A capital idea

[james1523]

The Word tells us many times to trust no man, including so-called “scholars.” It was "scholars" who corrupted the covenant and led many astray (see Malachi).

After stating that you trust no man, including scholars in your previous post.. you have just posted a whole page with quotations from scholars, that you said cannot be trusted....lol

It is very simple way to know that the translators of the Bible were not inspired - because they have numerous alternate readings in the margins , which proves that they themselves, were subject to imperfection and were not certain of the absolute rendering. Therefore, they were not under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If your claim that the KJV is perfect is true.. then which KJV version is the true one? The 1611 one (that also included the uninspired Apocrypha) or the 1769 revision ? And if KJV is perfect to begin with.. why the need for revision?

 

[james1523]

turtle = a fowl of the genus Columba; called also the turtle dove and turtle pigeon. It is a wild species, frequenting the thickest parts of the woods, and its note is plainitive and tender. (Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).

But turtle in modern use-age refers to reptile, not to bird. If you believe they were right to translate correct word Passover into pagan word Easter for cultural reasons, for the common reading and useage at the time... why do you insist on KJV and disagree with the use of modern versions in the plain and simple language of our time?:

The issue is not about "translations" per se. Understand God's pattern. God has always given the COMMON man the COMMON bible in the COMMON language of the day to do one thing -- evangelize the world.

Therefore God has given us modern translation and modern version and nothing wrong with that. Why we have to use only old version KJV. Some consistency in your statements please.

The Word tells us many times to trust no man, including so-called “scholars.” It was "scholars" who corrupted the covenant and led many astray (see Malachi).

After stating that you trust no man, including scholars in your previous post.. you have just posted a whole page with quotations from scholars, that you said cannot be trusted....lol

It is very simple way to know that the translators of the Bible were not inspired - because they have numerous alternate readings in the margins , which proves that they themselves, were subject to imperfection and were not certain of the absolute rendering. Therefore, they were not under guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If your claim that the KJV is perfect is true.. then which KJV version is the true one? The 1611 one (that also included the uninspired Apocrypha) or the 1769 revision ? And if KJV is perfect to begin with.. why the need for revision?

 

[lawrenceb]

Look at the scriptures I posted. They are sufficient to prove the depravity of denominations.

The KJV translators were the learned men of their time. Yes, they were intelligent, but no more so than the average man of that time. BTW, folks are more "dumbed down" these days.

It is very simple way to know that the translators of the Bible were not inspired - because they have numerous alternate readings in the margins , which proves that they themselves, were subject to imperfection and were not certain of the absolute rendering. Therefore, they were not under guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is pure fantasy, borne of your agenda. You've merely confirmed that talk is cheap.

Therefore God has given us modern translation and modern version and nothing wrong with that.

English IS the end times language, the common language of the day. The "modern translation" IS the KJV.

... which KJV version is the true one? The 1611 one (that also included the uninspired Apocrypha)

The Apocrypha was NOT recognized as scripture; it was included BETWEEN the OT and the NT, for its historical value. It was NOT a part of the canon of scripture.

then which KJV version is the true one? The 1611 one (that also included the uninspired Apocrypha) or the 1769 revision ? And if KJV is perfect to begin with.. why the need for revision?

You have been misled. The 1611 has never been revised.

 

[james1523]

English IS the end times language, the common language of the day. The "modern translation" IS the KJV.

Are you sure? Actually 14.1% of world population speaks Mandarin.. 5.85% speaks Spanish.. 5.52% speaks English. English only third most common language. So which of Chinese, Spanish or English version is perfect inspired version?

This is pure fantasy, borne of your agenda. You've merely confirmed that talk is cheap.

Then how do you explain alternate renderings in the margins? If translator is inspired by Holy Spirit and confident in the inspiration, why they offer alternate renderings?


Differences between 1611 and 1769 versions:

Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath

Difference between Cambridge and Oxford versions
Jeremiah 34:16 – “whom ye had set” vs. “whom he had set”
2 Timothy 2:2 – “heard from me” vs. “heard of me”

So which KJV version is the true one?

If God is in control of the translation of the Holy Word.. then why He is not in control to prevent these differences?

 

[lawrenceb]

Going back to "turtle" for a moment:

Did you know that the KJV has its own built-in dictionary? It defines its own words. No other "version" has that ability.

For example, here are all the apearances of the word "turtle" and "turtles" in the KJV:

Lev 12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Lev 15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Num 6:10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:

I hope you got the message this time: read your KJV Bible!

As far as the English language, you'll need to quote your source(s) because the fact is that ONE THIRD of the world speaks English, and the other two-thirds wants to! Mandarin is #2. You quote YOUR primary source documentation, then I'll quote mine.

Differences between 1611 and 1769 versions:...

Don't show me spelling changes or typo's, show me your claimed revisions!

 

[james1523]

As far as the English language, you'll need to quote your source(s) because the fact is that ONE THIRD of the world speaks English, and the other two-thirds wants to! Mandarin is #2. You quote YOUR primary source documentation, then I'll quote mine.

The figures I quote are for the official or native languages in the world. This is from List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers in wikipedia which quotes source Nationalencyklopedin "Världens 100 största språk 2007" The World's 100 Largest Languages in 2007. Nationalencyklopedin (NE) is the most comprehensive contemporary Swedish language encylopedia, initiated by a favourable loan from the Government of Sweden of 17 million Swedish kronor in 1980.

There is difference between CAN speak English and English is official or native language of the country. If you are going to claim which language is most common you should quote the figures for official or native language like I have. Because people will in private prefer to read bible and pray in the language they are most familiar with , their most common or official language. Your 'one third' claim may be true (pending your appropriate sources) but this is probably the estimated number who CAN speak English... which probably includes all those who are at elementary level. To read and understand English Bible properly we need advanced understanding of English but if I am foreigner I will prefer to read Bible in my own language not English version.

Or, if we want further proof English is not common end times language of the day, let us consider world population.

China alone is about 20% of world population, followed by India which is 17%.. so that is 37% of world population at least where English is not native language. Now let's add up populations of key English speaking countries - USA, UK, Canada, Australia combined is about 8% world population. So in the world is 8% English speaker native, 92% non-English speaker native. Now we can conclude that if God was to make common Bible version for end-times, it would not be English, is not KJV.

Now please quote your sources...

 

[james1523]

Don't show me spelling changes or typo's, show me your claimed revisions!

Please go to kingjamesbibleonline.org and you can choose Authorized KJV or original 1611 KJV. See, they are two different version, authorized KJV is revision of 1611 KJV where many errors were fixed. I showed what you call "spelling change or typos" in previous post. You can search the verse i provided for comparison on this website. Meaning between the two version is different. A serious error is this one which says opposite:
Ezekial 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” (in 1611 version) vs. “poured it not upon the ground” (in Authorized Cambridge version)

Please explain why God did not stop inspired translators from making mistake in 1611 version in the first place, so they had to make new version. Or why He did not stop making two versions of KJV that say different things.

