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.

Which Version Most Glorifies Jesus Christ, Part 3

We may well expect the Holy Ghost to bear abundant testimony to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as He glorifies Him. It is interesting to notice that in numerous instances the word Lord is deleted from the modern versions in places where it occurs in the AV. These several testimonies to the Lordship of Jesus Christ must not be considered unimportant. The Saviour Himself once based a doctrinal question on a single occurrence of the word Lord in Psalm 110:1 which He quoted in this passage:

Matthew 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Hence, we should never de-emphasize any place in the Bible where the Holy Spirit employs the word Lord. Notice these examples of the usage of the word Lord in the AV. In Matthew 13:51 the disciples called Jesus “Lord.”

Matthew 13:51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

In Mark 9:24 the father of a boy possessed of a devil prays to Jesus addressing Him as “Lord.”

Mark 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

In Luke 7:31 the gospel writer refers to Jesus as “Lord” when quoting Him.

Luke 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?

Then the apostle Paul gives Jesus Christ the title of “Lord” in all of the following passages of his epistles:

2 Corinthians 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

Colossians 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom….

Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

This word Lord is missing from every one of these examples in the RSV, NASV, NIV, LB, DCV, and ESV. In fact, in the citation of Luke 7:31, the whole phrase “and the Lord said” is missing. The LB at least inserted the words “Jesus asked,” but left out the title “Lord.” Some might argue by pointing to the several instances where Jesus is mentioned in the AV without the title of “Lord.” Nevertheless, Jesus is called “Lord” more in the AV than He is in the RSV, NASV, NIV, LB, DCV, and ESV. Hence, the AV glorifies Christ more in this respect than do these other versions. And remember, each place the Holy Ghost employs the word Lord is important, as we saw above. Doesn’t it glorify Christ more to have the praying father call upon him as Lord, than to simply call upon Him without addressing Him as Lord? Doesn’t calling someone “Lord” magnify that person? Think about it.

Then note this further testimony in the AV to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

This is a clear proof that the second man, Who is Jesus Christ, is the Lord. That expression “the Lord” is missing from the RSV, NASV, NIV, DCV, and ESV. In these verses Jesus is merely said to be the second man from heaven rather than identified as “the Lord” from heaven. The LB says, “Christ came from heaven above.” But none of these versions tell that this man is the Lord! This demonstrates a distinct contrast between the AV which outright declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ in this verse and the other versions that do not! This again confirms that the AV is the testimony of the Holy Ghost glorifying Christ.

One of the single most important places where Jesus Christ is called Lord is found in the prayer of the dying thief who was crucified next to Jesus.

Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

The thief addressed Jesus as “Lord.” According to 1Corinthians 12:3, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” This unmistakably reveals that the Holy Ghost was working on that thief, moving him call Jesus Lord. Yet this word Lord is deleted from the thief’s prayer in the RSV, NASV, NIV, LB, and ESV. It seems the more recent and widely popular ESV is just as corrupt as the rest of the modern versions. Note how these versions delete the very evidence of the Holy Spirit leading a man to acknowledge Jesus as Lord. The AV unquestionably bears the mark of the Holy Ghost in this verse as opposed to these other versions. In this case the Roman Catholic DCV agrees with the AV. 

John the Baptist clearly exalted Christ above himself as is evident in this verse:

John 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

That expression “is preferred before me” is missing in the RSV, NASV, NIV, LB, and – you guessed it – the ESV. Yet they have John quoting these words of his in verse 30! But they don’t give the words in verse 27 that he was quoting in verse 30. On the other hand, the AV has John speaking these words in verse 27 and then quoting himself in verse 30. In this instance the AV glorifies Christ in verse 27 in plainly saying that He is preferred before John the Baptist. The AV is also more consistent in that it renders the words John refers back to in his statement in verse 30. Here again, the Catholic DCV confirms the AV. So far we have found DCV to line up with the AV on three verses (John 3:13; Luke 23:42; JOH 1:27), which can’t be said of these other versions used among Protestants and Baptists so called.