English Bible Corruptions

I was recently listening to a Bible teacher explain why the NIV was a better Bible than the New King James, his entire argument was personal. He simply said, "he could not understand the NKJ but could understand the NIV". This struck me as odd since both are about the same reading level and use 90% of the same words. The easier to read argument is common, but the easier to understand and get truth argument is much better. It is the parts left out that make the NIV of lessor value. "forgive enemies" is left out of the NIV manuscript, for example.

We are to pass along all the words God gave us.

Some do not like thee and thou, shall and will, but these come from different tenses in Greek, by changing these to generic tenses you lose that in the text. Like in Mark 16, these signs shall follow vs will follow, can have a different meaning. One is conditional vs set in stone. The KJV had a way to differentiate where modern bibles not so much. Yet the KJV isn't perfect, it leaves out definite articles found in the Greek.

In reality, all English bibles are corrupt in that they leave out the definite articles in key verses. There are no true English bibles in existence. The ABP polygot is the only one that contains many of the definite articles, but then the ABP has its own issues. Young's Literal also has a few. Most translators leave them out for their own reasons, not good reasons.

The definite article in Ephesians 2:8 was noted in The Peoples Commentary written in the 1800's, but never included in new translations printed after, including the NIV. Commentators were aware of them. I believe they wanted the faith issues to be left up to personal context and definite articles made that more difficult.

Why would translators be afraid to include the Articles? What else could be corrupt in their translations? How do we get an English translation that contains the definite articles so we can see them?

The reality is that most translations have committees guided by those who are protestant faith churches, or those who believe in infant baptism. The KJV was translated by those who believed in infant baptism and they were fighting against Catholic theology, so leaving out the articles was designed to help their theology advance. They are corrupted toward those theologies. If you note where the definite articles are left out, you can see how they could influence a false theology, it is pretty obvious. 

Catholics prefer Latin because the articles are left out, this gives them the ability to interpret their own context vs being governed by the actual text. The Latin allows them the ability to interpret as they please. It isn't because Latin is superior.

Here are some verses with the definite articles left out.

Ephesians 2:8 through the faith vs through faith

Colossians 2:12 through the faith vs through faith (article removed from NKJ but in KJV)

Philippeans 1:9 joy of the faith vs joy of faith

Phil 1:27 has the article included in some Bibles.

Phillippeans 3:9 through the faith (Twice in verse) vs by faith or of faith

Acts 15:9 by the faith vs by faith

Galations 3:23 before this faith vs before faith

Galations 3:25 but after this faith has come vs after faith has come

Romans 3:25 through the faith in his blood vs through faith in his blood (showing the faith ratified in his blood perhaps)

Romans 3:27 by law the works vs by law? Of works?   

Romans 3:30 and uncircumcision through the faith vs through faith

Romans 3:31 through the faith vs through faith

Romans 4:9 the faith vs that faith  (It is translated with a preposition/article, that can be both, and not a definite article, giving a false optional rendering.)

Romans 4:14 the faith is made void vs faith is made void

Romans 4:19 weak in the faith vs weak in faith 

Romans 4:20 strong in the faith vs strong in faith

Romans 5:2 access by the faith vs by faith

Romans 10:8 the faith we proclaim vs of faith we proclaim

Romans 10:17 the faith cometh by hearing vs faith cometh by hearing

Romans 11:20 standith by the faith vs by faith

Romans 12:6 measure of the faith vs measure of faith

If you were to talk to a Baptist they would always use Eph 2:8 and Romans 5:2 against you, without the articles. That will be the primary basis of their theology. You can see that leaving out articles can be the basis for large corrupt theologies.

It is true that definite articles work different in Greek than English, but they still highlight something specific mentioned within letters, whether before or after the article, sometimes both. These articles let us know that highlighting a generic personal faith is not normally the intended use, but a specific faith highlighted in the text. They could be translated "this" or "the", they shouldn't be silent because they carry an actual thought in Greek. For instance, the faith in Ephesians 2:8 includes that faith mentioned anywhere in the letter, such as Ephesians 5:23-25. Definite articles can highlight antecedent information or postcedent. Or both. They refer to the faith presently being talked about.

As you can see these verses above are all in critical locations where faith is being discussed, they all can change the text from a faith only theology to an "obedience of the faith" theology , which depends upon instruction and obedience through faith. 

Were these definite articles left out intentionally, I assume they were. This would leave us to discover the faith and the purpose of each passage through context, it is possible but unlikely for beginners without help. Opening the door for many faiths to grow. One can't argue the NIV is better since it too leaves out the articles. I believe the Churches of Christ have been correct in their theology simply by discovering context, but this is difficult for the immature, plus without the definite articles it is harder to prove meaning, and allows many false theologies to fester.

English Bibles should show the articles.

There are other mistakes as well. Romans 3:30 for instance, from faith vs by faith. The Greek word ek being mistranslated "by", where the word denotes a beginning or ending, not process. "By" faith is a corrupt rendering, "of or from" faith is more accurate. It does change the meaning and it makes infant baptism way less likely to be accurate. Also in Romans 3:30 the process "by" is mentioned concerning the gentiles, "By the faith", when using process the definite article is used. Romans 5:1 has the same mistake in some versions, from faith vs by faith, faith isn't the process but the source. Since faith is source in Greek, infant baptism doesn't fit as well.

All of these discrepancies in modern English Bibles makes understanding more difficult, and slants toward faith theology vs the faith theology.

Another corruption of English Bibles is in Leaving out verses that tie belief with baptism. Some versions like the NIV are strong toward Baptism but more infant baptism. They leave out Acts 8:37, "if you believe" and Mark 16:9-16 they cast doubt of authenticity in the margins, "believes and is baptized". So that Catholics prefer the manuscripts whereby the NIV comes. They have made a big push in schools to convince others these are the best and oldest codex. They simply are taken out to down play believers baptism. Catholics, joined with other infant baptism proponents, prefer the NIV manuscripts.

That is why they keep translating new Bibles from the same bad manuscripts, NIV, ESV, etc all come from these codex. They will keep translating until we accept the manuscripts they want. It is a form of negotiating. You really shouldn't endorse bibles from that codex.

The fact that they are the oldest in book form sort of proves they aren't the best and oldest, change in form alone highlights they aren't actually the originals. The originals weren't in book form. They weren't in codex form. It can be shown easily they were simply copies made by someone. They differ in many respects to other manuscripts not in book form.

Which Bible is easiest to read is not as important, since all are about the same reading level, which is easiest to understand and get to the truth is also important. The way it is now you can get to truth with context and by believing one verse over another, but it is confusion. The Church would grow much easier with good Bibles, with the definite articles. You wouldn't need context quite as much to express the idea we are saved through a distinct faith vs just some sort of personal faith. The church would grow radically more with proper Bibles.