 

[lawrenceb]

...the fact is that ONE THIRD of the world speaks English, and the other two-thirds wants to! Mandarin is #2....I'll quote [my primary source documentation]...

In 1611 the KJV served only 5 million English-speaking people. Today the KJV could be used to bring this century's nearly 2 billion English speakers to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ (49% of these are native speakers of English; 51% of these can speak some English as their second language). This is nearly 33% of the world's population, which is 16% of the people who have ever lived. The teaching of English is now required in most nations of the world. English Professor, Seth Lerer, feels that 'in many ways, the central feature of 20th century English is its status as a global language' (See David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language; H.L. Mencken, The American Language, NYC; Alfred Knopf, 1937, pp. 590-615; The Teaching Company newsletter re: The History of the English Language, n.d.).

English wins, not by mere force of numbers, but by weight of its intrinsic character, which linguist H.L. Mencken calls, "The prevalence of very short words in English...[a] succinct, straightforward and simple tongue - in some of its aspects, in fact almost as a kind of baby-talk" (Mencken, pp. 600, 602). The international English of the KJV can communicate the gospel to 33% of the world's population. It can reach more people than any other single Bible available today. New versions are not written in international English. This is why the devil hates the King James Bible.

BTW, beware of the online fake encyclopedia, wikipedia. It is owned by an admitted member of the Church of Satan.

...many errors were fixed. I showed what you call "spelling change or typos" in previous post.

Please explain why God did not stop inspired translators from making mistake in 1611 version in the first place, so they had to make new version. Or why He did not stop making two versions of KJV that say different things.

The Myth of Revision

Translator Samuel Ward was involved in the ongoing proofreading of the KJV text after its publication in 1611. The only changes to the KJV since 1611 are of three types:

1. 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman type).

2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.

3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.

The first change involved the look of the type. The original 1611 was printed using a German Gothic font, an old ornate typestyle meant to imitate the hand drawn manuscripts of the Middle Ages. Some of the letters in the 1611 printing looked (not sounded) different from the Roman type used in the 1612 printing. For instance, in the 1611 edition, when the lower case letter 's' was used at the beginning or middle of a word, the Gothic stretched out form looked like our Roman letter 'f'; the Gothic 'v' looked like today's Roman 'u', while the Gothic 'u' looked like today's 'v' e.g. "the fame fhall be faued," sounded just like today's "the same shall be saved." It simply looked different.

The second changes involve the correction of typographical errors. In 1629 and 1638, Samuel Ward and fellow translator John Bois, proofread the KJV for typographical errors for Cambridge University Press. Since Ward and Bois had been on the original committee, they could find the printer's slips. The total misprints of both of the two 1611 printings combined exhibit much over 100 misprints from the intended text of the KJV translators. When matched against a current KJV one might wrongly conclude that "the" 1611 KJV was different in 136 places from today's KJV, not realizing that the differences were typographical errors brought about during the typesetting of the two 1611 editions.

The third and last changes involve the standardization of spelling. English spelling was not uniform until the late 1700's. Before that time the same word was even spelled differently within the same sentence. Letters were sometimes added to justify and even out columns of type. Letters were doubled and 'e' was often added (e.g. 'fhewe' for 'shew,' 'dayes' for 'days,' and 'Sonne.' for 'Son'). The spelling of the KJV was standardized and made uniform beginning in 1762, by Dr. Thomas Paris of Cambridge, and finally in 1769, by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford.

These typo-corrected editions of 1629 and 1638 and standardized spelling editions of 1762 and 1769 are wrongly called 'revisions' of the KJV, by those* who would like to pretend that the KJV has undergone "several revisions" or "four revisions" correcting "slight inaccuracies" and "its English form" (*e.g. G.W. Anderson and Mrs. D.E. Anderson, "The Authorized Version - What Today's Christian Needs to Know about the KJV"; Preface to the New King James Version, p. xxi.). There have never been any 'revisions' of the KJV text. The 'Board of Managers' of the American Bible Society in 1852 thoroughly examined the text of the KJV and determined that:

"The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text...With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography [spelling] in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variations from the original copy as left by the translators." (Report of the Committee on Vesions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, 1852, pp 7, 11 as cited by George T. Crabb, Final Authority: A Lesson Series, Troy, MI: GTC Publications, 1996).

The following four printings changed the following:

1629: Correction of typographical errors (begun)
1638: Correction of typographical errors (continued)
1762: Standardization of spelli/ng (begun)
1769: Standardization of spelling (completed)

The Myth of Revision by David Reagan (available through A.V. Publications or Beebe Publications) proves that lists published by KJV critics (e.g. Pirkle, Combs et al.), purporting to show various or changed readings in KJV editions, are simply showing lists of typographical errors which had crept into one printing or another (which KJV translators Ward and Bois attempted to fix in subsequent printings). When one considers that, since 1611, many millions upon millions of copies of the KJV's thousands upon thousands of words, have been typeset, EACH LETTER BY HAND, BY CANDLE LIGHT, for hundreds of years, thousands upon thousands of times, by thousands upon thousands of printers, it is easy to see how misprints could creep into a printing by one or several printers, and how corrections would have to be done periodically to keep on course. Scrivener lists many of the typos and the course of their correction over the years [e.g. 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, 1769, et al.]. He lists some of the few unwarranted variations. Seeing for one's self his list of typos, which have been fixed over the years, makes the myth of any actual textual 'revision' of the KJV vanish into smoke. Most are spelling errors of insignificant words, such as 'Jehoiakins' vs 'Jehoiachins.' Most were fixed almost immediately by Ward and Bois.

Today the effort continues to keep the KJV without misprint. Cambridge University Press's large-print text-only edition is the standard. (available from A.V. Publications; Welcome to AVPublications.com). Local church publishers continue the tradition (Bearing Precious Seed, e.g. Local Church Bible Publishers, P.O. Box 26024, Lansing MI, 48909). Sadly, Zondervan and the American Bible Society are deviating ever so slightly from the standard spelling. Others like Oxford University Press and Thomas Nelson allow one or two spelling typos to remain. (F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representations, Cambridge University Press, 1884).

 

[james1523]

In 1611 the KJV served only 5 million English-speaking people. Today the KJV could be used to bring this century's nearly 2 billion English speakers to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ (49% of these are native speakers of English; 51% of these can speak some English as their second language). This is nearly 33% of the world's population, which is 16% of the people who have ever lived. The teaching of English is now required in most nations of the world. English Professor, Seth Lerer, feels that 'in many ways, the central feature of 20th century English is its status as a global language' (See David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language; H.L. Mencken, The American Language, NYC; Alfred Knopf, 1937, pp. 590-615; The Teaching Company newsletter re: The History of the English Language, n.d.).

