Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 102

Bible Discussion Forum

Ask (or answer) Bible questions here. Join or start a Bible discussion now!

Thread: Which Bible version shall I use

  1. #1
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Which Bible version shall I use

    Introduction
    Hello, many may find the information in this study shocking, and shocking it is, however it is the truth and we must understand it. It is shocking that the facts and evidence herein are very real, and it is saddening that the situation has been allowed to come to pass. But the worst thing of all is that most Christians are totally unaware of the danger facing them, and it seems that nobody is willing to talk about it. May we broach the subject now with you now?
    Those, whom we as God's children have trusted throughout the centuries to safeguard the Sacred Biblical Texts have in fact betrayed God and us by slipping corruptions into the manuscripts that all the newer Bible versions were translated from; newer meaning those after the original King James Bible (KJV / A.V.) , and then those who didn't know any better passed them along as being good and sound Scripture. Thank God that He has preserved His Word in the King James Version Bible which has been read, studied, and trusted for four-hundred years. If you study from or quote Scripture from any of the newer Bible versions, including the: New King James Bible (NKJV), or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible (the Newest blasphemy on the market)...., then this study is a "must read" for you! And once you find out the whole ugly truth, what will you then do?
    Jer 5:30-31
    30 A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
    31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof? (KJV)
    Certain men throughout time have gone about to corrupt the Word of the Lord, it started in the Garden of Eden when satan challenged God's Word in [Genesis 3:1]: "Yea, hath God said...?". Those men who seek only to destroy and remove God's Word could not corrupt the King James Version Bible because it had been around so long and there were so many copies available for the people to compare to. So what did they do? They came out with the newer Bible versions telling the people that they are 'easier' to understand, but not telling them that those same newer Bible versions have 10% less words than the King James Bible. And when you see that what they omitted was God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, important Salvation doctrines... you shall be shocked! This study is about those newer versions of the Bible.
    "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." [Matt 13:25]
    People are being told that the newer Bible versions came out because the King James Bible was hard to read, but this was not the reason at all, nor is the King James version hard understand once you get used to the Old English words (most of them simple one syllable words). In fact, the Flesch-Kincad research companies Grade Level Indicator shows the King James version (KJV) easier to understand in 23 out of 26 categories.
    Flesch-Kincad Reading Grade Level for Comprehension of the Bible Versions:



    From the sampling above it should be clear that the word changes were not for ease of reading as they have said; I mean, there is no reason to replace the word "fat" to make it easier to understand, who doesn't know what "fat" means? And then to replace it with "verdant" ???, something is wrong here.
    So if they didn't really make the newer Bibles with easier words to read, why did they change the words? The answer is simple but sickening: COPYRIGHT LAW$! For them to be allowed to publish and COPYRIGHT a new Bible version, they have to substantially change the work. The 'Derivative Copyright Law' states that the newer work must be MORE than a minor alteration of the text but must contain SUBSTANTIAL differences to be eligible for a copyright. Why would they care to have a copyright on their new Bibles? Answer: $$$.
    Would it surprise you that the holder of the Copyright of the New International Version Bible also holds the copyright for Hustler magazine - pornography. Rupert Murdock, called "Media's prince of Darkness" by Chicago columnist Mike Royco, owns the copyright & exclusive printing rights on the most sold newer Bible version in the world, the NIV (through Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, which he owns). Murdoch also owns the copyright on another corrupt Bible version, the Amplified Version.
    2 Pet 2:3
    3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their ****ation slumbereth not. (KJV)
    But the 'good old' King James Version Bible (KJV) is not copyrighted. If you see a copyright in the front cover of the King James Bible it is for the maps and the concordance in the back of the Bible, the text of the King James Bible has never been copyrighted. If you want to excerpt more than 200 words from the NIV or the Amplified Version of the Bible you need to get permission from Rupert Murdoch, through his people of course, the same thing goes for Hustler 'nudie' Magazine.
    To set the record strait, only the King James Bible (KJV) is in an uncorrupted state. All other Bible versions come by way of different manuscripts than that of the King James Bible. These 'other' manuscripts all trace their roots back to Alexandria Egypt in the 2nd - 4th century A.D.
    But first a word about the picture to the right. it is an original facsimile of the Title Page of the original 1611 King James Version Bible. The Bible cover simply said "The Holy Bible." The King James Bible was the first mass-produced Bible version available to the every day man. You will notice that the Bible was not originally called the "King James Version," it was simply called "The Holy Bible," for all the modern Bible versions would not be written for hundreds of years. It only began to be called by the name "King James Bible" when newer Bibles came out. This was done to distinguish the newer versions from the original King James Version. There is only one Holy Bible, and that is the King James Bible.
    We must also understand that those who pass along the newer Bible versions most times do so being unaware that the text of those versions have been compromised. So don't be too hard on your Pastor or Bible Teacher if they are using a newer Bible version like the NIV, NASB... (a more comprehensive list is given later in this study), but do gently tell them!
    1 Tim 1:11-13 (Apostle Paul speaking)
    11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
    12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
    13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. (KJV)
    At the end of this study we have placed a list of study sources that will take your study of this matter to greater depths. In particular, Gail Riplinger's books (listed at end of this study) have been instrumental in bringing this information to light, and we thank the Lord for her blessed work in this area of expertise.
    So we see that most of the people that use these newer corrupted Bible versions do so because they simply haven't been shown that they are in fact corrupt, and those who teach from them likewise haven't been alerted. On the other hand, those who first entered the corruptions into the Sacred Textual Manuscripts knew exactly what they were doing (we will cover them later in this study), for they were doing satan's work. We shall concern ourselves most in this study with the New Testament Greek Text, specifically the Alexandrian Texts: the Codex Vaticanus {B} (now in the Vatican, Rome), and the Codex Sinaiticus {Aleph} ( in St. Petersburg, Russia).
    Jude 1:4
    4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (KJV)
    We also will make mention of the Old Testament Hebrew Text later in this study, for there is also a corrupt version of it called the ben Asher Text based on the Leningrad manuscript B19a (A.D. 1008) and used in all the newer Bible versions for their Old Testament. The King James version Bible utilized the sound and correct ben Chayyim RabbinicText. More on that later...
    It is the sole endeavor of this Bible study to expose the student to the issue and then supply them a reference list of competent study aids to further that study should they wish to. But we must state that it is with joy that through this study we shall also observe that the text in our good old Authorized King James Version Bible (also called the 'KJV' or the 'AV') translated from the Received Text or Textus Receptus, is accurate, sound, and true to the Word of God as He gave the words to the Prophets and Apostles to place into the original Biblical Manuscripts. We pray that the Lord God guide us in our study of His Word. For the Word of the Lord reigns forever: "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." [Luke 21:33].

  2. #2
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Ps 12:6-7
    6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (KJV)

    Isa 30:8
    8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever (KJV)
    Some glaring omissions from the corrupted manuscripts and 'newer' Bible versions:
    Only a minute portion of the glaring omissions from the corrupted manuscripts and 'newer' Bible versions are included in this study. At the end of this study the reader will be given a booklist of reference works that more comprehensively collates the individual verse comparisons in the different Bible versions compared to the King James Bible version. The purpose of this Bible study is not to redouble their efforts, but rather to alert the reader to the problem. Let's look at some of the so-called errors in the King James Bible, and throughout this study we will document that the King James Version Bible had it right all along and that the newer versions are the ones that contain the corruptions. The reason that I refer to the omissions in the newer versions as 'corruptions' rather than errors is because it will be seen that it was a concerted effort to consistently remove certain points of Scripture while leaving others unmolested. let's look at 1st Jn 5:7-8, and observe that it can be no error that they methodically left out 24 key words documenting the Holy Trinity:


