Which Version Most Glorifies Jesus Christ, Part 4

The very foundation of the Christian faith is the certainty of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Notice how the AV attests to this fact of the resurrection in this verse:

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God….

According to the AV, the proofs of Christ’s resurrection are infallible, that is, they are not liable to prove false, erroneous, or mistaken. There is no mistaking the proofs of Christ’s resurrection. Here the AV glorifies Jesus Christ in attaching the maximum certainty to His resurrection. The NASV and NIV have changed the truth of God (Romans 1:25) in that they change the word infallible to the word convincing. Anybody should know that some things have been convincingly proved only to later be found erroneous. Just because someone convinces you of something does not of itself make it true. On the other hand, infallible proof is incapable of such error. In this case, which version most glorifies Jesus Christ in attaching the most certainty to the bedrock of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ? The RSV, LB, DCV, and ESV do not attach any adjective or adverb to describe the proofs of Christ’s resurrection. To them, the proofs are neither infallible nor convincing. They flatly detract from the glory of Christ in this verse as opposed to the AV. Here the AV undoubtedly ascribes more glory to Jesus Christ.

A most Christ-honouring confession was made by the Ethiopian eunuch as recorded in this verse of the AV:

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 

This great confession is left out of the RSV, NIV, and, yes, the ESV. The RSV, NIV, and ESV have a footnote stating that other manuscripts contain this verse, but they obviously do not think it sufficiently authenticated to be inserted in the text. It is curious that these versions enumerate the verses of Acts 8 exactly as the AV. So as you read along you jump from verse 36 to verse 38 with no verse 37 in the text. This breaks up the text. The Lord Jesus Christ said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). If verse 37 belongs in the Scripture – and it does – then the RSV, NIV, and ESV are not the Holy Scriptures. They are corruptions and perversions thereof. As for Acts 8:37, the NASV, LB, and DCV all have it in the text. But they have a footnote that calls its authenticity in question thus casting doubt on this beautiful confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The NSRB, which claims to the be AV text, joins in and questions this text in a footnote. And the NKJV also has a footnote citing the fact that some manuscripts omit this verse. But why bring that up if not to lend to an argument that it might not belong there? In the examples I am giving in this series of blogs, check the footnotes of the NSRB and NKJV and you will find other examples of calling the authenticity of the AV text in question. Of course, leaving this verse out or questioning its authority neatly accommodates those who practice infant sprinkling rather than believer’s baptism. Now which version do you think most glorifies the Son of God in this passage? The one with the eunuch’s testimony inserted without question, or the ones that either leave it out of the text or cast doubt upon it?

The AV magnifies the redemptive work of Christ is Hebrews 1:3.

Hebrews 1:3 …when he (Christ) had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high….

That little prepositional phrase “by himself” magnifies Christ in setting forth the sole-sufficiency of His work in purging sin. He did it “by himself.” No church, no priest, no preacher, no soul-winner helps Him do this. Yet this prepositional phrase is missing from the RSV, NASV, NIV, LB, DCV, and ESV. Thus they discard one of the clearest testimonies to the sole-sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross. In this case, which version most magnifies Christ’s accomplishment on the cross thereby giving glory to Christ alone? Which sounds like the testimony of the Holy Ghost?

The AV in keeping with the ministry of the Holy Ghost further glorifies Jesus Christ in stating that the Abrahamic covenant of promise “was confirmed before of God in Christ” (Galatians 3:17).

Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The prepositional phrase “in Christ” is not found in this verse in the RSV, NASV, NIV, LB, DCV, and, as we have come to expect, the ESV. These versions detract from the glory of Christ in not setting Him forth in this verse as the very One in Whom God’s covenant of promise stands! In Galatians 4:7 the AV also magnifies Jesus Christ in stating that the child of God is “an heir of God through Christ.”

Galatians 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

This shows Christ to be the means whereby we are heirs of God. The prepositional phrase “through Christ” is missing in the RSV, NASV, NIV, LB, DCV, and ESV. Thus the very means of our inheritance is missing from this verse in these versions. In these two passages in Galatians, which version most glorifies Jesus Christ? The one that sets Him forth as the surety of the covenant and the means of our inheritance, or the ones that do not? Which sounds like the testimony of the Holy Spirit?

So far we have seen where all the modern versions in some way give less glory to Jesus Christ than the AV with the exception of the NKJV and the NSRB.  The NSRB claims to be the text of the AV, but we will see it depart in the next installment. We have yet to see the NKJV fall out step with the AV in omitting or changing words that give more glory to Christ. Sadly, however, we have seen the omissions and changes mentioned in the footnotes of the NKJV. But we find the NKJV is also guilty of running counter to the Holy Ghost in magnifying the Son of God. In this verse taken from the gospel of Mark the AV has this testimony of the death of Jesus Christ:

Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

In rendering this verse, the NKJV straightly contradicts the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ. It renders this verse this way: “And Jesus…breathed His last.” The RSV, NASV, NIV, and ESV also render the verse the same way. Anyone who understands the doctrine of the resurrection knows that Jesus did not breathe His last when He died. Bless God, He breathed again three days later! These versions thus deny the resurrection of the body of Jesus with this rendering. In no way is this the testimony of the Spirit of prophecy. The Holy Spirit would never detract from the glory of Christ in His resurrection. In this case, the AV is plainly shown to be the testimony of Jesus Christ. The LB shows better sense here and confirms the reading of the AV. The DCV edges toward the corrupt versions and uses the word expired¸ which can be defined as “breathing one’s last.” As usual, the testimony of the AV clearly glorifies Jesus Christ.