English wins, not by mere force of numbers, but by weight of its intrinsic character, which linguist H.L. Mencken calls, "The prevalence of very short words in English...[a] succinct, straightforward and simple tongue - in some of its aspects, in fact almost as a kind of baby-talk" (Mencken, pp. 600, 602). The international English of the KJV can communicate the gospel to 33% of the world's population. It can reach more people than any other single Bible available today. New versions are not written in international English. This is why the devil hates the King James Bible.

BTW, beware of the online fake encyclopedia, wikipedia. It is owned by an admitted member of the Church of Satan.

Do you have a source that proves the founder of wikipedia is member of Church of Satan?

2 billion is more than the population of the English-speaking countries combined. This 1/3 figure is very rough estimate the number is closer to 1 billion which is approximately only 20% of world population..and also includes all people with elementary English skills. As I said before.. why would a person with elementary English want to use a bible not in their native language but in past century ye Olde English?

Despite your claim that the KJV will be common bible for end times.. the fact is that the NIV has been the best selling bible worldwide with more than 300 million copies sold. But historically the KJV has been most widely owned.

The Myth of Revision


Translator Samuel Ward was involved in the ongoing proofreading of the KJV text after its publication in 1611. The only changes to the KJV since 1611 are of three types:

1. 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman type).

2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.

3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.

The KJV was actually a revision of the bishop's bible of 1568 which was a revision of the Great Bible of 1539, which was itself based on three previous English translations from the early 1500s. Therefore the KJV is a later revision in long list of revisions. The removal of the non-canonical books in the 1611 version and the correction of the errors (which you had previously denied was any errors, now are admitting that there were), was major revision.

 

[lawrenceb]

No, there never was any "major revision;" in fact, there was no revision at all. Check your own dictionary for the definition of revision.

As far as the fake encyclopedia web site wikipedia's founder, an admitted Satanist, you can do your own research yourself.

 

[james1523]

No, there never was any "major revision;" in fact, there was no revision at all. Check your own dictionary for the definition of revision.

I do better than checking a dictionary, I find book about the history of the KJV (bold emphasis mine):

"The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text – while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators' work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note" from Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1884). The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

As far as the fake encyclopedia web site wikipedia's founder, an admitted Satanist, you can do your own research yourself.

As you are the one making claims about why we should not use Wikipedia, based upon your claims of an individual's religious beliefs.. the onus is upon you to provide the proof. I have myself found no evidence that he is admitted Satanist. Even if he were.. this does not mean the encyclopedia is bad.

Now far from being a pure translation of God's Word into English, the KJV is tainted by denominational bias.

"King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy"
Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

Now in the thread on denominations you are clearly against denominations. But here you are promoting the use of a bible version that is tainted with the particular beliefs and practices of a denomination that exists because an English King wished to have freedom to divorce, and a denomination in which the former archbishop of Canterbury is a self-confessed druid. Now between the use of the pagan term Easter and the archbishop being a Druid , we can see a clear link!

 

[lawrenceb]

As you are the one making claims about why we should not use Wikipedia, based upon your claims of an individual's religious beliefs.. the onus is upon you to provide the proof. I have myself found no evidence that he is admitted Satanist. Even if he were.. this does not mean the encyclopedia is bad.

You were given a warning about wikipedia’s Satanist owner as a courtesy. Take it or leave it. If you appropriate info from him, then the onus is on you to perform due diligence. Don’t be lazy.

I do better than checking a dictionary, I find book about the history of the KJV (bold emphasis mine):

"The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text – while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators' work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note" from Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1884). The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

LOL You cited a reference (i.e. Scrivener) that I had already mentioned back in post #28.

Firstly, as I’ve already shown you, the only changes to the KJV since 1611 are of three types (NO "revisions"):

1. 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman type).

2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.

3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.

Secondly, you blew it by grabbing what you thought was an easy defense to your already weak position. You are obviously not aware of the textual heresies of Scrivener. He was a Bible critic and Revised Version Committee member, working under the spiritualists Westcott and Hort. He wanted to omit many crucial parts of the New Testament. I have a whole chapter here which exposes Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus and Scrivener himself, who back-translated the KJB into Greek and also made some unwarranted changes to this Textus Receptus, now published as a so-called edition of Beza. You need to wise up to what’s truly going on in the silicon snake pit of textual criticism.

I’ll say it another way. You have been suckered by the Bible corrupter F.H.A. Scrivener. He spread the virus of textual criticism, he was against the KJB, he denies preservation, and came up with his own tweaked “bible,” (so-called Beza), published by The Trinitarian Bible Society as The New Testament, The Greek Underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 [not really!]. Scrivener was a member of the Westcott-Hort Revised Version Committee of 1881, wrote Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament, a book often highly critical of the Textus Receptus and 24 pure Greek readings in the KJB which he wrongly ascribes to a Latin source. It is neither scholarly nor even common sense to go back to Scrivener’s Greek text since, according to Donald Waite Jr., Scrivener’s TR was “backwards” translated from the KJB into Greek!

Here is a breakdown summary of:

F.H.A. Scrivener & His Textual Heresies

1. Scrivener was a member of the Westcott and Hort Revised Version Committee (RV) of 1881 and worked in masterminding this corrupt version. He stated that the RV was “better” than the KJB.

2. Scrivener was the author of several books promoting textual criticism which taught generations of students to question the Bible.

3. Few know that Scrivener moved away from his original Textus Receptus[/i] (TR) position in his later book, Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament, written before he created his TR Greek text. Scrivener did not recommend all of the readings in his TR and suggested removing numerous verses, as well as important words supporting the Incarnation, the sinlessness of Christ, and the Trinity. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1875).

- Scrivener desires to make two changes in the scriptures which would make Jesus Christ a sinner (Luke 2:22 and John 7:8).

- Scrivener wants to remove the Trinitarian proof texts of 1 John 5:7-8 and Col 2:2.

- Scrivener rejects the proof text for the Incarnation and the deity of Christ (1 Tim 3:16), as well as rejecting “God” in 1 Peter 3:15 and the Holy Ghost in Acts 16:7.

- He suggests removing Acts 8:37 to support his Anglican heresy of infant baptismal regeneration.

- He denies the portion of scripture that tells us Jesus was “broken” for us (1 Cor 11:24).

Documentation for all of the above can be found in the 1200-page book by G. A. Riplinger and Bryn Riplinger, Hazardous Materials: Greek & Hebrew Study Dangers, The Voice of Strangers, The Men Behind the Smokescreen, Burning Bibles Word By Word, A. V. Publications Corp., 2008.

