Customer Reviews

The Accuracy of the Niv

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I chose the NIV Bible in 1995, after having read nothing but KJV my entire life. A few years later, upon hearing things that bothered me concerning the NIV, I chose to educate myself on the NIV translation instead of buying into the slander put out by radical KJV only'ers. I'm so glad I did. And I recently purchased a 2nd copy of this little book for a family member who left the NIV to go back to the KJV because of things now being said about the NIV, which are not true. Do not take my word for it, look into the actual facts.

The texts available for the translators in the time of King James are not as old as the ones we have today. The texts available today show that some words and phrases were actually inserted into the King James Version--not taken out of the newer translations.

Take this example. Imagine that 100 people make a copy of a single page with 100 lines by hand. Number each of the 100 copies 1 through 100.

--Person #17 made a mistake on line 3. But the other 99 copies all match, showing that the difference on line 3 of copy #17 is an error.
--Person #45 made a mistake on line 12. But the other 99 copies all match, showing that the difference on line 12 of copy #45 is an error.
--Person #67 made a marginal note next to line 20. But the other 99 copies all match, showing that the insertion on line 20 of copy #67 is not original text.

Translators can tell by reviewing all available texts that have been carefully dated, what insertions were made at a certain time, because that same insertion is missing in older copies, showing the newer ones are errors.

Many of the insertions in the 4 gospels were also made as a result of Tatian's Diatessoron. The Diatessoron was a misguided attempt to merge all 4 gospels into 1 large gospel, perhaps as innocent as saving paper, or maybe as a way to eliminate questions of the differences in the 4 gospels, and also in an attempt to make them all say the same thing, as if God's inspiration was not good enough. God inspired the differences in the 4 gospels for a reason. There is also a new translation today that is attempting to do the same thing, merge all of the gospels into one, this is not an inspired writing, but man's version of God's.

I would also avoid any paraphrased version, since it is not actually a translation from Hebrew/Greek into English, but is a rewording of an existing English translation into new phraseology. Definitiely not inspired.

There is nothing wrong with using the KJV as long as you understand why it is different and understand that it is NOT SUPERIOR to the newer ones.

Learn the history of the Bible, there were many many versions prior to the King James, the King James was by no means the first, and was actually translated by using manuscripts that are not as ancient as those we have available for translation today. If anyone wants to call any Bible inferior, they should call the KJV inferior, since the newer translations are actually from older manuscripts that clearly show the later ones had scribal insertions and mistakes.

Dr. Barker does a great job of justifying the NIV and some of its controversial renderings. He is kind to caustic reviewers and certainly shows me that he is a competent scholar. His explanations lead me to think better of the NIV, though at times his doctrinal biases slip through.

HERE IS THE Accuracy of the (("NIV")) made plain and clear when compared to the superiority of the KJV; 2 Samuel 21:19 in the New International Version (NIV) says that Elhanan, not David, killed the giant, Goliath. This is not accuracy AT ALL!!! Don't believe me, see for your self:

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim[a] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath[b] the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." -- 2 Samuel 21:19 NIV (1984)

VS

"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the (((brother of))) ===> Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." -- 2 Samuel 21:19 KJV

Virginia Mollenkott was on the translation committee for the NIV. She is a Lesbian who is is a Christian author who has advocated LGBT rights and Christian feminism. She has contributed a major study on the feminine imagery for God in the Bible, and supports the use of gender inclusive language for God. And She was on the NIV translation committee.

"The Bible is the 'words of men' a 'literany production.'"- Ronald Youngblood, NIV Committee.

"I felt bound to abandon the God-dictated-ever-word-from-cover-to-cover attitude."- J.B Phillips, Editor of the Phillips Bible.

"Ever member of the panel was conscious that some of its decisions were in no sense certain" - NEB Committee.