    *NOTE: Not all NIV Bible editions read exactly alike! The same goes for the other newer Bible versions. That in-and-of-itself should alert the Bible student that something is dreadfully wrong with the newer Bible versions. I mean, how can they justify correcting the Scriptures from one edition of the same Bible version to the next every several years or so? And it is this same they that told us that we had to replace the Manuscripts used in the King James Bible (Textus Receptus - Received Text) since AD 1611, and that they needed to make new Bible versions and we had to buy them because they found older, more reliable Manuscripts! If you smell something 'funny', you're right.
    Later on in this study we shall examine just who the they are. The same goes for the many newer Bible versions, as the corrupt text they are all based upon is always changing as new Manuscripts, Papyri, and Scrolls are recovered by Archaeologists. Countless times the newer Bibles have had to release newer modified editions of their same versions to keep up with the new evidence - and when they do change something from one edition to the next, it almost always moves toward aligning with the original King James Bible! That in itself says a lot.
    The Textus Receptus (Received text), the text underlying the 1611 King James Version Bible, has been the same for some 400 years to our present day. The Scripture references supplied in this study are from the Biblesoft PC Study Bible Complete Reference Library 3.0. (An excellent and recommended complete computer Bible study software program)
    1st John 5:7 (Illustrated above) is the single most powerful witness of the Trinity (God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit). the Corrupt Manuscripts (Sinaiticus,Vaticanus) used in the newer Bible versions omit the key words.
    They simply omitted the key words supporting the Holy Trinity! The newer versions say it doesn't belong, but it is the single most powerful witness of the Trinity. But do these powerful and key words belong in the text? You bet they do, let's look at some authorities for those key words:
    Latin Manuscripts: There are between 10,000 extant (existing) Latin manuscripts, 29 of them don't have it, all the rest of the 10,000 of them that contain the verse do have the key words.
    Sirac Version: The Sirac version also has them.
    German Bibles: As well, all pre-Luther German Bibles have the verse. Martin Luther then omitted it as he based his Bible on Erasmus' corrupt 2nd edition manuscript which does not contain the verse. Two years after that, the German Bibles put it back in. Then in 1956 to the present time it has once again been omitted.
    Greek Texts: There are only six to eight Texts out of the some 5,000 extant Greek Texts that do not have the key words in the verse!
    Perhaps one of the most telling proofs that the verse was included in the original manuscripts is evidenced by the writings of one of the early Church Fathers - Cyprian, who in his writing: "Treatises" found in The Ante-Nicene Christian Library (5:423): included a quote from 1st John 5:7. In the verse quote from Cyprian he writes: "...and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit, 'And these three are one' "
    Cyprian died in A.D. 258, some one-hundred years before the compilation of the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts from which all the newer Bible versions are based upon. And his (Cyprian's) quote of 1st John 5:7 supports the King James Bible version's inclusion of the key words and opposes the newer Bible versions in their omission of them!
    Four of the strongest and most point-blank references to the Holy Trinity (Triune Godhead) in the New Testament are omitted in the newer Bible versions: The one we have just studied in depth and the below three. Look what they have done to them, it would seem from the newer Bible versions that there is no longer a Holy Trinity - God forbid! They have changed the Holy Trinity into some generic 'force'.

  3. #3
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark:
    Now let's look at Mark 16:9-20. The Codex Sinaiticus (the text on which the newer Bible versions are based) does not contain the last twelve verses of Mark chapter 16. But were these verses originally in the Word of God? Of course they were. We will observe below how they were omitted in the manuscript that the newer Bible versions were taken from. First let's look at a verse that pretty much sums up how God feels about those who would take away from His Word:
    Rev 22:18-20
    18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
    20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (KJV)
    A Monk in the 17th century admits to forging a page of the Holy Manuscript:
    The letter count (number of letters in a column) on the page of the Sinaiticus manuscript that contains Mark chapter 16 is not consistent with the rest of the letter counts on the other pages. In other words, someone has altered that particular page by removing twelve whole verses, and then tried to 'stretch it out'! In doing so, that particular page would always be inconsistent with the other pages. The picture at right is not the page of mark chapter 16, however, it is a facsimile page from that actual manuscript that was altered, the Codex Sinaiticus (Matt 10:17-11:2). You can see how it would be impossible to remove twelve verses from any given page and not have it detectable, for the pages run full, back to back, four columns, 48 lines to a column. To remove twelve full verses from a page without it being detectable, you would have to change every subsequent page until the end of the manuscript. You will notice the care in which the text is laid down in uniform order, try to remove twelve verses and not be caught!
    A Monk in the 1800's admitted that he himself "wrote" the page of the Sinaiticus manuscript that contains Mark chapter 16, after that, nothing much has been spoken of it. That particular page of the Codex Sinaiticus has now been officially deemed a forgery.
    The Codex Sinaiticus was supposed to have been written in the fourth century A.D., (it is not dated) it was discovered in part in 1844 and discovered in it's 'entirety' in 1859. In the various different printings of the new version Bibles taken from the Sinaiticus manuscript (NIV, NASB et al) the last 12 verses of Mark chapter 16 are either omitted all together, or included in [brackets] with a footnote challenging their authority.
    For instance, in the 1986 NIV Witness Edition by Zondervan Corporation, Mark 16 stops after verse eight then a disclaimer is inserted which reads: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark16:9-20." After those words of un-assurance this particular edition of the NIV supplies verses 9-20 (not always the case in the newer Bible versions). The average reader who isn't aware of the dubious origin of the NIV would read that insert and not trust in the final 12 verses of our Father's Word in the book of Mark.
    This is significant to say the least! For it is within the omitted verses, in verses [15-16] particularly, that we find "The Great Commission" in Jesus' own words telling us to spread the Gospel.
    Mark 16:15-16 (Jesus speaking)
    15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed. (KJV)
    Also in the omitted verses [Mark 16:9-20] we find:
    • In verse [11] a direct reference to Luke 24:10-11.
    • In verse [12] a direct reference to Luke 24:13-35.
    • In verse [15] a direct reference to Matthew 28:19.
    • In verse [18] a direct reference to Luke 10:19, Psalm 58:4, Psalm 140:3.
    • In verse [19] we have a Messianic prophecy spoken of in Isaiah 9:7, which Jesus Christ Himself fulfilled.
    There are no extant (existing) Greek Manuscripts older than the fourth century, the oldest two Greek uncial Manuscript copies, the Vaticanus {B} and the Sinaiticus {Aleph} are without those last twelve verses, however, of all the others, consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive Manuscripts (those which contain the Gospel of Mark), there is not one which leaves out these twelve verses! Yet the newer Bible versions translated from the two corrupt Manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) omit the verses or include them but state that they don't belong (which is almost just as damaging). Why?


    When confronted with the discrepancy, those who support the newer Bible versions (NIV, NASB, RSV...) will offer in their defense that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the oldest extant GREEK Uncial Manuscripts. And they would be correct in stating that fact, but what does that prove? Could it not simply be that the corruption of those texts was done in the forth century AD? Those two Manuscripts are the oldest COPIES of any Greek manuscripts that exist today, but they were supposed to have been written in the forth century, say in A.D. 330, but the original autographs (which are long lost) were written in the A.D. 40's - 90's, almost three hundred years prior to these two manuscripts being copied. And while they are supposed to have been written in the forth century, they were not 'found' until A.D. 1481 (Vaticanus), and A.D. 1859 (Sinaiticus). Hardly reassuring is it?
    However, the Papyri, which were discovered in the 1950's, date back to A.D. 180-220 which are earlier than both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (A.D. 330). The Papyri support the reading in the King James Version (from the Textus Receptus). So when they simply state that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older than any other GREEK Manuscript they are being somewhat deceiving, for they lead the reader to believe that they are older than any other Biblical Manuscript - which they ARE NOT!.
    Perhaps some day we will unearth a Greek Manuscript older than the forth century, then some day an older one than that older one... Or perhaps some day it will be proven that the Codex Vaticanus {B} (now in the Vatican, Rome), and the Codex Sinaiticus {Aleph} ( in St. Petersburg, Russia) are forgeries from the 14th century or so. If one knew the true nature of the Catholic Jesuit Priesthood, they wouldn't exclude that possibility.
    And if I were a betting man that is where I would place my bet. For the omissions and alterations are very Catholic and New Age in nature and fit in quite nicely with the Vatican's ecumenical movement (interfaith harmony). But, in fairness I must say that at this time there is no evidence that they are forgeries (other than the page of the Sinaiticus that the Monk admitted to 'writing himself' in the 17th century). I wonder if the Vatican would release a fragment of the Sinaiticus for radio-carbon dating.... You see, if anyone had forged parts or the whole of those Manuscripts they would have had no idea that at a future time (such as today) that we would have the means to accurately date the animal skins that they are written upon. The Dead Sea Scrolls (Old testament Texts) have been dated by such manner.


    So are we without evidence to support the readings of the KJV? No we are not. You see, there are other writings extant, made by the Church Fathers even before the forth century when the corrupt manuscripts were written. There are also other copies of the Holy Scriptures copied long ago into languages besides the Greek. Let's examine some of the witnesses that prove that the King James Bible was correct to include the last 12 verses of the book of Mark. Remember, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are the oldest extant GREEK Manuscripts. ):
    • The SYRIAC Version: The Syriac version of the New testament Scriptures is the oldest in its various forms: the "Pe****to" (2nd century), and the "Curetonian Syriac" (3rd century). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (5th century) and the "Jerusalem" (5th century).

    • The LATIN Versions: Jerome (A. D. 382), who had access to Greek Manuscripts older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to the 2nd century, and contains these verses.

    • The GOTHIC Version: (A. D. 350) contains them.

