oh-so few people today who would be willing to die to preserve God's Word. So many have allowed It to become compromised.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The NIV was my main Bible before I switched to the NKJV. I don't remember having a particularly hard time establishing the everlasting nature of God's law.


I'm no NIV lover, but I think it can be done. First, find the verse that tells us that love is the foundation of the law. Then, find a verse written after the cross that tells us that love is still important. Then, find a verse that tells us that God and love are inseparable. IIRC, all of those are in the NIV. In fact, it's easier to use the NIV because the KJV uses "charity" (which is an amalgamation of agape and eros, or so I'm told) instead of "love" in the verse.

you know, there was a time when i wouldnt touch the kjv. the reason? it appeared to be a mysogenist bible. it was the one the most prejudiced against women used. it was also the one the most prejudiced period used.

i got over that.

not real inclined to pick up anyone elses errors. but if you feel the need to be kjv only person, well that is your right.

but why do sdas keep coming up with, and supporting these side issues, nary a one that is going to get us into heaven? betcha theres going to be a lot of people in heaven who read the "wrong" version, but were looking for God and not error.

Teresa,

I'm a bit puzzled in trying to piece together your line of reasoning here. In the "Ellen White" thread, you seem quite defensive of her writings, and do not wish for them to be altered. Here is your most recent post there:



And then you say this in this thread:


Are you saying it's less important if errors creep into the Bible than if it were into Mrs. White's writings?

Regarding EGW, you asserted "but i would prefer to make sure that i am speaking the absolute truth." Can you understand how I might also feel just that way about the Bible? I would prefer to make sure it is speaking the absolute truth. After all, my salvation may depend upon it. Ignorance will excuse no one. The truth is what sets us free.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well you have to check what it is based on, if it is the Textus Receptus it is very hard to change the meaning with so many copies, 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. This ensures the integrity of the words and meaning, but if you use the Egyptian/Minority Texts which is a few copies which have gnostic influences and other corruptions, then you are looking for trouble.

And more and more modern Bible versions are picking this corrupted texts, here is what I found on this, ".....Most modern English Bible versions are translated from Greek new Testament texts (Hort/Westcott -- Nestle/Aland) based on primarily two sources--Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.



Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are part of a group of texts called the "Minority" Texts, because the texts in agreement with them are very few in number.
(These two texts do not even agree with one another).
(In the 1800's two men, Westcott and Hort made another Greek New Testament
text from the Minority Text which included Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since
the time of Westcott and Hort another revision was created called the
Nestle/Aland. Nearly all of the new translations of the Bible are based upon
one of these two Greek New Testaments and not the Textus Receptus. That
means that the newer versions are based on 5% of the manuscripts in stark
contrast to 90% on the other side)





Compare this to the thousands of texts confirming the agreement and reliability of the Textus Receptus or "Majority" Text.
The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or Jesus as the Son of God.
The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. (pause and consider that stunning fact).
The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.


"The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: '

"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

In the world today, there only really exists tWo classes of Bibles; those based upon the
Textus Receptus and those based upon the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek
New Testaments. If a person has a New International Version, New American Standard
Version, or Revised Standard Version, he is reading from the Westcott/Hort,
Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments that are only supported by 5% of the
existing manuscripts

When we understand the differences between the texts, all we have left to do is decide which source we find to be the most trustworthy--the Majority Text, from which the Kings James Bible comes (a word for word translation), or the Egyptian/Minority texts, which is the source material for almost every other English Bible version (most using the paraphrase --thought for thought method)...

http://endtimeoutreach.com/whichbible.html

http://www.bkdesign.ca/translations/part1-3.html

Others even non-SDA have noticed the changes of this minority text...

"...During a Sunday morning service I was asked to read the verses... I did not like what I read from my NASB in 1Corinthians 11:24. It said: "This is my body, which is for you." A key word was missing, the word "broken". It should have read "This is my body, which is broken for you (KJV)." It's the most important part of the verse. It gives the application, and purpose. That put some questions in my mind and spirit concerning this translation. I have read other verses that were not perfect in the NASB, as there are in the KJV. However, this is a verse of critical importance to me. I began studying and with some research I have come up with numerous mistranslations in the NASB and NIV; all in key areas of importance. These areas have to do with the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith, the blood of Jesus, His second coming, and judgment of the saints. All are in areas having to do with our faith, salvation and hope..."

"...I knew something was wrong in the NASB; because key verses were either changed, or had missing words. In simple language, the NASB and most modern versions are translated from what are known as the 'minority' texts. ....I also found out where these minority texts came from, and that they had been corrupted. They are held by the Catholic Church, who is and has long been behind the effort to destroy the Word of God that we have. Don't forget all the men who endangered their lives and suffered and some being martyred by the Catholic Church for trying to give the common man the Word of God in their own language, to give them worship music in their own language, and teach them that they could and should read the Bible for themselves without having a Catholic priest to interpret it for them.
These corrupted texts contain numerous other books, such as the Apocrypha, and the Gospel of Barnabas, etc. The corrupted texts came out of Alexandria, Egypt; being accomplished at the hands of Origen, who was promoted by the Catholic Church as a great early church father, but was in reality a heretic...."

others have noticed the changes of this minority text...

"...During a Sunday morning service I was asked to read the verses... I did not like what I read from my NASB in 1Corinthians 11:24. It said: "This is my body, which is for you." A key word was missing, the word "broken". It should have read "This is my body, which is broken for you (KJV)." It's the most important part of the verse. It gives the application, and purpose. That put some questions in my mind and spirit concerning this translation. I have read other verses that were not perfect in the NASB, as there are in the KJV. However, this is a verse of critical importance to me. I began studying and with some research I have come up with numerous mistranslations in the NASB and NIV; all in key areas of importance. These areas have to do with the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith, the blood of Jesus, His second coming, and judgment of the saints. All are in areas having to do with our faith, salvation and hope..."

"...I knew something was wrong in the NASB; because key verses were either changed, or had missing words. In simple language, the NASB and most modern versions are translated from what are known as the 'minority' texts. ....I also found out where these minority texts came from, and that they had been corrupted. They are held by the Catholic Church, who is and has long been behind the effort to destroy the Word of God that we have. Don't forget all the men who endangered their lives and suffered and some being martyred by the Catholic Church for trying to give the common man the Word of God in their own language, to give them worship music in their own language, and teach them that they could and should read the Bible for themselves without having a Catholic priest to interpret it for them.
These corrupted texts contain numerous other books, such as the Apocrypha, and the Gospel of Barnabas, etc. The corrupted texts came out of Alexandria, Egypt; being accomplished at the hands of Origen, who was promoted by the Catholic Church as a great early church father, but was in reality a heretic...."

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/which_ve..._accurate.html

you have read some variations to what i actually wrote, my brother.