When they say stuff like God inspired only the "concepts" in Scripture, that bothers me! God clearly directed every word and will not tolerate man's meddling with it. He calls them "His Words." If your Bible is a King James Bible, it preserves God's words because it was translated using "verbal equivalence" (translates word for word from Hebrew & Greek into English) and "formal equivalence" (translates the forms of the words from Hebrew & Greek into english. Translates a noun for a noun, verbs to verbs, adjectives to adjectives, adverbs to adverbs, and pronouns for pronouns.) All other Bibles were translated using "dynamic equivalence," in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the "idea." What does that mean? The "dynamic equivalence" means adding, subtracting and changing what God said. I don't want what the scholars think God said or the concepts of what God said, I want WHAT GOD actually SAID!!!

Pope John Paul II's June, 1990 speech in San Francisco booms this reprise, "Everything must change. Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order." Frighteningly, the NIV changes the words in Hebrews 9:10 from "until the time of reformation"-KJV to: "until the time of the new order."-NIV

The NIV has 64,098 less words then the KJV. It has removed over 64,000 words! Crazy, whats even more crazy is people still read it and consider it the word of God! Blows my mind, such "doublethink"...Wake up people! The NIV comes from the same corrupt manuscripts as the catholic (b)ibles. And now they have the TNIV which = Todays Negatively Inspired Version! Remember the "TNIV" is a gender neutral bible i.e. a neutered bible!

NIV = Negatively Inspired Version or the No Information Version!
TNIV = Todays Negatively Inspired Version!
NASB = Not Authorized and Satan Backed!

God said, "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour."-Jeremiah 23:30. and God goes on to say, "...for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God."-Jeremiah 23:36.

Here is what Charles H. Spurgeon said about Bible correctors when he preached about bible correctors in a sermon entitled, "The Greatest Fight in the World." He said,

"We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, "These be thy gods, O Israel!"

Machen had it right and so did Spurgeon. Textual criticism by the "experts" is a horde of little popelings who by their assumed infallibility have the gall to tell us what is God's Word and what is not. Such is the tyranny of the experts.

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are the TWO Bible textual critics that put together the Nestle-Aland Text which is the text-type used for all modern versions of the bible.

The Nestle-Aland Text comes from "Codex Sinaiticus" and"Codex Vaticanus" , which is the Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutralor Egyptian), associated with Alexandria, is one of several text-typesused in New Testament textual criticismused for all new modern bible PERversions.

Here's what Westcott and Hort said about... "The Scriptures, the Deity of Christ, Hell, Creation, and Romanism." And you people set there and attack the KJV-ONLY people!!:

The Scriptures:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2nd Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV).

The Deity of Christ:

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, p.36).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature).

Hell:

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matthew 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.

Creation:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Romanism:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )

"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother. Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild). Westcott and Hort talked to Spirits of the dead. I call it Satanism!

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus:

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that!

You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.

4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.

5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.

Facts about Westcott and Hort:

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men.

The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions:

1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!

2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.

3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.

4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.

5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.

6. Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.

7. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.

8. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.

9. Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.

10. Hort refused to believe in angels.

11. Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.

12. Hort confessed that he hated democracy in all it's forms.

13. Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.

14. While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead (necromancy).

15. The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee.

16. The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.

17. The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.

QUESTION: Does this sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?

Questions for the KJV Critics:

1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved Word:

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?

2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.

3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.

4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).

5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.

6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.

7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?

8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)

9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.

10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!

"Errors" in the King James Bible:

Critics of the KJV have a nasty habit of pointing out what they believe to be errors, contradictions, and mistranslations in the Authorized Version. The sad fact is that they usually point these things out to young men and women in Christian colleges who do not know any better. Many young Christians, including young preachers, are having their faith in God's word destroyed by the very people they look to for spiritual guidance!