    • The EGYPTIAN Versions: the 'Memphitic' (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "Coptic"), belonging to 4th or 5th century, contains them; as does the'Thebaic' (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "Sahidic"), belonging to 3rd century.

    • The ARMENIAN: (5th century),The ETHIOPIC: (4th - 7th century), and The GEORGIAN: (6th century) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.
    This brings us to the early writings of the Church Fathers: Whatever may be their value (or otherwise) as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.




    There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A. D. 300 and A. D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.
    • PAPIAS: (about A. D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 3, 39).
    • JUSTIN MARTYR: (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).
    • IRENAEUS: (A. D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).
    • HIPPOLYTUS: (A. D. 190 - 227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).
    • VINCENTIUS: (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian.
    • The ACTA PILATI: (2nd century) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1853, pp. 243, 351).
    • The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS: (3rd or 4th centuries)quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.
    • EUSEBIUS: (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by Marinus from a lost part of his History.
    • APHRAARTES: (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16 -18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i., p. 21).
    • AMBROSE: (A. D. 374 - 97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv.15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v.20 (once).
    • CHRYSOSTOM: (A. D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".
    • JEROME: (born 331, died 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation; besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.
    • AUGUSTINE: (Fl. A.D. 395 - 430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.
    • NESTORIUS: (5th century)quotes V. 20, and:
    • CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA: (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.
    • VICTOR of ANTIOCH: (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many Manuscripts which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.
    Dr. Bullinger, who prepared the The Companion Bible in the late 1800's utilizing the Text of the King James Version Bible writes: "They [the last 12 verses of Mark] contain the promise of the Lord, of which we read the fulfillment in Hebrews 2:4. The testimony of "them that heard Him" was to be the confirmation of His own teaching when on earth: "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of pneuma hagion (i.e. spiritual gifts), according to His own will". The Acts of the Apostles records the fulfillment of the Lord's promise in Mark 16:17,18; and in the last chapter we find a culminating exhibition of "the Lord's working with them" (vv. 3,5,8,9)."


    (End of Bullinger's excerpt)

    On final note on the book of Mark, it has sixteen chapters, and the chapter we have been discussing is the final chapter of the book. You will notice that the eighth verse (were the Codex Sinaiticus of the newer versions ends) does not end with "Amen." However, the twentieth verse (where the Received Text of the KJV ends) does end with "Amen." All of the other Gospels end with the word "Amen."
    I think that more than satisfactorily settles the issue. The book of Mark ends just as the King James Version Bible has been saying it does since A.D. 1611! The real question becomes: "Why did the Manuscripts of the newer versions omit it? And just why did the newer versions choose to use those Manuscripts which were in the vast MINORITY and went against every other Scriptural witness of the original autographs?"
    It is at this point that I would like to state that I do not believe, nor am I implying, that all the latter day Scholars had any bad intentions by utilizing the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Manuscripts (as well as others taken from those or the same source as those) in their various and many newer Bible Versions; perhaps most of them were simply fooled. And the same goes for many of today's Bible teachers that are unaware of this information and recommend, teach, study from, and quote Scripture from thelikes of the: New King James Bible (NKJV), or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible.... We do not accuse them, and we judge no man. God knows!
    However, there is a traceable line of men who are responsible for bringing these corrupt Manuscripts into the world. Perhaps we will come to realize why they did what they did as we shall learn who they were and what they believed in. And I hope that this study is not shaking your faith in the Scriptures, for the Scriptures are sound and reliable - that is, the Scriptures of the King James Version Bible are the uncorrupted Word of our Heavenly Father.
    This whole sordid matter should give new urgency to the warning in the last few verses of the Bible:
    Rev 22:18-19
    18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (KJV)
    As well as the Old Testament warning:
    Deut 4:2
    2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (KJV)
    Look how the NIV rendered that verse:
    Deut 4:2
    2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. (NIV)
    *Can you see the difference here, the lessoning of the power of the statement, and the de-emphases of not changing the written Word of God? In the NIV version of the verse, it seems to the reader that it is making two separate independent statements: 1): Don't add or subtract from the things that God commanded; and 2): Follow God's commands. But in the KJV we see that we are not to remove or add anything from God's Word so that in having the whole Word of God we can know to keep all the commandments of God. There is a difference.

  4. #4
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Stick to your Authorized King James Version Bible (KJV), it has been the standard workhorse of Scriptures for four-hundred years, and it will be the standard till the end! Don't sacrifice accuracy for 'easier to understand' newer versions, for what good is understanding, if what you are understanding is not completely accurate?

    The newer versions, with their critical omissions are becoming more and more, with each newest version, a Bible for the new one-world apostate religion that fancies itself as: all-faith, any-faith, any-god, any-path to salvation. However, God didn't say do it any-way, He said to do it His way. The new one-world false religion that is growing is all-inclusive, but true Christianity is exclusive, in other words, you must do what God says and not do what God says not to do. That is why He sent us the Holy Scriptures, so that we would know the difference. Sadly, "certain men have crept in unawares" [Jude 1:4], and have corrupted the newer versions of God's Word. Stick to the King James Version Bible my friend.


    Did God leave us without warning? Of course not!:
    2 Pet 2:1
    1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in ****able heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (KJV)
    Acts 20:29-31 (Apostle Paul warning prior to his departure from his students of God's Word)
    29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
    30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
    31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (KJV)
    What are the so-called 'majority of texts' mentioned in the footnotes of the newer Bible versions?:
    There has been a fraud perpetrated on the Bible reader. What many of the newer Bible versions do is to place the correct reading into the Scripture but they refer the reader to the margin or a foot note that says something like " This verse (or word) does not appear in any of the best manuscripts, or (not in the oldest manuscripts), or (not in the majority of Manuscripts)." When they do that they are basically telling the reader to disregard that particular verse or word.
    However, what they are really saying is that the verse or word is in the Manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated from (in 1611), but it is not in the manuscripts that they are translating their newer version from (in 1881-1990's). They had to make mention of this because in fact the newer version Bibles are 10% shorter than the King James Version. In fact, the NIV version has 64,098 less words than the King James Bible! So instead of admitting that their Bibles have gross omissions, they make it look like the King James Bible added a bunch of stuff about Jesus Christ, God, The Trinity, salvation by faith...
    It is a fact that the NEW King James Version Bible (as well as all other newer versions) was prepared from DIFFERENT manuscripts than the regular King James Version (which used the Received Text - Textus Receptus) was translated from. They call their Manuscripts the "Majority of Texts," but that is a misleading statement. Let me explain.
    The New King James Version (NKJV) footnotes erroneously point to a 'majority of texts', when they are in fact only referring to the faulty Greek Text According to the majority by Hodge and Farstad. It falls far short of a full collation of manuscripts since it is based primarily on Von Soden's collation of only 414 of the over 5000 manuscripts! So when they say the majority, what they are in essence saying is the majority of 414 texts, not the majority of the over 5000 Texts available. And if you guessed that their 414 are all from the same corrupt tree out of Alexandria Egypt you would be correct. They are corrupt copies of corrupt copies.



    The percentage of extant (existing) Manuscripts in pyramid graph at right:
    • Original autograph (the actual first manuscript) - None Extant.
    • Light colored blocks = Accurate copies - 95% of 5,309 manuscripts.
    • Dark colored blocks = Corrupted copies - 5%of 5,309 manuscripts.
    ACCURATE COPIES (Light colored blocks)


    These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the 'Textus Receptus' or the Received Text, was taken. They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible-believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
    CORRUPTED COPIES (Dark colored blocks)
    These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Manuscripts, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.
    There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time with the Received text of the King James Version. The other 5% (Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus...) accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.
    The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus readings in many places because their corrupt manuscripts were incomplete. The problem is that when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts PLUS the Textus Receptus. That accounts for the 5%corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (A.D. 120-160), Origin (A.D. 184-254), Westcott & Hort (1853), and others CORRUPTED them.
    And it is just not that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus (newer Bible version manuscripts) disagree with the Textus Receptus (King James version manuscript). But they do not agree with EACH OTHER either! In just the four Gospels alone (Matthew - John) the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus disagree with EACH OTHER in over 3,000 places! Let's take a closer look at these two Manuscripts that all the newer Bible versions are based upon.
    The dubious origin of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus:
    The Vaticanus:
    It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits Genesis 1:1-Gen. 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matt. 16:2-3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews 9: 14-13:25, and all of Revelation. These parts were probably left out on purpose.
    Besides all that - in the Gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places. Something is not right here!
    The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible in 1611, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable.TheVaticanus also contains the Apocrypha. Which are pre-New Testament writings that do not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Apocrypha cannot be considered realiable Scripture as a whole, but it is included in the Catholic Bible to this very day.
    The Sinaiticus:
    The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was 'found' in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherines Monastery near Mt. Sinai by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the to the New Testament, the "Shepherd of Hermes" (which reads that we are to take the mark of the beast!) and the "Epistle of Barnabas."



