Various translations of the Bible

In the various translations of the Bible are there significant deviations from the original. If so, why? What is its significance for a true believer?

Below are a list of some of the variations. The list is from some popular versions. This encouraged many new interpretations and caused heresy. See below how two translations differ. Of all the Protestant English translations, King James Version (of all I have seen) has the least errors.






Acts 1:14




Acts 1:20

place of service



Acts 1:22

must join us

must be ordained


Acts 2:42

learning from Apostles

Apostle?s Doctrine


Acts 2:47

to their group

to the church


Acts 2:47

fellowship meals

breaking of bread


Acts 2:27


Holy one


Acts 2:38

God?s Gift

Gift of Holy Spirit


Acts 2:48

who were being saved

such as should be saved


Acts 3:13




Acts 4:30


Holy Child


Acts 6:6




Acts 14:23




Acts 19:18

publicly admitted



Acts 20:7

Saturday evening

1 St. day of the week

( Sunday)


Acts 20:7

Fellowship meal

breaking bread


Acts 20:28

flock which the Holy Spirit

has placed in your care. Be shepherds of church of God

which he made his own through the death of his son

Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood


Acts 22:14


The just one


Acts 22:16

Get up and be baptized and have your sins washed away by praying to him

Arise and be baptized and

wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord


Rom 15:16

Like a priest-

Minister Of Jesus Christ


Rom 16:21

My fellow Jews

My Kinsmen - relatives


1 Cori 1:18

Who are being saved

Who are saved


1 Cori 4:1




1 Cori 5:13

As the scripture says

these words are not found


1 Cori 7:5

For Prayer

For fasting and prayer


Acts 7:17

I teach

I command


Acts 10:16

The cup we use in the Lord?s and which we give thanks to God when we drink from it we are sharing in the blood of Christ

The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ?


Acts 11:2


ordinances I delivered


Acts 11:3

God is superior over Christ

note: In Living N.T. - they use ? Christ is responsible to God?

The Head of Christ is God


2 Cori 2:17

We are not like many others who handle God?s message as if it were cheap merchandise but because God has sent us, we speak as servants of Christ

We are not?? which corrupt the word of God?.. we speak in Christ


2 Cori 5:20

We are speaking for Christ? we pleaded on Christ?s behalf let God change you from enemies to his friends

We are the ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray in Christ?s stead you be reconciled to God


Gala 4:19

Until Christ?s nature is formed in you. I wish that people who are upsetting you ..let them go and castrate themselves

Until Christ is formed in you .. I wish they were even cut off which trouble you

(St. Paul did not say to castrate)


Eph 1:7

by the death of Christ we are set free that is our sins are forgiven

In whom we have redemption through his blood for the forgiveness of sins


Phili 1:1

Church leaders and helpers

Bishops and Deacons


Phili 3:3

We do not put any trust in external ceremonies

We have no confidence in the flesh


Colo 1:2

By his son?s death on the cross

the blood of his cross


Colo 1:25

Servant of the Church

Ministers of the Church


2 Tess 2:15

those truths

The traditions which have been taught


1 Tim 3:1

A Church leader



1 Tim 4; 6

Good teaching

Good Doctrine


1 Tim 4:11

Give them these instructions

Command them


Tim 1:5

to appoint

to ordain


Heb 2:12




Hew 13:7

former leaders

The rule over you


James 5:16

Confess your sins

Confess your faults


1 John 1:9

If we confess our sins to God

If we confess our sins


I John 2:20

But you had the Holy Spirit poured out on you by Christ

You have an unction from Holy One

Note: Unction - an anointing ointment that which is used for anointing. more details later


1 John 5:7

Three witness the Spirit, the water and blood

There are there that bear record in Heaven - the Father , the Word, and the Holy Spirit

What are the significance of these changes? (click here)

For the time being this is enough, as there are hundreds like this, enough that books may be written on it. This proves the point that translators have made their own changes from the original version! [I recently went to a Christian Book store and was amazed by the title of Bibles I found there. Bible for Man, Bible for Woman, Bible for Afro-Americans, Bible for kids, KJV, All American, Bible for Modern Man and so on. There is only one Bible that is inspired, and the others are man made.]

17. Why this difference in translations?

To answer this question, we have to analyze two points. 1) Who codified the Bible and when was it codified? 2) Who made the changes, when, and why?

Ever since the Bible was codified, the church owned it; because the church codified it in the Council of Carthage in AD 397. And thus the Church was its custodian. This is why St. Augustine said, Since the Church owns the Bible, I believe it. Its interpretation also belonged to the church. During those days the Church stood as a mighty pillar of the true faith, the body of Christ and as one against which the gates of Hell could not prevail. Later reformist groups began to make changes to the Holy Bible. Thus people like Luther, Calvin, Single, Matthew etc. brought different versions and different interpretations of the Bible into the English and other languages.