These so-called "errors" that are presented by such infidels have been explained and written about so many times that it's a shame to even have to mention it again. There isn't enough space in a booklet of this size to embark upon a lengthy rebuttle of such claims. Besides, it has already been done quite well by others. Nevertheless, for the sake of showing the reader the nature of the so-called "errors" in the AV, we will take the time to briefly deal with just a few:

1. According to the critics, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation, because the Greek word is"pascha," and it is translated "passover" twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and it should be translated likewise in Acts 12:4.

This is what happens when a man is so hung up on "the Greek" that he can't read plain English. It should NOT be translated "passover" because the Passover had already passed. The "days of unleavened bread" had already begun (vs. 3), which means the Passover was over (Num. 28:16-18; Exo. 12:13-18). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out to the people.

2. I John 5:7 is also the subject of much debate. It is argued that the verse lacks manuscript evidence and does not belong in the Bible. Being one of the greatest verses in the Bible on the Trinity, we should be suspicious of any oppositions to it.

The verse should NOT be omitted from the Bible. It is found in Greek manuscript 61, which probably forced Erasmus to include it in his third edition Greek text of 1522.

I John 5:7 is also found in Codex Ravianus, and in the margins of 88 and 629. It is also found in Old Latin manuscripts r and Speculum. It was quoted by Cyprian around A.D. 250, and two Spanish Bishops quoted it in the fourth century (Priscillkian and Idacius Clarus). Several African writers quote it in the fifth century, and Cassiodorus quotes it in the sixth century in Italy.

The fact that Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not include the verse means nothing to a true Bible believer. After all, Vaticanus omits the entire book of Revelation, while keeping the Apocrypha!

3. Many argue that the KJV is in error with it's use of the word "devils" instead of "demons". Again, this is due to an over emphasis on "the Greek" as well as a lack of faith in God's ability to preserve His words in English. While protesting that "daimon" should be translated "demon", many have overlooked a great truth which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the King's English. There is one true "Son of God", but many "sons of God". There is one true "Church", the Bride of Christ, but many local "churches". Likewise, there is one "Devil", but many "devils" under his control.

The word "demon" itself does not necessarily imply an evil spirit. Even Webster's 1828 dictionary states that "the ancients believed that there were good and evil demons...", and New Agers of today believe likewise. Therefore, God led the KJV translators to translate "devils" instead of "demons" because every "daimon" in the Bible IS an evil spirit. The word "devil" makes that clear. Every "devil" in the Bible is under the authority of their father "the Devil".

4. Then we have "contradictions" like Exodus 24:10 and John 1:18. Exodus says the Israelites SAW God, while Jesus said in John that "no man hath seen God at any time". Contradiction, right? No, it's only a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth (which you may not be practicing if II Tim. 2:15 has been altered in your "bible"). God is a Trinity, just like you and I. We're a body, a soul, and a spirit (I Ths. 5:23). The Israelites saw a physical manifestation of God, but not the SOUL of God, just as no one has ever seen your soul.

5. Numbers 25:9 says that 24,000 people died in a plague, but I Corinthians 10:8 says that only 23,000 died. Read I Corinthians 10:8 again and notice that 23,000 fell "in one day". The 24,000 died altogether in a few days.

You see, these are the kind of "errors" in the King James Bible. These are the reasons given for you to throw away your Bible and buy a new one. Don't fall for it. I have learned to always give God the benefit of a doubt, and to count the critics guilty until proven innocent. So far I've been right. Anytime I see an "error" in the KJV I just assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I just pray about it and trust God. I NEVER correct the Book that God has honored for so long. Thank God, I'm not that stupid.

II Samuel 21:19 in the New International Version (NIV)says that Elhanan, not David, killed the giant, Goliath.

So does every other version of the Bible -- different Goliath; long after David slew the infamous giant.

II Samuel 21:19 in the New International Version (NIV) says that Elhanan, not David, killed the giant, Goliath. This is not accuracy.

This was a far differant Golaith then the famous one. David slew the Golaith we all think of before he was King. By the time of 2 Samuel 21 he is alredy king. Therefore it is accurate. People do share the same names you know:> I know bunches of people who have mine.