    As stated, in the Sinaiticus Manuscript (newer Bible version Manuscripts) there appear two spurious books that do not appear in the Textus Receptus (King James Bible manuscripts), they are the: "Shepherd of Hermas," and the "Epistle of Barnabas."
    • In the Shepherd of Hermas, it states: "I gave myself up to the beast", and in another place it says: "Receive his name".
    • In the Epistle of Barnabas, it states: "Satan...is Lord".
    There is an effort underway to remove the book of "Revelation" in the newer Bible versions (the vaticanus does not have it) and replace it with "Shepherd of Hermas." need anymore be said on that? Christian beware! Our own so-called people are selling us out to satan!


    The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:
    "On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
    On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied (probably in the 4th Century), but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.
    Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:
    "From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurityof the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."

  5. #5
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Thus we see the character of the two manuscripts that all newer Bibles are translated from. But let's take it one step further, let's discover from what common Manuscript that these two 'individual' manuscripts came from. I'm sure that you are noticing that the seeds of deception were planted long ago, and just as we must go all the way back to the Garden of Eden in 4004 B.C. to dicover satan's first lie: "Ye shall not surely die" [Gen 3:4], we must likewise go back to Alexandria Egypt to the early A.D. 200's to discover the beginning of the corrupt manuscript line.
    Let us examine an excerpt from "If The Foundations Be Destroyed" by Rev. Charles Salliby
    An excerpt:
    "While the Church was still in it's infancy, a heretical group was twisting God's Word into an entirely different meaning.
    "How did this all come about? During the last half of the first century, a belief system called Gnosticism had begun to develop in the Church. This was an attempt to produce a successful philosophy, by mixing previously failed philosophies with the spiritual disciplines of the new religion. Now, when one becomes a Christian, they must relinquish their old concepts of both the spiritual and the natural and learn afresh as the Holy Spirit guides them into all truth. Gnostics, however, were not willing to do this. Among the assortment of views they had pledged themselves to keep was the unfounded idea that all physical matter was inherently evil - which, naturally, left them confused as to how a good God could have manifested Himself in evil flesh.
    Void of God's Spirit and quite on their own, the Gnostics attempted to harmonize this error with what was clearly opposing them in Scripture. Unable to accomplish this, they eventually settled on several theories that contradicted the Scriptures outright. Some taught that Christ had no body at all but that He was, in fact, a phantom. Others taught that He had a type of nonmaterial body. And still others taught that Jesus and Christ were two separate entities. The latter believed that Christ was the power that descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism, only to leave Him again just prior to His death.
    With such error at the base, it became necessary for the Gnostics to construct an entirely new religion. As they re-defined the Scriptures - propping each lie against the truth upon the framework of another - an alternative 'faith' was made available to the Church, with a number of doctrinal changes.
    As Christians began to explore the heresy, the clear revelation of Jesus given to them in Scripture became so confused that the Apostles themselves were forced to address the whole business in writing. Sparing neither the feelings nor the words, John branded all Gnostics "antichrist" and clearly saw them as forerunners of "the" Antichrist. "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us... Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 John 2:18, 19; 4:1-3).
    Gnosticism was not the outcome of a sincere albeit misguided search for truth, but of a deliberate departure from it - whose chief ambition was to convert Christianity into just another pagan philosophy. It was Satan's attempt not only to shatter the truth about Jesus Christ but, it would appear from Johns writings, that Gnosticism would also serve as a support base upon which Satan, in time, could effectively position the Antichrist. It might be interesting for the reader to reexamine the New Testament while keeping in mind the presence of the Gnostics and their teachings in the early Church.
    When the Apostles died, the Gnostics (along with other heretical factions) began making their most serious moves. In an effort to weaken their greatest remaining obstacle, the Bible, they began to rewrite it - and, apparently, without fear or conscience. To accommodate their mistaken ideas about Jesus and His doctrine, they added freely to the Scriptures and whatever truth they disagreed with was removed by the stroke of a pen. Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History, LCS, Vol. 1, pp. 522-524, quoted another, who during the second century wrote:
    "Wherefore, they have not fear to lay hands on the divine Scriptures under pretense of correcting them.. .As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, since the copies were written in their own hand; and they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, nor can they show the originals from which they made their copies."
    While there are those who speak highly of such second century fathers as Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Clement of Alexandria, there are others who find very little to commend them for since each of these, in their turn, contributed to this corruption of Scripture.
    Perhaps the man who did the most, however, to blend the Scriptures with Gnosticism was Origen (185-254 A.D.). Also, to his discredit, no one ever championed more apostate teachings that found a permanent place in history, than he. Yet, his influence upon Christianity, from his day to ours, can hardly be measured by words. Not only did his ideas captivate the attention of the Catholic Church forever, but also nearly all of the Protestant scholars of this century have been swayed by the power of this one man's thinking. While his genius and insight into the Scriptures were extraordinary, his preference for Gnosticism, Platonism, Mysticism, and the early heresies made him anything but a safe guide or teacher. His doctrines were repulsive. Though considered the greatest theologian of the third century, he taught that stars have souls, devils would be saved, and such errors as purgatory and transubstantiation. He also taught (through his application of the Greek) that Jesus was created and did not eternally exist as God. Little wonder why such a man would have said: "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."
    Origen deliberately changed the Scriptures to suit his own confused philosophy and, in the process, made many of the deletions we now find in modern translations of the Bible. It was Origen who mightily influenced Jerome (about 340-420 A.D.) who translated the Latin Vulgate which was made the official Bible of the Catholic Church by the Council of Trent in 1546. And it was Origen again who was to play such a large role in the affairs of twentieth century Protestantism, as we will see in the following.
    When Constantine (280?-337 A.D.) became the Emperor of Rome, he endeavored to form a union between Christianity and paganism. Since Origen had successfully blended Christianity with pagan philosophy, Constantine commissioned Eusebius, a great admirer of Origen, to prepare fifty Bibles based upon Origen's corrupted Scriptures for use in the churches.
    Skipping past many centuries filled with attacks upon the true Word of God and persecution of its followers, we come to the year 1481 A.D. In this year a very old manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was discovered lying dormant on a shelf of the Vatican library. Then in 1844, another old manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherines monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Both of these manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, date back to the time Eusebius produced those fifty Bibles for Constantine and are believed by many to be survivors of that lot.
    Here, is where the drama begins to really unfold. In the year 1853 two Cambridge professors, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (better known as Westcott and Hort), began preparing a Greek text based primarily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
    Now, when the student arrives at the subject of Westcott and Hort, he should not pass too quickly. Because it was through these men that our long link to the apostate past was connected. Westcott and Hort, who might well be called the "intellectual descendants of the ancient heretics," with skill and great subtlety, delivered to the Church of the twentieth century, the religion of their fathers. Let us, for a moment, pay them the attention they deserve.
    Though they were masters of communication and hardly rivaled for their knowledge; their scholarship nevertheless, was strikingly outweighed by their theological ineptness. Neither Westcott nor Hort ever stated that the Bible was verbally inspired or inerrant. On the other hand, while Hort praised in writing Darwin's theory of evolution and seriously questioned whether Eden ever existed; Westcott, in his writings, flatly denied the Genesis account of Creation. To put it in his own words: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did."
    Also, though Protestants would prefer to think otherwise, Westcott and Hort gave almost every indication of being Catholics under cover. As a case in point, they seemed equally as comfortable worshiping Jesus or Mary. "I have been persuaded for many years (Hort wrote) that Mary-worship and Jesus worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Notice, he had held this opinion 'many years.') Concerning a statue of Mary and a crucified Christ that Westcott happened on in a remote little chapel, he wrote: "Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." And, to prove that his reverence for Mary, like Hort's, was no passing fancy, he also wrote some eighteen years latter, "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." [ Editor's note: Mariolatry is the idolatry of worshiping Mother Mary. Mary + idolatry = Mariolatry]
    Westcott and Hort's preference for Catholic dogma was evident elsewhere as well. While Hort, for example, felt it proper to call the doctrine of Evangelicals "perverted," he revealed his own perverse creed by proudly calling himself a "staunch sacerdotalist." This is one who requires a priest to mediate between himself and his Divine needs, or one who cannot spiritually function without the authority of the priesthood. It is easy to understand, then, why one of Hort's stated concerns was that "Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood."
    Revealing more of the dark side of his convictions, Hort also warned, "We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us." The sacraments are, of course, what all good Catholics are never to forsake.
    Now, if there remains any doubt as to which side of the fence both Westcott and Hort stood on, the following should settle the matter. Hort wrote to Westcott, "Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary." Hort also wrote to John Ellerton, "The pure Romish [Roman from Roman Catholicism] view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."
    Such was the man who also dared to put in writing: "The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to his death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
    It actually puts a strain upon the mind to realize that these are the men who not only produced the Greek text that modern Bibles are based upon, but also invented all of the reasons why the Church today should no longer rely on the true text.
    What took place after Westcott and Hort finished their text was nothing less than outrageous. In one of the most infamous moments in Church history, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (by way of the Westcott and Hort Greek text) were slipped into the hands of liberal theologians who, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, convinced the Protestants that these very old manuscripts were, in fact, the real Scriptures. One theologian after another succumbed to the lie and have been translating Bibles from them ever since. All of which causes Christians today to mistakenly assume that for the greater part of Church history (around 1550 years since the writing of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) Christianity was without the real Word of God, until it was recently reintroduced in our modern translations, the first of which was the Revised Version of 1881.
    This, then, is the history behind our modern translations of the Bible. To sum it all up in a line: From the ancient Gnostics to Westcott and Hort, like a product passed through the skillful hands of an assembly line, a new set of Scriptures had been developed.
    There are those who, while unable to disprove this evidence, nevertheless, insist that no matter what transpired years ago, the Church today is far too knowledgeable to have in its possession Scriptures that are flawed. But consider this: If within a scarce sixty years or so of the day of Pentecost, the Church of Pergamos could have the doctrine of Balaam; the Church of Thyatira, a Jezebel for both prophetess and teacher; the Church of Sardis, a name that it lived but was dead; and the Church of Laodicea, such a lukewarm spirit that Christ had threatened to vomit it out of His mouth, is it too hard to believe that the Church, some nineteen hundred years later, could have a corrupted set of Scriptures?
    We do well to remember that the first apostasy took place in Heaven, in the very presence of God Himself, when Lucifer turned a myriad of angels against Him. Should we be surprised then to witness this defection from truth in His Church.
    For a point of interest: In 1853 Westcott and Hort began preparing their Greek text. Interestingly, six years later Darwin published his Origin of Species. Consider the parallel: As the world was being offered an entirely new science, the Church was being furnished with an entirely new Bible. A Coincidence? Not at all. It was all part of a Satanic strategy. Both works have done such damage to humanity that only the return of Jesus can repair it."
    (End of excerpt)
    Ok, that was informative, and I recommend getting the book. Now let's speak of the corrupt Nestles Text. The Nestles Greek Text is primarily from the Vaticanus Manuscript. The text of the New Testament in both the NIV and the NASB Bible versions were taken from the corrupted Nestles text, but each was from a DIFFERENT version of that Nestles Greek Text. As we have stated before, these new corrupt Texts and the corrupt Bible versions taken from them are always changing. In the process of time, whenever new Manuscript evidence would be discovered that showed the errors, omissions, and adulterations of the corrupt Texts, they would make changes and amendments in them and release a new edition of their so-called 'superior Text'. (I hope you notice my sarcasm, and it is richly deserved).