You need to get that one-of-a-kind book if you’re going to be a player in this game - stop running on ego and and start doing your own primary source research !!!

 

[james1523]

You were given a warning about wikipedia’s Satanist owner as a courtesy. Take it or leave it. If you appropriate info from him, then the onus is on you to perform due diligence. Don’t be lazy.

Firstly, he does not own wikipedia per se..
"Who owns the Web site? Wikipedia is managed by a non-profit parent organization, The Wikimedia Foundation, which also manages the operation of Wikipedia's sister projects"

Secondly the information on wikipedia does not come from him...lol obviously you do not even understand what Wikipedia is.

Thirdly please do your research before making false accusations..it is clear that you have no verifable proof that he is a Satanist and so your comments are mere hearsay...probably arising from considerable personal bias in your own scholarly endeavors.

LOL You cited a reference (i.e. Scrivener) that I had already mentioned back in post #28.

Firstly, as I’ve already shown you, the only changes to the KJV since 1611 are of three types (NO "revisions"):

1. 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman type).

2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.

3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.

Secondly, you blew it by grabbing what you thought was an easy defense to your already weak position. You are obviously not aware of the textual heresies of Scrivener. He was a Bible critic and Revised Version Committee member, working under the spiritualists Westcott and Hort. He wanted to omit many crucial parts of the New Testament. I have a whole chapter here which exposes Scrivener’s Greek Textus Receptus and Scrivener himself, who back-translated the KJB into Greek and also made some unwarranted changes to this Textus Receptus, now published as a so-called edition of Beza. You need to wise up to what’s truly going on in the silicon snake pit of textual criticism.

I’ll say it another way. You have been suckered by the Bible corrupter F.H.A. Scrivener. He spread the virus of textual criticism, he was against the KJB, he denies preservation, and came up with his own tweaked “bible,” (so-called Beza), published by The Trinitarian Bible Society as The New Testament, The Greek Underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611 [not really!]. Scrivener was a member of the Westcott-Hort Revised Version Committee of 1881, wrote Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament, a book often highly critical of the Textus Receptus and 24 pure Greek readings in the KJB which he wrongly ascribes to a Latin source. It is neither scholarly nor even common sense to go back to Scrivener’s Greek text since, according to Donald Waite Jr., Scrivener’s TR was “backwards” translated from the KJB into Greek!

Here is a breakdown summary of:

F.H.A. Scrivener & His Textual Heresies

1. Scrivener was a member of the Westcott and Hort Revised Version Committee (RV) of 1881 and worked in masterminding this corrupt version. He stated that the RV was “better” than the KJB.

2. Scrivener was the author of several books promoting textual criticism which taught generations of students to question the Bible.

3. Few know that Scrivener moved away from his original Textus Receptus[/i] (TR) position in his later book, Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament, written before he created his TR Greek text. Scrivener did not recommend all of the readings in his TR and suggested removing numerous verses, as well as important words supporting the Incarnation, the sinlessness of Christ, and the Trinity. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1875).

- Scrivener desires to make two changes in the scriptures which would make Jesus Christ a sinner (Luke 2:22 and John 7:8).

- Scrivener wants to remove the Trinitarian proof texts of 1 John 5:7-8 and Col 2:2.

- Scrivener rejects the proof text for the Incarnation and the deity of Christ (1 Tim 3:16), as well as rejecting “God” in 1 Peter 3:15 and the Holy Ghost in Acts 16:7.

- He suggests removing Acts 8:37 to support his Anglican heresy of infant baptismal regeneration.

- He denies the portion of scripture that tells us Jesus was “broken” for us (1 Cor 11:24).

Documentation for all of the above can be found in the 1200-page book by G. A. Riplinger and Bryn Riplinger, Hazardous Materials: Greek & Hebrew Study Dangers, The Voice of Strangers, The Men Behind the Smokescreen, Burning Bibles Word By Word, A. V. Publications Corp., 2008.

You need to get that one-of-a-kind book if you’re going to be a player in this game - stop running on ego and and start doing your own primary source research !!!

merriam-webster dictionary:
[h=2]Definition of REVISION[/h]1

a : an act of revising
b : a result of revising : alteration




You admit there were changes from 1612 to 1769. A change is a revision.. If you have a document and you make changes to it, it becomes a revision of the previous version. Clearly the three versions you mention, are 3 revisions! I think you need to check up that dictionary of yours again. Plus, despite stating that the KJV is perfect in previous post:
Now you admit there are errors:
"1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors."

If there were errors in 1611 version, who is to say that there are not still errors in the latest version?

 

[lawrenceb]

james1523, the real peril to anyone who stands and teaches is an ignorance of his own ignorance and a claim to be an authority in an area about which his knowledge is incomplete. A person must first be a learner before he is a teacher.

1) wikipedia is owned by a man, and that man's agenda is reflected on his site. As you yourself have indicated, you're really not interested in learning whether the owner of wikipedia is a Satanist anyway: "Even if he were.. this does not mean the encyclopedia is bad." Rather, you are so obviously interested in protecting your pride -- truth be damned.

2) A change is NOT a revision. Then what does man's law say about what qualifies as a revision?

The mere fact that most bible translations are copyrighted proves the true motives of the Revision Committees of those particular translations (400+ and counting); To change God's Word!

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." --The Derivative Copyright Law (partial).

Did you read that? In order for a bible to be copyrighted, it must be "substantially different" from the original texts! No wonder there are so many different doctrines going around today. No wonder there are so many contradictions in bibles! No wonder copyrighted bibles are so different from one another and say completely different things! They must be substantially different from one another in order to be copyrighted! The copyrighted bible you have in your possession is not the Holy Scripture, it is a translation which is substantially different from the scripture!

Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.

First of all, who is the "owner" of God's Word? Well obviously, the one who created it; God. Certainly, not mere man. So how can any man copyright God's Word? The answer is he can't and he doesn't, because man can only copyright "their own words," and not the words of another. Therefore, copyrighted bibles contain the words of man and not the words of God.

Secondly, did you know if you quote from, or copy from, or preach from, one of these copyrighted bibles, without the written permission of the "author" of that work, did you know you can be fined, imprisoned, and penalized for doing so? In other words, whoever owns the copyright to a bible is preventing you from repeating what is contained in that bible! Does mere man have the authority to prevent someone from sharing God's Word with others? No, he doesn't. But since copyrighted bibles contain the words of men, only some man's personal interpretation of the words of God, they can prevent others from using "their" bibles.

And think about this, if you have to get the bible "author's" permission, then obviously this work is "created" by some man who believes he himself is the "author" of this bible. He is basically saying, “Before you can preach God's Word, you must go through me and ask my permission!” This is basically what copyrighted bibles demand!