Even Luther who started the reformation, became uneasy about this trend [painfully heartbroken to see Gods words modified, twisted and changed] and wrote Now there are so many sections as there are heads. Some do not need Baptism, some reject Sacraments, some others teach that there is a third world life for a person between this world and the end of the world. Some says Christ is not God. One person says it in one way and another person another way. It has come to this situation that if one sees a dream or one feels so, he decides that it was a revelation to him by the Holy Spirit and declares himself as a prophet. (Rebuilding the Lost Faith - Pg. 386 Griser, Luther IV).

The Bibles by Wycliffe (AD1382), Tyndale (1535) came out and many copies of the early editions were burned by order of Cuthbert Tunstall, the Bishop of London who was offended by Tyndale's translations of various ecclesiastical terms, such as Congregations for Church and Senior for priest or Elder.

Then came the Coverdale Bible, (1535) and Matthew's Bible (1537). This was the first Bible that was printed with the Royal permission.

Some of the other translations are:

  • Travaners Bible (1539)

  • The Great Bible (1539)

  • Wittim Graham (1557) - This bible was the first one, which formatted the Bible into separate sentences.

  • Ganeva Bible (1569) - became popular among the Puritan Party.

  • Bishops Bible (1568)

  • Raim's New Testament (1582)

  • Authorized Version (1611)

  • Revised Version (1881, 1885). This had the most significant changes, compared to the prior ones. Mistranslation again have been corrected where ever necessary? [Helps to study of the Bible]

It is obvious that from the 16th century, many translations came and each translator made considerable changes during the process.

Those responsible for the Authorized Version Translation submitted a request to King James which was We shall be maligned by self conceited Brethren, who run their own ways and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves and hammered on their anvil.? This proves that so many translators did their works as they pleased.

Even the early Protestant scholars were of the opinion that the early translations were full of mistakes. Dixon says, unless one is a fanatic Protestant, one will agree to the fact that early translations were full of serious errors. Ward in his book Errata proves that these errors were not accidental, but purposely introduced. Bishop Eikot in his book says that the translated versions have many additions which were not found in the original Bible. Blunt, another Biblical scholar, in his book says that? The personality of the translators were such that, it was easy for them to get the respect of the public. (Keys to the knowledge and use of the Bible)

Robert Gell, who was a member of the revising committee and who was a chaplain to Arch Bishop Abbot tells - as many times the truth has taken a back seat to the interest of many sections and voted out (truth), as required by different sections of people.

We have seen lots of differences between translations and most of the translations did not do justice to the original. Now let us see how some of these changes affected the true faith. Please refer to the above table ( question 16) and see how each of these changes were used to twist the original church teachings.

Refer to Numbers From the above Table (Question 16)


(How changes mentioned in question 16 are used to change the teachings of the original Church)


They had to prove that Mary had other children too, and so to prove that she is not a virgin. Hence they use brothers


To prove that there is no position of Bishop or episcopacy

3, 42

To prove that Ordination (of Priests) is not necessary


To prove that there were only teachings from Apostles and no Doctrines


To prove there is nothing like church, only groups

6, 16

To prove that there was no breaking of bread, but just fellowship meals

9, 22

To prove that for salvation, no Church is necessary or that one need not be a member of the church.


To satisfy the section of people who believes that Jesus is not Son of God and there for not equal to God


To prove that there was no Deacon positions in the early church


To prove that there was no ordination, but just appointment


To prove no one confessed to the apostles and they have no right to absolve your sins


To prove that there is no importance to Sunday


To prove that those elders who were given position were not guided by the Holy Spirit


To give the impression that baptism does not absolve one's sins.

20, 21

To prove that Christ has no ministers or priests


To prove that fasting (and lent) is not required - they left the word fasting


Apostles has no right to command, but only to teach


The cup of blessing is not the communion of the blood of Christ


To satisfy the section who believes that Christ is not God

30, 32,33

Faulty translations

31, 41

To prove that the Apostles or their successors are not the representatives of Christ


To give impression that there were no deacons or Bishops in the early church


Proves that there is no need of external ceremonies

38 ? 40

In early church there were no Doctrines or traditions


Church means just a fellowship


Added a word to prove that anyone can confess to anyone


Added a word to support another view


To prove that to receive Holy Spirit, no unction is necessary

Yes, it is shocking for any independent scholar to see all these changes in the different translations. All these changes were made for ones own selfish gains.

The "Soul Winners New Testament Bible" has substituted the wordbaptize with immerse. This book also uses the word immerse in Holy Spirit. In the Good News Bible, they use Holy Spirit poured on you.

Again in Mark 11:3, it is written The Lord has need of it [Colt]," In Good News Bible it is written He will return it soon ie. Christ will return the colt!

Ruthor Ford established the Jehovah Witness, in 1870. He was 29 years old at that time. They have their own New Testament. In 1954 F.W. France, this group's president, revealed how they received their interpretation of the Bible. They are passed by Holy Spirit who invincibly communicates with Jehovah's witness. This section does not consider the Son and the Holy Spirit as God.

Again, The Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the fastest growing religion in the U.S., is based on a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1820. They have their own Bible and their own interpretations. Orson Prat a famous scholar in that church asks, whether if there is a single sentence in the Bible now, that is original? (The cults page 88).