  6. #6
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    The Critical Apparatus: The Footnotes in the newer Bible versions:


    Another method by which the newer Bible versions contradict the King James Version is by the use of 'footnotes' and 'margin notes.' These are the little referenced comments on the bottom of the page in the newer Bible versions that state that a verse or word is "not in the majority of oldest manuscripts..." or "Some manuscripts say...". This is what is called a 'Critical Apparatus'.
    For instance, many newer Bible versions are taken from the Nestles text, which then employs a Critical Apparatus in the margin at the bottom of the page. This Nestles text refers to 'the majority of texts." But there is a problem with their 'majority of texts," for it is not a majority of all the Texts, but rather a majority of selected Texts. The Critical Apparatus employed by the NIV and NASB is actually a collation of only 7% of all extant Cursive manuscripts, and only .002% of the Lectionaries! This is hardly a majority of the texts.
    The Greek New Testament Text of the NASB came from the 21stedition of the Nestles Text (40 years old); the NIV's Greek New Testament Text came from the 23rdedition of the Nestles Text. These two editions ( 21st & 23rd Editions ) of the Nestles text are different from each other. The corrupt Nestles Text hasn't stopped changing.
    A valuable cache of 96 New Testament Manuscripts were discovered. These are called the Papyri, they were copied in the A.D. 180's & A.D. 220's, and discovered in the 1950's. They agree with the Text that the King James Version Bible used for it's New Testament - the Textus Receptus (Received text). They are valuable because those copied in A.D. 180 were copied for originals a mere 90 years after John wrote the book of revelation! (A.D. 94).
    So what did the Scholars of the Nestles text then do? They released the 27th edition of the Nestles text which included revisions back to the King James Bible readings in over 500 places! You might be thinking that that is an awful lot of DIFFERENT editions for something they have been calling all along the superior text. And they are by no means finished altering their own Text, nor did it bring the Nestles Text out of corruption, but simply documents that the King James Bible was right all the time. Stick to your King James Bible (KJV).
    A Look at the Old Testament Text of the Bible:
    The Old Testament Hebrew text of the newer Bible versions (ben Asher text) has also undergone some tampering . The Old Testament Hebrew text used in the King James version Bible is the reliable ben Chayyim text. Let's look back into the history of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament. God, by His Holy Spirit, directly moved the writers of the Holy Scriptures to write down the words of the Lord God.
    2 Pet 1:20-21
    20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)
    These prophecies, histories, and instructions became the Holy Scriptures. In the Old Testament we have 39 separate books (Genesis-Malachi). In the days of old, these Scriptures were hand copied from one Manuscript to another as time wore out the original copies. Those who were responsible for this faithful coping of the Holy Scriptures were called the Scribes. They were of the Levitical priesthood (the tribe of Levi, one of the twelve tribes of Israel).
    After the Babylonian captivity, the Sopherim, under Ezra and Nehemiah,were charged with setting the Sacred Text in order. We read of this in [Neh 8:8]. See also [Ezra 7:6 & 11]. Their work lasted 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first (410-300 B.C.).
    Once the Sacred Scriptural Text was set by the Sopherim, it was entrusted to the Massorites for safe-keeping. This was in accordance with God's will. The Massorites had the duty to safeguard and hand down the Scriptures through time as older copies wore out and new ones were copied.
    To insure they would always have 'true to the letter' copies of the Holy Scriptures of God, the Massorites developed a failsafe method of preserving the Text, this was called the Massorah. Briefly stated, the Massorah was written in the margins of the Holy Scriptures that among other things, counted the number of times an individual letter appeared on a page of the Scriptures. Also, it revealed what the exact letter (and word, and sentence) on the dead center of the page should be, in this manner a Scribe could check his copied page and determine if he had missed even a single letter or doubled a letter or word. This was inspired by Almighty God and it insured that the Sacred texts would be error-free. So far so good.This Massorah itself is not part of the Holy Scriptures, it was simply written in the margins of the Scrolls (Scriptures were in scroll form then). The Massorah was useful to the copyist in a time when every 'book' was hand copied. In about A.D. 1450, with the advent of the mechanical printing press, the Massoretic notes were not copied onto the pages. As well, our modern Bibles make no mention of them. The Massoretic notes also included other written phenomenon within the Scriptures, a sort of Bible code if you would (nothing like the false Bible Code book that came out in 1998!), but real acrostics built into the original texts and faithfully handed down by the Scribes. Thus, the Massoretic notes are advantageous to the deeper student of God's Word.
    The Massoretic notes were not on all pages of all Manuscripts, but rather, each Manuscript has several 'pages' containing the notes. A comparison from ancient Old Testament Scrolls containing the notes in several countries revealed them to be identical, thus establishing the validity of the safeguard to the texts.
    DR. Ginsburg, a renowned Hebrew Scholar, in the late 19th century gathered all known Massoretic notes from a vast majority of different Manuscripts . Thus, for the first time there was a complete Old Testament with the Massoretic notes.
    The text of the Old Testament used by the translators of the 1611 King James Bible is true and accurate when compared to the Massorah.
    In other words, while the 1611KJV translators did not have the Massorah, the manuscripts that they translated from (called: 'The Massoretic Text prepared by Jacob Ben Chayyim' or, 'Ben Chayyim Massoretic Text') were preserved through time by the Massorah. We have copies of both the Massorah and the "Massoretic text" used for the Old Testament of our King James Version, and they agree. The Massoretic Text prepared by Jacob Ben Chayyim was also used by Rudolph Kittle for the first two editions of his Biblia Hebraica (Hebrew Bible) in 1906 and 1912.
    "Beware of the Scribes" [Luke 20:46].
    However, in the tenth century A.D. satan again reared his ugly head and placed his unholy hand on the Scriptures of God. Prior to the tenth century A.D. the Hebrew text of our Old Testament was faithfully passed forward by the Massorites. But there was a rift among the Massorites and the family of ben Asher gained ascendancy among the Scribes. Their text (the ben Asher Text) no longer utilized the Massorah and they subtly corrupted the hebrew Text as well. The oldest ben Asher Text type in existence today is the corrupted Leningrad Manuscript B19a (A.D. 1008). It is from this one corrupt text that all the newer Bible versions take their Old Testament.
    The true text was recovered and published in the first Rabinic Bible (Hebrew Bible) by Jacob ben Chayyim (the ben Chayyim text) in A.D. 1524-25. This good and true text (ben Chayyim text) was utilized in most every subsequent Hebrew Bible as well as the Old Testament of the King James Bible of 1611 (KJV). This text (ben Chayyim) agrees with the Massorah. The corrupt Leningrad Manuscript B19a does not agree with the ancient safeguard to the Scriptures - the Massorah. So once again, now in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, we have in the 'good old reliable' King James Bible, borne out of the bloodbath of the inqusitions and the couter-reformation, the true Word of Almighty God! In your King James Bible you can be fully confident that you have before you the Words of the Everliving Lord God, our Creator and Heavenly Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, faithfully transmitted to the Prophets and Apostles by the Holy Spirit of God.
    The Old Testament of the newer Bible versions is from the corrupt Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, based on the third edition of the Biblia Hebraica. This brings us to a man named Rudolph Kittel. Kittel is an 'interesting character' who among other dishonors was tried in the Nazi War Crime Tribunals after World War II. Ironically, Kittel, an anti-Semite, helped prepare the Text for the Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebracia). I believe that Kittle began with good intent, but then if you follow his biography, you see that something happened to him in the 1930's that caused him to become spiritually corrupt. He became active in the Nazi party and wrote many bizarre works for Adolf Hitler.
    In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the "The Encyclopedia Judaica; 1971, it is written of Rudolf Kittle: Kittel has "anti-Semitic tendencies," was a believer in "Hellenistic Mystery religions" (occult religion out of Alexandria Egypt).
    This certainly not a man that should be tampering with the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures! Yet all newer Bible versions utilize Kittle's work in their Old Testaments.
    Do not let this shake your faith in the Bible - God forbid! But do let it be a warning that the only fully reliable English Bible is the King James version Bible (KJV). Stick with the original English Bible, stick with the trusted Bible, stay with the The Authorized King James Version Bible (KJV)!!!