Look at any copyrighted bible for proof of this. Here is the copyright notice to the New International Version (the NIV Bible - © Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984):

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."

In other words, we must ask permission from the NIV bible publishers to use more than 25% of any book of the bible, or more than 500 verses. The NIV bible is preventing you from preaching over 500 verses of their bible, and is also preventing you from repeating an entire book of the bible! For example, if I wanted to read the entire book of Jude (which contains only a total of 25 verses) to a congregation, I am forbidden to do so from the NIV bible!!! I will be persecuted if I do, because I would be quoting a "complete book" from their bible. The most I can quote from the book of Jude would be 25% of this book, which would mean I cannot read, print, or duplicate more than 6 verses from this book! I cannot read more than 25% of any book of their bible!

We must ask ourselves these questions, "Why are the publishers of copyrighted bibles threatening to persecute us if we quote from their bibles? Is this the character of someone who wants God's Word spread abroad to others? Or is this the character of someone who is preventing God's Word from being spread to others?"

How would you feel if some man said you could not preach God's Word unless you asked them for permission? Well, this is exactly what copyrighted bibles demand, on pain of being fined, imprisoned, and penalized for preaching from their bibles. So, why give power to the beast? Why use some man's bible if he is threatening you? Why not go to scripture instead, where you will receive blessings and not cursings. Why not use scripture instead, where you need not worry about being persecuted from some man who thinks he owns the words you are quoting from?

How serious of an offense can copyright infringement be? According to the Copyright Law itself, from Title 17, Chapter 12, of the U.S.Code, Section 1204, the criminal offenses and penalties of someone who violates a copyright shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

You might ask, "Why are bibles copyrighted?" The answer is because merchants want to make money, and the only way for them to make a buck off of God's Word is to substantially change it and pass it off as the real thing, so they can sell their merchandise. In addition, the reason why they demand that you ask them for permission to use their bibles is so they can make even more money off of you, because when you ask permission, you must either pay them money or advertise their book!

Hosea 12:7, "He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress."

Revelation 18:23, "...the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies...for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."

FYI, readers should read "The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation," 1986 THEMSELVES if they want to be Bereans. It is available from Zondervan Publishing House, 1415 Lake Dr. S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 (ISBN: 0-310-24181-2).

Modern versions do contain a lot of God's Truth, but they are also mixed with man's opinions and personal interpretations. It is possible to understand the True meaning of God's Word through some modern versions, but it is a lot more difficult to do. For example, one can understand the meaning of certain words by reading verses in its context, and by comparing the use of those same words in other passages. Also, by studying the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, one can understand more accurately certain words. So, even though words and meanings have been changed in bibles, it is possible to understand its true meaning, but it will take a lot more effort on the part of the reader.

I do use the King James bible, because it is not copyrighted. And it's New Testament is taken from the Majority Text Manuscripts.

The facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the simplicity of salvation, are found intact even in the grossest perversions of bibles. It must be remembered, though, that the scriptures are a weapon in the hands of the servants of God (Hebrews 4:12, Ephesians 6:17, 2 Timothy 3:16). It is also food that we may grow properly (I Peter 2:2, Hebrews 5:13-14). It is in these areas, and many others, that bibles are weakened and corrupted. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new bible versions, thus weakening scripture. It is, therefore, possible to get saved through bibles, but you will never be a threat to an adversary.

Hebrews 5:13-14, "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

If you flip on a religious TV station, for example, or walk into a church, you watch and listen to these guys expound on their theories of who God is, and all you're getting is the milk. You can't survive on milk. And if all you get is milk, you end up dying in the end, spiritually. This is why we fail to see the fruits of the spirit being manifest in people today; the love, the peace, the joy, and the other fruits of the spirit. If you look around the world today, there is no joy. The abundant life is gone. And it's all due to the fact that they haven't matured in the Word, they've stayed on the milk and have not eaten more solid food. If you keep someone on milk forever, they'll wind up dying on you. You have to move on to more solid food.

The same thing happens when you read from the Bible for instance. If you don't move on from its milk, and get into a more meatier substance, you will end up dying, your bones start to get soft, your muscles start to wither, you're no longer exercising.

A soldier is always out there exercising so that he may be ready and useful for battle. But if you're going to use inferior tools, or if you're not going to be fully exercised, or you're only going to go through the motions but never really do them, then all you're ending up with is a fat, lazy military who, when the order is given to march, they sit back and say, "Well, according to my interpretation of this passage of the order, it doesn't mean this", and so the order is never executed.

Then another order comes down. Now you've got a second order when the first order hasn't even been executed yet, because we've re-interpreted the first order. When the second order comes down, we re-interpret that, and that one doesn't get executed. And this is what we have today, many "soldiers of Christ" who do not exercise His commands.

BTW, recently the owners and publishers of the corrupt NKJV (New King James Version), Thomas Nelson Publishers, have been bought out by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. and their subsidiary HarperCollins, publisher of the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. Now Murdoch owns the NKJV and the printing rights to the NIV, through Zondervan, which Murdoch bough in 1988! A private equity firm, Kohlberg and Company, acquired majority ownership of Nelson in 2010, setting the stage for this most recent Murdoch buyout. Now, practically every bible published in the U.S is under the control of Murdoch, a purveyor of erotica and the Satanic Bible.

Just coincidence.

 

[DHC]

What is your opinion of the NKJV?

John 5:39
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these
are they which testify of Me.

Romans 10:9
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart
that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[lawrenceb]

What is your opinion of the NKJV?

As I mentioned previously:

BTW, recently the owners and publishers of the corrupt NKJV (New King James Version), Thomas Nelson Publishers, have been bought out by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. and their subsidiary HarperCollins, publisher of the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. Now Murdoch owns the NKJV and the printing rights to the NIV, through Zondervan, which Murdoch bough in 1988! A private equity firm, Kohlberg and Company, acquired majority ownership of Nelson in 2010, setting the stage for this most recent Murdoch buyout. Now, practically every bible published in the U.S is under the control of Murdoch, a purveyor of erotica and the Satanic Bible.

We have to remember that in the Bible, deception always takes the form of a counterfeit or imitation of the real thing. Galatians 1:6-7 says there is ”...another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” So they change it just a little bit. Remember in Isaiah 14:14 Lucifer said: ”I will be like the most High.” He wants to be a counterfeit god -- with a counterfeit bible.

Second Timothy 3:8 says, ”as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these...” These magicians copied Moses exactly. Satan is a counterfeiter; he tries to copy Jesus Christ and the Father as closely as he can. Jesus is the light of the world; how does Satan appear? He appears as an angel of light. When Jacob tried to disguise himself as his brother, his words betrayed him. I am afraid the words of the New King James betray it as a counterfeit. It has about one hundred changes per page. This amounts to about sixty thousand changes in the New King James Version. Compare that to the simple spelling and standardizations (about four hundred) which took place in the 1700s to the original King James Version.