These 'churches' have their own New Testaments and their own interpretations

18. Since most translations are distorted, which version is the original?

As you have seen from the table in Question 10, the different books of the New Testament were written during the period AD 60-100. It is widely accepted that some of the books were written in Aramaic and some in Greek (but used lots of Aramaic words), which was also the prominent language in Palestine at that time. [Some scholars are of the opinion that nothing was written in Greek, as no one knew Greek there. Jesus Christ taught in Aramaic, as common man understood no other language. So it is unlikely that anything would have been written in Greek. What is the use of writing in a language not understood by the people?]

Josephus wrote (AD 42): I have taken a great deal of pain to obtain the learning of the Greeks and understand the elements of the Greek language; although I have accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness. There have been many who have done their endeavors, with great patience, to obtain this Greek learning, there have yet been hardly two or three that have succeeded herein. (Antiquities XX, X1 2) (George Lamsa's Translation)

Many scholars believe that it is very unlikely that the Epistles targeted for common man, were written in a language understood only by a few.

Aramaic was the language of the of the common people during the time of Jesus Christ. It is certainly the language of the Semetic culture, the language of the Hebrew Patriarchs and in the older days, the lingua franca of the Fertile Cresecent. The term Hebrew was derived from the Aramaic word Abor or Habor, which means to cross over. This name was given to Hebrews because Abraham and the people who were with him crossed the river Euphrates and went to Palestine. Therefore they were known by those who lived east of the river Euphrates as Hebrews, that is the people across the river (Lamsa's Peshitta Translation). Another view is Aramaic was the mother-tongue of the region comprising of present Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq. This region was called Aram, after Aram, Sem's fifth son. Aramaic is the oldest of the semantic languages. Aram, the father of Armenians, was the grandson of Noe, while Heber the father of the Hebrews was the great great grandson of Noe.

The earliest manuscripts of the Bible are in Aramaic, and different versions are available which dates back to 2nd, 5th and 7th centuries. Astonishingly enough, all of the Peshitta Texts in Aramaic agree. There is one thing the eastern churches can boast about. They copied their holy books diligently, faithfully and meticulously. Sir Frederic Kenon, the curator of the British Museum, in his book Textual Criticism of the New Testament speaks highly of the accuracy of the copying and of the antiquity of Peshitta MSS. The versions translated from sematic languages into Greek and Latin were subject to constant revisions. Learned men who copied them introduced changes trying to simplify the obscurities and ambiguities, which were due to the work of first translators. The present translators and Bible revisers does the same, when translating the Bible.

The Scriptures in the Church of the East, from the inception of Christianity to the present day, are in Aramaic and have never been tampered with or revised as attested by the present Patriarch of the Church of the East. The Biblical manuscripts were carefully and zealously handed down from one generation to another and were kept in the massive stonewalls of the ancient churches and caves. They were written on parchments and many of them survive to the present day. When expert scribes copied these texts, they (the copies) were carefully examined for accuracy before they were dedicated and permitted to be read in churches. Even one missing letter would render the text void. Easterners still adhere to God's commandment not to add or omit to a word from the Scripture. The Holy Script condemns any addition, subtraction or modification to the Word of God."

  • You shall not add to the commandments which I command you, neither shall you take form it, but you must keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you (Deut. 4:2)

  • "Everything that I command to you, that you must be careful to do; you shall not add nor take from it. (Deut. 4:2)

  • "Do not add to his words; lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar. (Prov. 30:6)

  • And if any man shall take away form the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his portion from the tree of life and from the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19)

The term Peshitta means straight, simple, sincere and true, that which is the original. The name was given to this ancient and authoritative text to distinguish it from the other Bible revisions and translations which were introduced into some of the Churches of the East after the division at Ephesus and Chalcedon in 431 and 451 AD respectively. This Peshitta is still the only authoritative text of the Old and New Testament of all the Eastern Christians in the Near East and India, the Roman Catholic Church in the East, the Monophysites and Indian Christians. This was because this text was in use for 400 years before the Christian Church was divided to several sects. (George Lama's translation)

The originality of the Peshitta Text is strongly supported by the early evidence. Aphraates quoted it. St. Ephraim wrote a commentary on it and the doctrine of Addi placed it at apostolic times

The names Aram, Aramaeans and Aramaic were changed, during the course of time into Syria, Syrians and Syraic. The Greeks were responsible for this change. And Aramaic Christians gradually became reconciled with this change of name (Syro-Chaldaic grammar by Fr.Gabriel)

Peshitta version of the Bibles existed in the 2nd Century. The Peshitta version of the Bible was made about the first or second century. (Helps to the study of the Bible Oxford page 7)

These isolated manuscripts were collected, examined, and approved by the early church fathers only in AD 389; and thus the New Testament became part of the Holy Bible. Soon after the New Testament was translated into Latin, this New Testament was in use till the 14th century. From the 15th century (see the list below) onward, different protestant groups began to make their own Bibles through distorted translations to suit their arguments.



Popular Posts