    NOTE: Sadly, in 1937, Paul Kahle published a third edition of Rudolph Kittle's Biblia Hebraica and used a different text - the Ben Asher texts from the Leningrad Manuscript B19a. Most if not all newer versions of the Bible use this 'newer text' of Ben Asher.
    But who was Rudolph Kittle? Time will not allow us now to go into the notorious life and times of Rudolph Kittle and his involvement in Nazism during World War II, but after his trials for Nazi war crimes, and at the very end of his (Kittle's) life, he confessed that the years of his editorship of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and his propaganda 'ministry' for Adolf Hitler:
    "...was based upon the most bitter deception of my life."
    Quoted from: -- Gerhard Kittle, Meine Verteidigung (Tubingen Library Archives, November-December, 1946),p.67.
    Those so-called archaic "Ye, Thee, thou, Thy, and Thine's" in the King James Bible:
    Many will tell you that the King James Bible is hard to understand because of words like "Ye, Thy, Thine...", but in reality, those 'archaic' words actually make the King James Bible easier to understand when you grasp the significance of their usage. And this goes for both the Old and the New Testaments of the King James Bible. Let me explain.
    In our modern English language we do not have a distinction between the second-person ('you') pronouns and adjectives relating to number. But the language of the King James Bible utilizes words that automatically tell you if the subject spoken of is in the singular or plural (one or more than one).
    Only in the King James Bible can you read the word "Ye" and know that more than one person is being spoken of, while "Thy" means that one person is being spoken of or to. This helps in understanding many 'confusing' Scriptures.
    In your King James version Bible, and ONLY in the King James Bible, the following applies:


    * An easy way to remember is that the ones starting with "T" are singular, and the ones starting with "Y" are plural.
    Matt 5:33-34
    33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
    34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: (KJV)

    Jer 25:28
    28 And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink. (KJV)

    Josh 7:13
    13 Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you. (KJV)
    So once again, we see that the King James Bible is the superior Bible for UNDERSTANDING the true Word of God. In the newer versions of the Bible you can not go by the above table of Plural and Singular Pronouns and Adjectives because they have changed many of the "Thy's" into "you's" and vise-versa, to satisfy the Derivative Copyright Law$. Pathetic and shameless is it not?

  7. #7
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Some more verse by verse comparisons of the Text between the KJV and the newer versions:
    In [Matt 4:6] satan is quoting scripture to Christ. Satan is quoting [Psm 91:11-12]. In [Matt 4:6] satan added the words "at any time" to the scripture of [Psm 91:11-12], and it changed the whole meaning of the verse. By adding "at any time" in between the verse of [Matt 4:6], satan was telling Jesus that He can just flippantly endanger Himself and the Angels will make it safe.
    God does not work that way, that would be like saying to God that you are going to test if He is real and if He can save you from every premeditated foolish act. This was yet another attempt by satan to kill Jesus, satan was tempting Jesus to jump to His death.
    Below, we have supplied a chart to illustrate satan's added words to the Scripture. In the first box we have the Old Testament Scripture that satan was drawing from. In the second box we have satan's words to Christ from the King James Version showing the added words. Then in the next two boxes we have the NASB and the NIV version of the Scripture, both of them for some reason omitting satan's corruption of the Scripture. This omission is sad because it robs us of the warning that satan corrupts Scripture and it cheats us of this great witness to satan's method of operation in deceiving Christians.
    *In the below chart, for clarity we have provided a marker ( // )between which the added words of satan are placed.


    Satan's three added words are also missing from the NEW King James Version Bible (NKJV). Curiously, the New Testament Text that the NIV and the NASB were taken from, the Nestles Text, DOES contain the words that satan added to the Scripture! Perhaps it is a later edition of the Nestles Text, as there have been almost thirty editions of it, many of them being differentthan the one preceding it!
    Verse Comparisons: KJV Vs The New International


    Version (NIV):Verse Comparisons: KJV Vs The Living Bible (TLB):


    Verse Comparisons: KJV Vs New King James (NKJV):


    The New King James Version omits the word:

    • "Lord" 66 times.
    • "God" 51 times.
    • "Heaven" 50 times.
    • "Jehovah" entirely. *(Pronounced: 'Yah-heh-vay', not as widely and incorrectly pronounced: 'Jah-hoe-vah') *(Transliterated spelling: 'Yehovah', not as widely and incorrectly spelled: 'Yahweh') (The initials being 'YeHoVaH - YHVH', not as widely and incorrectly spelled: 'YaHWeH -YHWH'
    Where is Jesus Christ in the newer versions?!:

  8. #8
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    The 666 Logo on the NKJV Bible cover:

    One might ask why the corrupters of God's Word would leave evidence in the form of Satanic and Occultist symbols behind. Satanists and the Occultists have a history rich in symbolism. And I believe that God has them to incorporate these secret symbols so that those with understanding will be warned. call it an Achilles Heal if you would, but the Occultist and Satanist have always identified each other through their "secret" symbols that originally were only known to the initiated. but the Lord has called many out of those evil secret societies, and with their conversion, many of the secrets were revealed to the un-initiated. And I believe that they simply can't help it but to utilize these types of cryptic symbols and icons, I feel that it is simply the nature of the Beast; for everything to do with satan is depicted by icons, idols, symbols.... Let's look at a couple of places that you would least expect to find satan's hidden signature:
    The NKJV logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity, not the Christian Trinity. At left is the symbol, called a Triquetra, it is duplicated if you take three 6's and fan them out into a circle joining them together at the round parts of the bottom of each number '6'. Use of number symbols (like this 666) can he traced back to Pythagoras (582 B.C.), initiate into the Egyptian Mysteries (very heavy occultism!). The symbol was popularized again by Satanist Aleister Crowley (circa 1900) for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the York Order of Freemasonry.
    Remember [Acts 17:29]: "We ought not to think the Godhead is like (anything)... graven by art..."
    In the occultist 3rd Degree of the York Order of Freemasonry, the symbol's shape is duplicated (when viewed from directly above) as three initiates touch feet and join arms in a special way while repeating the names of the ancient pagan trinity. The NKJV's symbol can be seen on satanic rock group albums like Led Zeppelin, as well as on New Age (occultist) bestsellers like "The Aquarian Conspiracy."