I am reminded of the verse in Jeremiah 6:16 which says, ”ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” The churches today are without rest, and I think they need to take the ”old paths.” For example, Isa 66:5 omits “he shall appear,” which denies Christ’s coming! Isa 11:3 omits his “quick understanding.”

The deity of Christ has disappeared in a number of places in the New King James. The devil said to Jesus Christ, ”if thou be the Son of God...” (Matt 4:3, 6). He was questioning whether he was ”the Son” The mockers said to Jesus on the cross, ”If thou be the Son of God, come down” (Matt 27:40). They were questioning whether or not he is the Son of God. His Sonship is an essential doctrine. In fact, 1 John 2:22-23 says, ”He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” The KJV verses in Acts 3:13 and 26 that say Jesus Christ is the ”Son”, are changed in the New King James to say he is a mere ”servant”. Something similar happens again in Acts 4:27, 30. The King James says that Jesus Christ was God’s ”child”; the NKJV changes that to ”servant”. Now, the problem with this rendering is that the New King James and the new translations, in John 4:51, take that same Greek word and translate it as nobleman’s “son.” So they know that the word can be translated as “Son.” Yet they take the Sonship away from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Dr. John Hinton, Ph.D. linguist from Harvard, shows us where the Muslim Qur’an (Koran) denies that Jesus is the Son of God, just like the NKJV. The Qur’an pretends that Jesus said that he was only a “servant” not a Son. It says, “I am indeed a servant of Allah...” Surah 19:30 (Surah of Maryam).

The founder of the NKJV, a man named Samuel, comes from Lebanon, “an Arab country” with a large Moslem population (World Book Encyclopedia, p. 151, Chicago, 1961, Vol. 11). Forbes magazine even entitled their article about Thomas Nelson’s owner, Samuel and his worldly marketing exploits, A Brush with the Devil (August 19, 1991, pp. 61 and 62). Of late, the publishers of the NKJV are publishing risque` and scintillating book covers (see Pregnancy Bites for Thomas Nelson’s Bites series; better yet, do [/i]not[/i] see it.).

The NKJV waters down the deity of Jesus Christ again in Matthew 20:20 where instead of saying ”worship,” it just says ”kneel” (I kneel when I scrub the floor).

Matthew 26”64 talks about ”the right hand of power”; the New King James capitalizes ”Power,” and says that Jesus is ”at the right hand of the Power.” implying that the ”power” is something other than Jesus Christ. But as we read the context of that verse and go down to Matthew 28:18, we see that Jesus said, ”All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” So the power is Jesus Christ in the KJV.

Another change made in the New King James is in Revelation 1:6. The King James says, ”God and his Father”; the New King James says, ”His God and Father.”

Genesis 22:8 is another denial of the deity of Jesus Christ in the New King James. As a prophetic comment, Abraham said, ”God will provide himself a lamb.” The New King James says, ”God will provide for Himself the lamb.” We know this was prophetic because a ram was provided for Abraham, not a lamb; God provided himself as a lamb, a sacrifice for our sins. The NKJV denies that Jesus is God here.

There are a lot of New Age renderings in the New King James. They consistently substitute the term ”the Christ” for ”Christ.” The worst component of the New King James is its use of the term “the One,” capital O-n-e, used for the masculine pronoun ”he.” This word gives credence to the monism, pantheism, and the neuter god that is so prevalent in the New Age movement. These views teach that the universe is God, thereby making man himself a part of God. The February (1994) edition of Christian American magazine quotes another new version stylist. She boasts of her “monism” and refers to “god herself” as the neuter One, capital O-n-e. She believes that God is a female god and a neuter god. So when we see the O-n-e in the New King James, instead of ”he,” the masculine, we are moving away from the historic God of Christianity to this monistic neuter god. We also see this monism in the New King James in John 4:24. The King James says, ”God is a Spirit.” The New King James says, ”God is Spirit.” Now we know that there are plenty of spirits that are not God; the NKJV makes similar changes in Revelation 15:3. (See New Age Bible Versions, Ch. 5 relating to NIV stylist and lesbian activist, Virginia Mollenkott.)

The most frightening thing that I found in the NKJV was its rendition of Luke 7:19-20. The King James says, ”he that should come.” The New King James has dropped the masculine ”he,” replaced it with the gender-neutral ”One.” and capitalized ”Coming.” It says, ”the Coming One.” They have changed Jesus Christ into Lucifer. Perhaps they do not realize this; I suspect they were deceived when the devil nudged them to make this switch. The New Age and Luciferian matriarch, Alice Bailey, has a chapter in her book entitles, “The Doctrine of the Coming One.” Who is her “Coming One”? It is Lucifer. She says, ”Humanity in all lands today awaits the Coming One...Let death fulfill the purpose of the Coming One” (Alice Bailey, The reappearance of the Christ, pp. 64, 188; New Age Bible Versions, Ch. 5).

Christians know who this evil “Coming One” is. Second Thessalonians 2:9 says it is the Antichrist, ”him, whose coming is after the working of Satan” By using the title, “Coming One,” which is so pervasive in Luciferian, occult and New Age literature, the New King James is using that “common vocabulary.”

Another example of the retrograde nature of the New King James is its Jehovah’s Witness readings. The NKJV has taken the historic title of the Holy Ghost, which is the ”Comforter” (John 14:16), and changed it to ”the Helper.” The Jehovah’s Witness bible has always replaced the Holy Ghost with ”the helper” there and elsewhere, because they do not believe the Holy Ghost is a person. They believe the Holy Ghost is a wind, a force, or something that just sort of ‘helps’ God. Now the New King James has the identical rendering that the Jehovah’s Witness bible (The New World Translation) has had for years.

The New King James omits the word ”hell” 21 or so times. It replaces it with ”Hades” in the New Testament. Hades has numerous New Age interpretations. The rock group Styx tells teens on Saturday night that they can party in ‘Hades’ forever. Then, an NKJV pastor, on Sunday morning, tells lost teens that they will die and go to ‘Hades.’ No wonder the teens are not moved to repentance. No one wants to go to ‘hell,’ but ‘Hades’...that might be fun! The NKJV has also taken away the powerful word ”hell” in the Old Testament and replaced it with the qword ”Sheol” eighteen times. So here again, the NKJV is a translation that needs to be translated, using words that impart no exact meaning to an English ear, and can be given any sort of definition or meaning that anyone would like.

