The fact that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, is a central belief of all who base their faith on the Bible. Then why would a modern translation committee agree to a wording that states that he was?

The KJV has it right when it states: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." So, when the NIV translators came up with: "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him," what were they thinking?

It's hard to believe that "eminent" scholars would just make a "mistake." If that is true, then what else did they bungle?

Or is this a subtle tip-off to their personal belief?

There are numerous passages in the NIV that appear to detract from Christ's divinity. Another example is Micah 5:2 which predicts the birth of Jesus and where he would be born. The KJV verse ends: "...whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The NIV reads: "..."whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." This wording clearly suggests that Jesus had an origin in ancient times instead of being eternally God "from everlasting" as the KJV indicates. Did the translators not believe that Jesus was God eternal?

Chick Salliby, in his book If The Foundations Be Destroyed, details over a hundred places where the NIV distorts the clear message of the KJV. Many of them seem subtly designed to confuse the reader's understanding of Christ's teachings, His divinity, or His history.