    The Freemason symbol on the 1970 Catholic Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible (TJB or NJB):



    Scottish Rite, or "Baphomet" Cross




    A Masonic symbol seen less frequently is the 33°cross because it appertains only to the highest degrees. It is more commonly called the Crusaders Cross or the Jerusalem Cross. It was supposedly worn by the first Grand Master of the Knights Templar, Godfrey de Bouillon, after he liberated Jerusalem from the Muslims.8


    This symbol is on the hat of the Sovereign Grand Commander of all 33° Masons in a very slightly modified form. It is part of the magical signature of Aleister Crowley, the supreme Satanist of this century!9 It is also found as the logo of the new Catholic Bible, the Jerusalem Bible!10


    Endnotes:


    8: Whittemore, Carrol E., Symbols of the Christian Church, Abingdon Press, NashvIlle, 1959, p. 12.


    9: Crowley, Aleister, The Equinox, Vol.3, No.1, Samuel Welser, New York, 1973, pp 226, 248.


    10: Jones, Alexander (gen. ed.), The Jerusalem Bible, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, NY, 1970, frontispiece.





    The "Jerusalem" Cross


    In a silvery background, it was the banner used to represent the Crusader's Kingdom of Jerusalem. Nowadays the Jerusalem Cross appears on, among other things, the Medal of the Holy Sepulchre, which is presented by the Pope.


    *Article above excerpted from Symbols '98 Encyclopedia.


    *Article at left excerpted from Masonry; Beyond The Light by William Schoebelen p.121,280.




    What is the danger of these corruptions and what are they getting at:Many of the men that are responsible for the newer versions were themselves deceived. Below is a quotation from one of the Scholars, Dr. Frank Logsdon, who worked on the New American Standard Version (NASB or NASV), after he was made aware of the alterations and corruptions that appear in that Bible version. You can't help pitying the man, but let it serve as a lesson to always be on guard for satan's deceptions!
    "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field..." [Gen 3:1].
    Quotation:
    "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...
    I'm in trouble; I cant refute these arguments; its wrong, its terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?...I can no longer ignore these criticisms [of the corruptions in the New American Standard Version Bible (NASB/NASV)] I am hearing and I can't refute them...
    When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV...The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?...
    I don't want anything to do with it...
    [T]he finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the new version's use of the corrupted Greek (Nestles) text], just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things...
    [Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!
    If you must stand against everyone else, stand."
    --Dr. Frank Logsdon
    The fact that this came from one of the men responsible for the actual preparation of one of the newer Bible versions should carry a great deal of weight with you. The corrupt text that he was referring to is the same (Nestles) text used for the NIV, RSV... The above quote was taken from Gail Riplinger's best seller book New Age Bible Versions. My dear fellow Christian, God preserved His Holy Word in the King James Bible. As we touched on in this study, the newer versions have subtly removed Jesus Christ from the Bible. This all feeds into the end time prophecy that the false impostor christ (antichrist) will come to an earth unprepared for him. These newer versions are consistently replacing the name 'Jesus Christ' with 'the Christ', or 'the One'.... My question to you is which 'One'? What 'Christ'? The false christ??? How will the reader of the newer versions know the difference between the true Jesus Christ and the antichrist?
    The antichrist (satan) himself (not just his spirit as is now here) will be an impostor to Jesus Christ, and he WILL come to this earth first, claiming to be the Messiah. In the Strong's Exhaustive ConcordanceGreek language Dictionary of the New Testament, the prefix 'anti' as in 'antichrist' means something quite different than, say for instance, antifreeze...:
    Anti: Greek word #473 anti (an-tee'); a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead of or because of (rarely in addition to): KJV-- for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
    Below we see satan as the antichrist in his end time role:
    2 Cor 11:14
    14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformedinto an angel of light. (KJV)
    Transformed: Greek word #3345 metaschematizo (met-askh-ay-mat-id'-zo); from 3326 and a derivative of 4976; to transfigure or disguise; figuratively, to apply (by accommodation)
    Forewarned is forearmed! God bless you Christian and your study of God's Word, for our generation has not the luxury of simply being a complacent pew-potato Christian, because it is to our present generation that the prophesied antichrist (satan himself) is coming, and we shall be called upon to stand against the antichrist - how have you prepared yourself? Have you prepared yourself?
    The only way to prepare yourself is by studying God's Word, the true Word of God, not words of men mixed in that remove all warning of the coming antichrist and the mark of the beast (which is not even a literal mark persey)!
    In the Contemporary English Version Bible (CEV) published by the utterly spiritually corrupt United Bible Society completely omits the word "Lucifer" [Isa 14:12], and the word "antichrist" [1st John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3, & 2nd John 1:7] from their Bible. God's one great adversary and the false impostor antichrist have been so artfully and totally removed from this newer Bible version as though he did not even exist. But he does exist and he is coming when the way has been fully readied for him. Christian beware! For he is coming for us to destroy us and God's plan. He will fail, fear not, for God and all those who stand with and for God shall never, forever and ever, ever be destroyed.
    God wrote the Bible, and it has an ending into the eternity. We are told what SHALL happen. We must remain faithful and hang in there. God wins, satan perishes, and we who are faithful to our Lord God and Lord Jesus Christ Messiah shall live everlasting even unto the eternity of eternities. I believe that with all my heart because God wrote it to us in that letter from Him to us - the Bible - that letter that satan and his lost ones seek to destroy, hide, deny, corrupt, change, and ruin utterly. And God shall help us when the antichrist comes after us to spiritually beguile us that we might worship him before the True Jesus Christ - God forbid! Our Lord God is not unfaithful to break His promises: "...for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" [Heb 13:5]. See also: Duet 31:6, Josh 1:5, 1st Sam 12:22, Psm 37:28, Isa 41:10 7 17....

  9. #9
    Senior Member miktre's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 5th, 2007
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,833
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    The non-Christian United Bible Society's spreading of the corrupt 'Nestles' text in new Bible versions world-wide:
    As stated before, the United Bible Society makes their Bibles with the same corrupt Nestles Text that the NIV, NASB... were made from. They (the UBS) are in an intensive world outreach campaign to spread the Gospel, their corrupted Gospel. While we do not judge them, they are not a Christian organization. Below we see a news item hailing yet another language translation of their destroying Manuscript, the Nestles Text:
    Source: ENI News; 5/16/2000.
    New Bible translations help to preserve world's disappearing languages
    London (ENI). A New Testament published for the first time in an English-based Caribbean Creole, a language once used by slaves, has been hailed as one of the world's most significant Bible translation activities for 1999. Geoffrey Stamp, chief editor for the United Bible Societies, based in Reading, England, was commenting to ENI on the UBS annual Scripture Language Report, which revealed that scripture became available in 21 more languages last year. The total number of languages in which the Bible is available in part or in its entirety now stands at 2233. But this is still barely more than one third of the estimated 6500 living languages in the world.

    They are not yet done corrupting the Sacred Texts. Each new version moves further away from the truth, until we will come to be totally void and ignorant of the truth of God's Word, just as was Pontius Pilate, whom crucified Christ: "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?..." [John 18:38]. It is then, more than any other time in the history of the world, that we shall truly be in danger of satan's greatest deception of all, his coming as the false christ - the antichrist!
    The newest blasphemous Bible version, The Peoples Bible:
    Source: Express Newspapers, 5/18/2000: BY DAVID SMITH
    Rabbi condemned for rewriting Bible 'to read like Mills and Boon stories'
    A NEW version of the Bible has been branded "blasphemous" for spicing up the scriptures and axing words such as angels and Christ. The People's Bible aims to make the good book more accessible by updating its language and adding colorful passages, such as a love scene between David and Bathsheba.
    But religious critics last night condemned the 16-volume paperback project as being "closer to Mills and Boon" than the Word of God. Rabbi Sidney Brichto, who says he wrote the translation in "seeking to become God's spin doctor", replaces references to Jesus as "Christ" with "the anointed one" because he feels it better explains the Jews' hopes He would restore the sovereignty of the House of David."Angels" make way for "messengers of God" because the rabbi, from Pinner, Middlesex, points out they did not have wings and were never seen in flight. But the Trinitarian Bible Society said it strongly disapproved of the work. The Rabbi's treatment of David and Bathsheba read "like a Mills and Boon story, which is blasphemous". (End of News clip).
    Acts 20:28-32 (Apostle Paul speaking)
    28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
    29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
    30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
    31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
    32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (KJV)
    Apostle Paul went on to warn us: "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" [II Th 2:5]. And Jesus Christ forewarned us as well: "But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things." [Mark 13:23]. But we must search the Scriptures for the knowledge, wisdom, and warnings of God. That search of the Scriptures for the English reader must be done in the King James Bible.
    Are you starting to see the bigger picture now? Can you begin to realize that not only have they the ability to change God's Word, but they have changed it. Is the danger of those subtle changes now not glaringly obvious? Go out, spend $5.00-$20.00, and buy a King James Bible (KJV). And don't even donate your old New King James Bible (NKJV), or NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible,...to charity, throw it out or pack it away, lest you corrupt someone else with it!