The New King James Version is carving a platform to support the idol worship that will fill the globe during the tribulation, when they ”worship the image of the beast” (Rev 13:15). Paul’s harsh rebuke to the idol worshippers in Acts 17:22, ”ye are too superstitious,” becomes the hearty compliment in the NKJV, ”you are very religious.” The Greek word for ”religious” is nowhere in the verse. (James Strong, author of the Strong’s Concordance, pretends that the word for ‘religion’ is there, just as he pretends to correctly define many other words.).

The sharp distinction between the saved and the unsaved fades from the pages of the NKJV as ”the heathen” (Ps 79:1), a word with religious connotations, is transmuted into the politically correct ”traditions.” Sorcerers no longer ”bewitch,” but merely ”astonish” (Acts 8:9). Ask yourself, “Which terms fit in with the one-world religion’s theme -- Toleration for Religious Diversity -- ‘too superstitious heathens who have been bewitched’, or ‘very religious nations who are astonished’?”

We have space to mention only some of the pro-New Age renderings in the New King James Version. The Bible talks about ”the end of the world.” The NKJV changes that to ”the end of the age” in Matthew 24:3 and in most of the New Testament. This is what New Agers have been taught all along. They believe in a series of ages -- one age follows another age -- you merely change the page on your calendar. They do not believe that the world will end in a cataclysmic explosion (2 Peter 3:10-12). New Agers believe time is cyclical and think we are approaching the end of the age and the dawning of a “new” age.

Even corrupt secularized Greek lexicons, such as the ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. 10, pp. 203-204), admit that the KJV’s use of the term ”world” for the Greek aion (when the context refers to ‘space’) and ‘age’ (when it refers to ‘time’) are correct within the historic Judeo-Christian tradition. The exclusive use of the word aion as ”age” is Platonic in origin and implication. New versions admit that the word “world” is a valid rendering of aion, using it in Romans 12:2, 2 Timothy 4:10, and other places where the verse cannot be twisted to adapt to a Platonic notion. (See New Age Bible Versions, Ch. 17.)

The NKJV often teaches that one is saved by his “acts” and works, instead of by faith. The KJV teaches, in Rev 7:14, Isa 64:6 and 61:10, that our righteousness is imputed. It echoes this in Revelation 19:8 saying, the “fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” Here, the NKJV, following no Greek text in the world, adds the word “acts,” changing it to the “righteous acts of saints.” The NKJV teaches progressive salvation, saying we “are being saved,” instead of we “are saved” (e.g. 1 Cor 1:18, 2 Cor 2:15). In the NKJV they “have been saved,” instead of, they “are saved.” The NKJV will make its readers very nervous and unsure of their salvation with all of this works-based salvation. The NKJV substitutes the works of “faithfulness” for believing “faith” in Rom 3:3 and Gal 5:22. In 1 Cor 11:1 the NKJV teaches that we must “Imitate” Christ, instead of being “followers” of Christ. We follow “the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:12, Gal 2:16, 20 Phil 3:9, 12). Paul said, “whose faith follow” (Heb 12:2; 13:7). With so much ‘works’ salvation in the NKJV, “God keeps him busy” in Eccl 5:20, instead of the KJV’s “God answereth him.” With all of these ‘works’ in the NKJV, it is no wonder that it changes the KJV from “narrow is the way,” to “difficult is the way” in Matthew 7:14.

The New King James publishers boast that it “continues the great tradition” of the KJV. Its New Age readings are not its only divergence from the traditional text. The Greek text underlying the NKJV’s New Testament is very loosely taken in many places from the 1881 Greek text of Scrivener. It does not represent the pure Greek text followed by the King James Bible translators in 1611, which they referred to as the “Originall.” Estimated variance between Scrivener and the “Originall” is between 56 and 287 differences. Harvard alumnus, Dr. Jack Lewis, author of The English Bible from KJV to NIV, also notes the NKJV’s divergence from the KJV’s Old Testament tradition. He notes that the NKJV uses ”current Old Testament text criticism” and ”the 1966/1977 edition of the Stuttgart [Germany] Bible” (Lewis, p. 332). This is not the traditional ben Chayyim Rabbinic Bible used by the KJV. The NKJV’s Old Testament is based on a corrupt Hebrew text devised by Rudolf Kittel (Biblia Hebraica Kittel, aka BHK). He recommended the use of the faulty Lennigrad Ms B 19a (ben Asher text). Kittels’ son’s conviction and imprisonment for his involvement in the death of millions of Jews during Hitler’s holocaust makes his father’s alterations to the Jewish Old Testament highly suspect. The NKJV’s Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia took Kittel’s corruptions even further. The NKJV’s use of corrupt texts such as the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Dead Sea cave manuscripts (see NKJV preface) contradicts the Bible’s doctrine of preservation (Ps 12:6-7) ”to a thousand generations” (Ps 105:8). Did God skip the generation from the fourth century to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when these were unearthed? The secular notion of continual progress and evolutionary development cannot be applied to the scriptures.

Many people have asked about the subtle 666 logo on the cover of the New King James. The publisher, Thomas Nelson, says that this is an ancient graphic device that represents the ‘Godhead,’ a word which they omit entirely in their Bible! Since the Bible is our final authority for all matters of faith and practice, we must look at Acts 17:29 to see if we are allowed to have graphic devices representing the Godhead. It says, ”...we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”

There are no verses in the Bible that allow or encourage pictorial representations of the Godhead, whether naturalistic, stylized, or abstract. Images are very pagan. The Bible begins with a warning against imagery in the second commandment (Exod 20:4) and ends with people worshipping the image of the beast (Rev 19:20). The warning was not heeded. A video presentation, NKJV Logo Expose`, traces the history of the NKJV logo back to its pagan rots and shows its current use by witches and Satanists. The video is available from A.V. Publications.

God communicates through words. Man has always tended to move away from this. This is why we have moved from a word-based culture to an image-based culture. Children do not read the Bible anymore; they watch so-called Bible videos or look at Bible picture books. They get their image of Jesus Christ, not from words, but from pictures or images which pretend to portray Jesus Christ. Another new book, The Only Authorized Picture of Christ, is also available from A.V. Publications.

Publisher, Thomas Nelson, is correct in noting that the NKJV logo is an “ancient” design. Pattern Design by Archibald Christie says of the trifoil, ”They are of Oriental origin.” The shape refers to the pagan trinity of the Father the Mother, and the Son, popular in ancient Egypt and Greece (or Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma, the trinity of the Hindus). Therefore, this is not a Christian device, even though the Church of Rome adopted it for use in cathedrals. Thomas A. Nelson, a Roman Catholic himself, signed letters. “sincerely yours in Christ and Our Lady -- wrong trinity.

This same 666 symbol design, sans barbed outer edges, appears on the cover of the most popular New Age book, The Aquarian Conspiracy. Esoterics believe the number 666 is a powerful occult number and should be used, whether subtly woven into logos or displayed openly. I do not think that either the pagan trinity or the number 666 belong on the cover of a bible.

Another book, The Language of the King James Bible, demonstrates many other verses which have been destroyed by the New King James (see Language, pp. 141-159).

 

[james1523]

1) wikipedia is owned by a man, and that man's agenda is reflected on his site. As you yourself have indicated, you're really not interested in learning whether the owner of wikipedia is a Satanist anyway: "Even if he were.. this does not mean the encyclopedia is bad." Rather, you are so obviously interested in protecting your pride -- truth be damned.

Where is this man's agenda reflected on his site? In ALL articles? Which articles?? Can you show some proof ? Can you quote the article where his Satanic agenda is reflected on the site? Everybody, except you it seems, knows that Wikipedia is a site where anyone can contribute articles, modifications etc.. it is a collaborate effort.. not one mans.

Actually I am interested to know if he is a Satanist, I have searched the internet myself and found no evidence, and it seems you have none either... if you would be intellectually honest enough to admit that.

2) A change is NOT a revision. Then what does man's law say about what qualifies as a revision?

you did say

Check your own dictionary for the definition of revision."

I will quote another dictionary then.. from dictionary reference online:
revision is "to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript. "

If you make changes to a document (that is, revise), whether minor typographical errors or more major structural changes.. it becomes a revision. That is standard dictionary definition for revision. Therefore any changes to 1611 KJV, which were substantial not minor....produce a new revision.

The mere fact that most bible translations are copyrighted proves the true motives of the Revision Committees of those particular translations (400+ and counting); To change God's Word!

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." --The Derivative Copyright Law (partial).

Did you read that? In order for a bible to be copyrighted, it must be "substantially different" from the original texts! No wonder there are so many different doctrines going around today. No wonder there are so many contradictions in bibles! No wonder copyrighted bibles are so different from one another and say completely different things! They must be substantially different from one another in order to be copyrighted! The copyrighted bible you have in your possession is not the Holy Scripture, it is a translation which is substantially different from the scripture!

But the KJV of 1611 went through major and significant revisions, enough to qualify it as a new version by your definition here. My point that it was revised... stands.

And.. ALL modern Bible versions are copyrighted... do you not know that there are automatic copyright protection laws so under the law of the land.... technically... any work is automatically copyrighted... for a period of 70 years after death of author , or some time period like that

Copyright on modern bible versions exists like any other copyright - to protect the reputations and the incomes of all the people (many of them Christians) involved in this difficult and time consuming work.

Would you refuse the right of your Christian brothers and sisters to protect their reputation and income under the laws of the governing authorities that God has appointed?

Speaking of Copyright...lawrenceb.. you have copied and posted this word for word from this site: Bibles are only Milk by Richard Anthony

It is not even your words and your post LOL..what a joke.

It shows you are far from the person qualified to speak about copyright law... and it is rather unethical and dishonest.

 

[DHC]

There are no verses in the Bible that allow or encourage pictorial representations of the Godhead, whether naturalistic, stylized, or abstract. Images are very pagan. The Bible begins with a warning against imagery in the second commandment (Exod 20:4) and ends with people worshipping the image of the beast (Rev 19:20). The warning was not heeded. A video presentation, NKJV Logo Expose`, traces the history of the NKJV logo back to its pagan rots and shows its current use by witches and Satanists. The video is available from A.V. Publications.

God communicates through words. Man has always tended to move away from this. This is why we have moved from a word-based culture to an image-based culture. Children do not read the Bible anymore; they watch so-called Bible videos or look at Bible picture books. They get their image of Jesus Christ, not from words, but from pictures or images which pretend to portray Jesus Christ. Another new book, The Only Authorized Picture of Christ, is also available from A.V. Publications.

Hello

I noticed this verse in post # 36.

You said;

"There are no verses in the Bible that allow or encourage pictorial representations of the Godhead,
whether naturalistic, stylized, or abstract. Images are very pagan. The Bible begins with a warning
against imagery in the second commandment (Exod 20:4) and ends with people worshipping the image
of the beast (Rev 19:20).

Then you supported this statement of yours with a reference from the Law
of Moses contained in the book of Exodus;"

Exodus 20
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.

I need to inform you that this command directly instructs the
the children of Israel not to serve images of anything in the sky, earth
or in the water. This concerns idol worship not the condemnation of human
pictorial imagery. You have stretched the commandment way beyond the intent
of what God wrote.

Many times throughout the writing of the prophets, God uses
imagery not words to convey to the prophet a message of importance.
Words and imagery interplay in the revelation that God bestows
upon the prophets.

In fact, there are numerous chapters throughout the Old Testament
that indeed paint a marvelous image of Jesus in the heavenly realms.

Here is an example from Ezekiel;

Ezekiel 1:26
26 And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne,
in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a
likeness with the appearance of a man high above it.
27 Also, from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were,
the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from
the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance
of fire with brightness all around.
28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance
of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

 

[lawrenceb]

Many times throughout the writing of the prophets, God uses
imagery not words to convey to the prophet a message of importance.
Words and imagery interplay in the revelation that God bestows
upon the prophets.

God may use imagery, but he does not use images!

Imagery and images are not synonymous. Do a word study of all the appearances of the word "images" in the KJV (there are 71) and you will have the 'idolatrous' answer.

 

[lawrenceb]

james 1523, my God-given name is Richard, and my words are not copyrighted.

Also, my Bible is neither revised nor copyrighted; it is the Lawful word of God. Your legal "version" has been revised and copyrighted by men who legally are now the owners of their creation; it is the words of those men.

But the KJV of 1611 went through major and significant revisions, enough to qualify it as a new version by your definition here.

It doesn't qualify precisely because the "revisions" definition was not met; thus it is not copyrighted.

My point that it was revised... stands.

Rather, your point falls as invalid.

Copyright on modern bible versions exists like any other copyright - to protect the reputations and the incomes of all the people (many of them Christians) involved in this difficult and time consuming work.

"protect the reputations"??? "and incomes"??? Where, if any, is your Godly walk, james 1523? Where is your priority? Do you not know that God is no respector of persons? Do you ever READ your Bible? persons = persona, i.e. status, reputation.

Would you refuse the right of your Christian brothers and sisters to protect their reputation and income under the laws of the governing authorities that God has appointed?

Ah, I see now where you've come up with that mess. You've erroneously lumped together ALL authority, presuming that ALL authority is Godly. LOL @ "governing authorities." The correct term is "higher powers." Check your uncopyrighted KJV (if you have one).

While "your Christian brothers and sisters" may be out persuing mammon ("protect[ing] their reputation and income"), mine are not.

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Game over.