    Peace unto you in Jesus Christ

  10. #10
    DaveScotland
    Guest

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Wow, talk about propeganda, crazy post especially the part saying the NKJV has 666 hidden on the cover disguised as a celtic trinity knot. sort of sums up the whole post really.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 19th, 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    173
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveScotland View Post
    Wow, talk about propeganda, crazy post especially the part saying the NKJV has 666 hidden on the cover disguised as a celtic trinity knot. sort of sums up the whole post really.
    LOL . also, you only need two 6's to make that trinity logo . sorry you wasted your time

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    January 8th, 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,576
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    I don't know about you guys but I love my NKJV bible too with or without the pagan trinity symbol.
    With the symbol on it it might make witnessing to new agers that much easier, and 666 in it will make witnessing to satanists easier too.

  13. #13
    DaveScotland
    Guest

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    there isnt 666 hidden just in this 'study' the author writes they have. But on a serious note i dont think what bible version you use really matters. God will reveal to you what the word is truly saying, evry bible has errors including the KJV, and a quick google search will prove that. Unless we all learn ancient greek. hebrew and a multitude of other languages we will never ever get a 100% correct bible. so lets be thankfull that there are many different bibles and translation, that basically everyone will find a style etc that will suit them. and let God correct what needs correcting.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    January 8th, 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,576
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Exactly Dave, it doesn't matter which bible version you use, even if you read the unadulterated authorized perfect KJV backwards that still makes you a satanist. It's not what you read it's how you read it that matters. We do need to be thankful. If I remember these figures right, there is still 6000 or so languages without the bible in their own language. 80% of our bible versions are in english for the 9 or 12 % of the worlds population that speaks english. It's shameful they can make so many bible versions to cater for all our desires and likes and dislikes in english but they can't make versions to cater for the other languages.

  15. #15
    Cup-of-Ruin
    Guest

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Greetings,

    If one does not have the accurate interpretation of the Scriptures, then you cannot understand what God is saying, you cannot understand His commandments and His message, you cannot understand it yourself neither can you explain it to anybody else. It is absolutely vital that you have the correct translation, if you don't than you would be serving Satan while paying God mere lip service. If Christians have lost sight and comprehension of the true meaning of the Word of God then Christianity is lost, the written word of Holy Scripture is all we have to know God, we only know God by His word that He has given, you don't have that word or you have the wrong word and you don't have God and you are decieved. How can one preach the Gospel? how can one give the Good News? How can one tell the story of the history of human beings and the meaning of life on earth and all the wisdom that the Bible contains? How can you tell that you are reading the right word? You must rightly divide the word of God, if you cannot then you would want to find someone who can, otherwise your lost.

    Now if people want to trust spirits and follow their own heart and not care about God's Word in regard to translations and different Bibles, many of which are completely corrupted and produced by Satan Incorporated and especially designed to decieve you, well, you will be held accountable for that on your judgement day. Never had Christians had so much in the ability to discover the true meaning of the Bible and never have they been so far from the truth, all the resources, all the libraries, the internet, Language courses and books, dictionaries, lexicons and encyclopedias, never has God made His word so available and so accessible, with so much knowledge on offer and what do Christians do? They don't even take the time to find out what is the true Scripture and because of their lack of knowledge, which they will have no excuse for on Judgement Day, they have allowed every possible corruption of God's Word and message to creep in like a weed infestation of the worst kind! Most modern Bibles today have crept up through the grates of the pit of Hell! Do Christians realise that, most don't, they just smile and say 'it does not matter which Bible you read, as long as your comfortable with it, God will reveal all'. I would not like to be in your position with that attitude.

  16. #16
    Dragoon9
    Guest

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Would it surprise you that the holder of the Copyright of the New International Version Bible also holds the copyright for Hustler magazine - pornography. Rupert Murdock, called "Media's prince of Darkness" by Chicago columnist Mike Royco


    Honestly, this type of guilt by association and innuendo makes me sick.

    The KJV is a beautifully rich, poetic translation from the golden age of the English language, but in the name of the Lord Most High, please stop abusing other translations of the Bible and sowing discord.

    What is necessary is not a perfect translation, but a perfect God to guide.

    But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (Jn 16:13)

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    March 12th, 2009
    Age
    45
    Posts
    465
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Peace be to you
    Nice post i like seeing all the different versions,Also i have noticed alot of errors in the script after reading in many times(mostly past and present tense and unbelief in the translators).I find the reference sometimes way off.


    eg, math 2 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. well the reference in my bible says john1,45judge13,5/1st samual1,11

    1st samual 1,11 reference to samson not jesus
    judges 13,5 also reference to samson
    Why do i beleieve this verse is incorrect.Nazarite=http://www.kingjamesbible.com/B04C006.htm

    I found the error was in the translation not the scripture.

    eg gala2,20
    I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

    If you believe Jesus is still alive shouldnt this read;
    I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loves me, and gave himself for me.

    If something seems off to you it usually deserves research.
    james 2 ,13
    Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

    But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

    But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

    Love a friend in God

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    January 31st, 2009
    Age
    55
    Posts
    2,225
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Very nice job miktre. the truth shall set us free!

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    January 8th, 2009
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,576
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    If one does not have the accurate interpretation of the Scriptures, then you cannot understand what God is saying, you cannot understand His commandments and His message, you cannot understand it yourself neither can you explain it to anybody else.


    First of all, interpretation and translation are two separate issues. Plenty of people claim to read and study the accurate and error-free KJV but still get things wrong on doctrine.

    Secondly, God can speak in many ways and most of those ways He speaks not using the bible but other ways. For example , coincidences, miracles, chance encounters, dreams, visions, etc. Many people who were former atheists could testify of how God revealed Himself to them and showed them that He was real. And all without a bible too.



    It is absolutely vital that you have the correct translation, if you don't than you would be serving Satan while paying God mere lip service.If Christians have lost sight and comprehension of the true meaning of the Word of God then Christianity is lost, the written word of Holy Scripture is all we have to know God, we only know God by His word that He has given, you don't have that word or you have the wrong word and you don't have God and you are decieved. How can one preach the Gospel? how can one give the Good News? How can one tell the story of the history of human beings and the meaning of life on earth and all the wisdom that the Bible contains? How can you tell that you are reading the right word? You must rightly divide the word of God, if you cannot then you would want to find someone who can, otherwise your lost.
    It's not that important to have the correct translation. Due to lack of bibles there is millions of christians who don't have their own bible version in the world today. Yet they are still christians, and many more converts are being made daily. The Gospel message is not that difficult to get wrong , in a nut shell "Jesus died for your sins", there you go. The original apostles were not preaching the Gospel from a book. They preached it from their hearts ,and their witness, and their testimony and experiences of the living Saviour. Both those who had seen Him in the flesh, and those like Paul who had Divine encounters.

  20. #20
    Cup-of-Ruin
    Guest

    Default Re: Which Bible version shall I use

    Quote Originally Posted by MahogonySnail View Post

    First of all, interpretation and translation are two separate issues. Plenty of people claim to read and study the accurate and error-free KJV but still get things wrong on doctrine.

    Secondly, God can speak in many ways and most of those ways He speaks not using the bible but other ways. For example , coincidences, miracles, chance encounters, dreams, visions, etc. Many people who were former atheists could testify of how God revealed Himself to them and showed them that He was real. And all without a bible too.




    It's not that important to have the correct translation. Due to lack of bibles there is millions of christians who don't have their own bible version in the world today. Yet they are still christians, and many more converts are being made daily. The Gospel message is not that difficult to get wrong , in a nut shell "Jesus died for your sins", there you go. The original apostles were not preaching the Gospel from a book. They preached it from their hearts ,and their witness, and their testimony and experiences of the living Saviour. Both those who had seen Him in the flesh, and those like Paul who had Divine encounters.
    The Apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit who did testify the Truth, they preached as Jesus did and that is the Gospel of the Kingdom, Gospel is not "jesus died for your sins" Jesus came so that we could have life more abundantly, to repair the broken breach between Him and His people Israel who recieved the new name and New Covenant and became Christians. Christ came to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, this is what the Apostles preached.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. v-day
    By goth4god in forum Christian Singles Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: February 19th, 2010, 03:57 PM
  2. New King James Version Comparison Alert
    By Baruch in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: September 11th, 2009, 09:29 PM
  3. Is the written bible God's word?
    By thefightinglamb in forum Bible Discussion Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 20th, 2009, 11:34 PM